[badidea]

Thank god that it looks like they will let this poor woman finally die!!

[Cadaver]

Now, perhaps after 10 years of litigation, including a review in the federal courts, can we agree that Terri has had her "day in court?" Hell, she's had a decade in court!

Or were all 20 judges (19 state, one federal) somehow all part of a godless, left-wing, democratic-party, anti-christian conspiracy to torture Terri Schiavo?

[Cody Dawg]

Maybe.

Maybe they will. Her parents must feel very bad today.

Not only are they losing their daughter, but they have to watch their daughter suffer as she dies.

I think that with this new and unique method of condemning people to death we should henceforth enact it for all of the criminals on death row also.

If it's good enough for a defenceless woman who did nothing to anyone it should be good enough for people scheduled to die.

The fact is that if she dies "on her own" from withholding water or food then no one's hands are sullied from being "THE" person who killed her off.

It is just like the Kitty Genovese murder where no one "did" anything there either.

[Mithras]

Yes, I'm glad for Terri.
It's too bad this will end with so much anger and bitterness on the part of her parents. I don't know what a better solution could have been. I hope they eventually come to some peace, but the fact that they never accepted the reality of her condition means they probably will not.

The one good thing to come out of this whole mess is that it has people talking to their loved ones about their wishes, and hopefully getting advanced directives or proxy paperwork done.

[Cody Dawg]

In case you don't know about Kitty Genovese, she was stabbed and raped in front of many people who stood by and watched and did nothing.

But the fact remained that dozens of people stood by and watched a woman being brutally assaulted for an extended period of time, and did nothing.

The people who think she should die are similar to the people who never helped Kitty Genovese. They simply want to label her a "vegetable" and forget about it. They don't want to watch something ugly. They don't want to be disturbed by the idea of a woman who is severely incapcitated. They just want to get rid of her, tune her out, because the situation in front of them is unpleasant.

Just like the people watching Kitty Genovese die.

[badidea]

get some professional help!

[saddino]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
new and unique method of condemning people to death

In 1994, there were an estimated 10-25 thousand Americans in a persistent Vegative State and many of those patients are no longer with us, due to their eventual demise or a family's decision to withhold life support (including nourishment).

What is happening to Terri Schiavo is neither "new" nor "unique."

[slow moe]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Yes, I'm glad for Terri.
It's too bad this will end with so much anger and bitterness on the part of her parents. I don't know what a better solution could have been. I hope they eventually come to some peace, but the fact that they never accepted the reality of her condition means they probably will not.

Who are you to tell her parents what to think.

Originally posted by slow moe:
Who are you to tell her parents what to think.

Uhm... where did he do that?

[Cody Dawg]

Yeah and who says her parents are angry? I have a feeling that they are not angry but are instead very distraught and sad.

[Cody Dawg]

Uh, he said it here:

It's too bad this will end with so much anger and bitterness on the part of her parents.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The people who think she should die are similar to the people who never helped Kitty Genovese. They simply want to label her a "vegetable" and forget about it. They don't want to watch something ugly. They don't want to be disturbed by the idea of a woman who is severely incapcitated. They just want to get rid of her, tune her out, because the situation in front of them is unpleasant.

Just like the people watching Kitty Genovese die.

Thanks for your generalizations. You make so much sh*t up.

My question is when do you stop using the 'Cody Dog' name because you have made such a fool of yourself. You had to stop posting as 'iWrite' because you spewed so many retarded threads and now you've done the same under the 'Cody Dog' name.

[budster101]

I saw an interview with Terry's father who mentioned a few things that disturbed me. Weather they are true or not, they are still disturbing.

- When Terry had her 'accident', the police were called and it was deemed initially a homicide.

- She had several broken bones, one being a femur.

- She had markings on her neck as if she was being strangled.

- She had previously had bruises on her legs, arms and torso, as if she were being abused.

[BlueSky]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
My question is when do you stop using the 'Cody Dog' name because you have made such a fool of yourself. You had to stop posting as 'iWrite' because you spewed so many retarded threads and now you've done the same under the 'Cody Dog' name.

May I suggest a new name: iMuckraker. iAttentionWhore. iRhetoricForTheSakeOfAttention. iGotNoLife.

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Not only are they losing their daughter, but they have to watch their daughter suffer as she dies.

didn't catch the part on the second or third page where it was stated that starving and dehydrating are rather pacifying in death?

re read this whole thread that you've created here and report back. i think you're missing something.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Maybe.

Maybe they will. Her parents must feel very bad today.

Not only are they losing their daughter, but they have to watch their daughter suffer as she dies.

I think that with this new and unique method of condemning people to death we should henceforth enact it for all of the criminals on death row also.

If it's good enough for a defenceless woman who did nothing to anyone it should be good enough for people scheduled to die.

The fact is that if she dies "on her own" from withholding water or food then no one's hands are sullied from being "THE" person who killed her off.

It is just like the Kitty Genovese murder where no one "did" anything there either.

nm; it's hopeless.

[budster101]

I saw an interview with Terry's father who mentioned a few things that disturbed me. Weather they are true or not, they are still disturbing.

- When Terry had her 'accident', the police were called and it was deemed initially a homicide.

- She had several broken bones, one being a femur.

- She had markings on her neck as if she was being strangled.

- She had previously had bruises on her legs, arms and torso, as if she were being abused.


------

No comments?

How about this? Michael Shiavo was on Larry King, and had to speak through his lawyer. This guy obviously has anger issues, based on some of the calls and his responses.

I think he is a scumbag.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by d4nth3m4n:
didn't catch the part on the second or third page where it was stated that starving and dehydrating are rather pacifying in death?

If Texas started executing criminals by starving and dehydrating them to death, would you still say that?

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If Texas started executing criminals by starving and dehydrating them to death, would you still say that?

ugh.

[budster101]

I'm going to be viewing those commercials on late night television where they display starving children and pleading for us to give our 50 cents to save a life...

No way! They are better off starving, after all it isn't painful, and there seems to be no end in sight for their plight.

I want to thank the neolibs in this forum for opening my eyes as to what is right. Thank You.

[Mithras]

This fixation on the withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition really interests me. As many others have noted, this happens thousands of times each year for patients in PVS, terminal cancer, advanced dementia, etc.

Are those "fighting for Terri" proposing that we outlaw the practice of withdrawing artificial hydration and nutrition?

Even if it is the wish of the patient?

If yes: okay, let's talk. It's time we ended this barbaric practice once and for all, if it is indeed so barbaric.
If no: why do you oppose it only this case, and not the thousands of others that take place every year?

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally posted by budster101:
I'm going to be viewing those commercials on late night television where they display starving children and pleading for us to give our 50 cents to save a life...

No way! They are better off starving, after all it isn't painful, and there seems to be no end in sight for their plight.

I want to thank the neolibs in this forum for opening my eyes as to what is right. Thank You.

so you and simey didn't read the thread either?

[budster101]

Originally posted by Mithras:
This fixation on the withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition really interests me. As many others have noted, this happens thousands of times each year for patients in PVS, terminal cancer, advanced dementia, etc.

Are those "fighting for Terri" proposing that we outlaw the practice of withdrawing artificial hydration and nutrition?

Even if it is the wish of the patient?

If yes: okay, let's talk. It's time we ended this barbaric practice once and for all, if it is indeed so barbaric.
If no: why do you oppose it only this case, and not the thousands of others that take place every year?

If it is the wish of the patient in "WRITING" of course not. The plug would have been pulled YEARS ago.

Read just one of my previous posts about his alleged abuse of his wife, and possible involvement in her condition.

[badidea]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If Texas started executing criminals by starving and dehydrating them to death, would you still say that?

Would you (not directly you Simey but all of you) please stop comparing Terri to criminals!!
Terri is not a criminal and criminals are usually not braindead!!

[budster101]

Originally posted by badidea:
Would you (not directly you Simey but all of you) please stop comparing Terri to criminals!!
Terri is not a criminal and criminals are usually not braindead!!

That's debateable about the brain dead comment, except for Terry is NOT brain dead.
She has brain damage.

[Cody Dawg]

Oh, I get it: Terri can die a terrible suffering death and criminals get a "humane" ending through lethal injection?

didn't catch the part on the second or third page where it was stated that starving and dehydrating are rather pacifying in death?

I've got a great idea: Why don't YOU just voluntarily go without water or food for three days then report back to us here and tell us how nice it is?

We all want you to - heck, make a video of it and maybe you'll be in Michael Moore's league.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mithras:
This fixation on the withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition really interests me. As many others have noted, this happens thousands of times each year for patients in PVS, terminal cancer, advanced dementia, etc.

Are those "fighting for Terri" proposing that we outlaw the practice of withdrawing artificial hydration and nutrition?

Even if it is the wish of the patient?

If yes: okay, let's talk. It's time we ended this barbaric practice once and for all, if it is indeed so barbaric.
If no: why do you oppose it only this case, and not the thousands of others that take place every year?

Yes, I would agree with this. The only reason this method of killing is used is because of legal reasons, not ethical or humane reasons. The genesis is that legally, you cannot kill a person except by lawful means (e.g. executions, self-defense, and so on). Otherwise it is murder.

However, an individual can always refuse medical treatment. So what is going on here is that withdrawal of nutrition and hydration is the loophole that we use to sidestep what otherwise would be murder.

The problem is that it is a fiction, because a helpless person isn't herself refusing medical treatment. Other people are refusing it for her. Secondly, I don't think anyone would propose that this means could be used on any person who was in a condition to complain about it. That was what I was getting at when I rhetorically asked about the use of this means in executions. Starving a person to death would be cruel and unusual punishment in that context, and quite likely torture. Heck, if you did it to an animal, it would be animal abuse.

Basically, the only reason this is used is because of our own squeamishness as a society with the idea of euthanasia. So my position is if we are going to have euthenasia of helpless people, then the least we can do is come up with a truly humane and honest way to do it. It should be no more grisly than anything we would do to kill a convicted felon, or an animal.

[yakkiebah]

If there were some laws regarding euthanasia there would be other and better options then starve and dehydrate her to death.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
If there were some laws regarding euthanasia there would be other and better options then starve and dehydrate her to death.

Yeah, its called letting her live with her family so she can recieve proper care and therapy.

[budster101]

Originally posted by slow moe:
Yeah, its called letting her live with her family so she can recieve proper care and therapy.

[Mithras]

Incidentally:
Read the Texas Advanced Directives Act, which George Bush signed into law in 1999:

So we agree we're talking about the same thing:

(2) "Artificial nutrition and hydration" means the
provision of nutrients or fluids by a tube inserted in a vein, under
the skin in the subcutaneous tissues, or in the stomach
(gastrointestinal tract).

(10) "Life-sustaining treatment" means treatment
that, based on reasonable medical judgment, sustains the life of a
patient and without which the patient will die. The term includes
both life-sustaining medications and artificial life support, such
as mechanical breathing machines, kidney dialysis treatment, and
artificial nutrition and hydration.

Okay, so this is a law about life-sustaining treatment, which under the law signed by George Bush, includes artificial nutrition and hydration.

What does the law allow?
First of all, a person may sign an advanced directive refusing life-sustaining treatment, including hydration and nutrition:

After signing this directive, if my representative or I elect
hospice care, I understand and agree that only those treatments
needed to keep me comfortable would be provided and I would not be
given available life-sustaining treatments.

But what if a person has not signed such a document?

§ 166.039. PROCEDURE WHEN PERSON HAS NOT EXECUTED OR
ISSUED A DIRECTIVE AND IS INCOMPETENT OR INCAPABLE OF
COMMUNICATION. (a) If an adult qualified patient has not
executed or issued a directive and is incompetent or otherwise
mentally or physically incapable of communication, the attending
physician and the patient's legal guardian or an agent under a
medical power of attorney may make a treatment decision that may
include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining
treatment from the patient.
(b) If the patient does not have a legal guardian or an agent
under a medical power of attorney, the attending physician and one
person, if available, from one of the following categories, in the
following priority, may make a treatment decision that may include
a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment:
(1) the patient's spouse;
(2) the patient's reasonably available adult children;
(3) the patient's parents; or
(4) the patient's nearest living relative.

So if a person has not signed such a document, under Bush's Texas law, a doctor and family member may make the choice to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from the patient.The law prioritizes the spouse over the parents.

MOREOVER:
What if the person signed no advanced care directive, the family still wants to keep treatment, but the doctors believe that further life-saving measures (including feeding tubes!) would be inappropriate?

(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health
care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining
treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review
process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall
be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer
under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs
incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The
physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide
life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written
decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient
or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the
patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).

Interesting!

Under George Bush's law, even if the family is still pressing for lifesaving measures (including feeding tubes), but the doctors disagree, then the family has TEN DAYS to find another facility to take the patient. Otherwise, after TEN DAYS, the HOSPITAL can pull the feeding tube, against the wishes of the family.

So if you want to make this case about Terri's true wishes, and whether Michael can speak tothem, okay. I agree there's a complex and interesting question there,though one the Florida courts have considered exhaustively.

But if you want to say that withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration should never be permitted even if a patient explicitly so requested, or should never be withdrawn by family members on behalf of a patient, then you have many more laws to change, beginning with the one that George Bush signed into law.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by slow moe:
Yeah, its called letting her live with her family so she can recieve proper care and therapy.

No, currently it's death by starvation and dehydration.

[OldManMac]

She gets proper care already. I doubt that her parents could take care of her as well as she is in this facility.

As to therapy, she's in a persistant vegetative state, or haven't you heard?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Maybe.

Maybe they will. Her parents must feel very bad today.

Not only are they losing their daughter, but they have to watch their daughter suffer as she dies.

I think that with this new and unique method of condemning people to death we should henceforth enact it for all of the criminals on death row also.

If it's good enough for a defenceless woman who did nothing to anyone it should be good enough for people scheduled to die.

The fact is that if she dies "on her own" from withholding water or food then no one's hands are sullied from being "THE" person who killed her off.

It certainly doesn't seem as though you will accept a federal court decision that you don't agree with (even though you said you would)

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
It is just like the Kitty Genovese murder where no one "did" anything there either.

Are you comparing those in support of letting her body die with those who watched Kitty Genovese get raped and murdered? That's not much better than roberto blanco's 9/11 statement earlier in this thread.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Incidentally:
Read the Texas Advanced Directives Act, which George Bush signed into law in 1999:

So we agree we're talking about the same thing:


Okay, so this is a law about life-sustaining treatment, which under the law signed by George Bush, includes artificial nutrition and hydration.

What does the law allow?
First of all, a person may sign an advanced directive refusing life-sustaining treatment, including hydration and nutrition:


But what if a person has not signed such a document?

So if a person has not signed such a document, under Bush's Texas law, a doctor and family member may make the choice to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from the patient.The law prioritizes the spouse over the parents.

MOREOVER:
What if the person signed no advanced care directive, the family still wants to keep treatment, but the doctors believe that further life-saving measures (including feeding tubes!) would be inappropriate?


Interesting!

Under George Bush's law, even if the family is still pressing for lifesaving measures (including feeding tubes), but the doctors disagree, then the family has TEN DAYS to find another facility to take the patient. Otherwise, after TEN DAYS, the HOSPITAL can pull the feeding tube, against the wishes of the family.

So if you want to make this case about Terri's true wishes, and whether Michael can speak tothem, okay. I agree there's a complex and interesting question there,though one the Florida courts have considered exhaustively.

But if you want to say that withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration should never be permitted even if a patient explicitly so requested, or should never be withdrawn by family members on behalf of a patient, then you have many more laws to change, beginning with the one that George Bush signed into law.

We have to keep in mind that George Bush doesn't have a good memory, especially when it's convenient to forget things that contradict what he said the day before. This case, as far as Bush goes, is about nothing but pandering to his "Christain" base, and has nothing to do with his concern over Terri Schiavo. It's political expediency at its best.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Incidentally:
Read the Texas Advanced Directives Act, which George Bush signed into law in 1999:

So we agree we're talking about the same thing:


Okay, so this is a law about life-sustaining treatment, which under the law signed by George Bush, includes artificial nutrition and hydration.

What does the law allow?
First of all, a person may sign an advanced directive refusing life-sustaining treatment, including hydration and nutrition:


But what if a person has not signed such a document?

So if a person has not signed such a document, under Bush's Texas law, a doctor and family member may make the choice to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from the patient.The law prioritizes the spouse over the parents.

MOREOVER:
What if the person signed no advanced care directive, the family still wants to keep treatment, but the doctors believe that further life-saving measures (including feeding tubes!) would be inappropriate?


Interesting!

Under George Bush's law, even if the family is still pressing for lifesaving measures (including feeding tubes), but the doctors disagree, then the family has TEN DAYS to find another facility to take the patient. Otherwise, after TEN DAYS, the HOSPITAL can pull the feeding tube, against the wishes of the family.

So if you want to make this case about Terri's true wishes, and whether Michael can speak tothem, okay. I agree there's a complex and interesting question there,though one the Florida courts have considered exhaustively.

But if you want to say that withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration should never be permitted even if a patient explicitly so requested, or should never be withdrawn by family members on behalf of a patient, then you have many more laws to change, beginning with the one that George Bush signed into law.

I don't know where you got this from but cherry picking statutory language and misrepresenting the contents is not a very good way to argue.

I just skimmed the act you point to, the law says several times that any decision has to be consistent with the patient's desires. There is one such qualification right below one of the sections you quote. Whoever you got this from is pulling a fast one.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by KarlG:
She gets proper care already.

No she hasn't.

As to therapy, she's in a persistant vegetative state, or haven't you heard?

A nurse of Terry's stated she had accurate reflexes.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Mithras:
If no: why do you oppose it only this case, and not the thousands of others that take place every year?

Because (1) She has no living will, (2) Her parents and her husband each have completely opposite views as to what Terri's desire is, and (3) the parents and extended family are willing to take care of her forever.

In all cases where all these factors are present, I think as a society it is best for us to err on the side of life.

On a slightly different slant, IF we are going to allow euthanasia, we need to at least see to it that it's done humanely. We don't even starve animals to death. Even they get a "humane" lethal injection.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't know where you got this from but cherry picking statutory language and misrepresenting the contents is not a very good way to argue.

I just skimmed the act you point to, the law says several times that any decision has to be consistent with the patient's desires. There is one such qualification right below one of the sections you quote. Whoever you got this from is pulling a fast one.

Simey, sadly, you are mistaken.
I was informed about the law by the cases of :
* Sun Hudson, the six-month old baby removed from life support against his mother's wishes. (I happen to support the choice, but this underlines Bush's hypocrisy.) [ WARNING: the Houston Chronicle site freezes my Safari for about 10 seconds while loading ]
* Spiro Nikolouzos, the 68-year old man who the hospital has declared brain-dead (though the family disagrees); the hospital notified the family on March 1 that they would withdraw life support after 10 days.

Both of these wrenching cases have played out in the past week, but for whatever reason these cases aren't getting one ten-thousandth of the coverage of Schiavo.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Simey, sadly, you are mistaken.

I read teh statute. It says what it says. And it is not what your cherry picked quotes say it is.

Sorry, one thing I have learned is that newspaper accounts of legal issues are not an accurate source of information about legal issues. That's one thing that both sides of this debate would do well to remember.

[Mithras]

Well, something led to the hospitals unplugging those two individuals after 10 days' warning, against their families' wishes -- and if it wasn't Texas law, tell me what it was.
(Actually, Spiro has now been moved to a new facility, so he was spared the unplugging.)

ANYWAY, aside from the unique Texas-under-George-Bush innovation of allowing a hospital to unplug food & water tubes against the wishes of family members --

Cody, moe, others who apparently think this case is unjust on its face because it involves the refusal of artificial nutrition & hydration -- do you agree or disagree that Bush's Texas law considers nutrition & hydration lifesaving measures, which may be refused by a patient?

And do you consider that Texas law immoral on its face because of that?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Because (1) She has no living will, (2) Her parents and her husband each have completely opposite views as to what Terri's desire is,

Yes, that is a shame. If only we had some kind of....third branch of government in this country to....judge...which side is right. Wait, what? We do? Well then it's a shame that it hasn't taken this particular case under consideration. What? It has? And it's come to a conclusion? Well now I don't know what to think.

and (3) the parents and extended family are willing to take care of her forever.

This is actually an interesting issue. What is stopping them from discharging her from the hospital and taking her home?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by slow moe:

As to therapy, she's in a persistant vegetative state, or haven't you heard

A nurse of Terry's stated she had accurate reflexes.

I don't get what you're saying. I thought acting only by reflexes was exactly what defined a vegetative state.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I've got a great idea: Why don't YOU just voluntarily go without water or food for three days then report back to us here and tell us how nice it is?

Hmm. Why don't you just voluntarily go without higher brain function for 15 years then report back to us here and tell us how nice it is?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Well, something led to the hospitals unplugging those two individuals after 10 days' warning, against their families' wishes -- and if it wasn't Texas law, tell me what it was.
(Actually, Spiro has now been moved to a new facility, so he was spared the unplugging.)

The issue is different. If those articles are correct, the issue is to do with payment of hospital services. There is some reference to the families being notified so that they can move the patient to another facility.

These are big issues, with lots of sub issues. Keep it focused on what we are talking about here. In the relevant analogous situation, the Texas statute appears to be pretty similar to the Florida statute. The only difference seems to be that Texas doesn't seem to have the heightened standard of proof that Florida requires.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I've got a great idea: Why don't YOU just voluntarily go without water or food for three days then report back to us here and tell us how nice it is?

Hmm. Why don't you just voluntarily go without higher brain function for 15 years then report back to us here and tell us how nice it is?

There is an obvious joke to be made here, and I just want to point out that I am specifically refraining from making it.

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Uh, he said it here:

No, he said what he thought they were thinking. He wasn't telling them how to think.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The key question for me (and for Florida law, see above) is what her wishes were. As an evidentiary matter, it does just turn on the hearsay evidence presented. There is no objective source for that information in this case.

Your criticism of the decision was principally based on the notion that it turned solely on the hearsay testimony of a single person with ulterior motives. You said so repeatedly (see page 4), and you were mistaken. I think it's time to acknowledge that perhaps the court's decision was not as tainted as you suggested, and that a lot of the criticism that has been thrown around for 10 pages has been misplaced.

Of course the decision was based on hearsay evidence - it happens every day when there's no testamentary evidence. A retrial would also be based on hearsay evidence. The parent's testimony is hearsay just as much as Michael's. What makes you think the result of a second trial would be any more sound than the first one? Are you now saying that cases of this nature should never be decided on hearsay evidence, in which case you're saying that Florida law is wrong, which is what I suggested you were effectively saying from the start?

This is what I've been trying to get at since the first page: There has to be a specific reason for a retrial, and you've never given a valid one. There is no evidence that the judge was incompetent or biased or that Florida law wasn't followed to the letter. Some people don't like the result, or the laws of evidence, but that's always the case. It's not a reason for a retrial, much less Congressional intervention. This is what I've been saying all along, and what Judge Whittemore has now confirmed.

It's true, I did say i didn't see a federal question. I was specifically thinking that the due process bar as an objection to the Florida process is awfully low. I wouldn't change that statement, but I would amend it to say that as a prima facie matter, there are of course federal constitutional rights presented here. Terri Schiavo has constitutional rights, we all do. Had there been a statutory basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction (say, diversity jurisdiction), then of course, the federal courts could have heard the case from the outset (assuming standing, etc).

Since you seem to see this new federal case as a review of the Florida courts, rather than what I see it as (a new action), let me ask you the obvious analogy: what is your view of federal habeas review of state court convictions?

Of course Terri Schiavo has constitutional rights, but apart from some idle speculation about the trial, you've never specifically identified how or why they were violated. That's the problem here: everybody's been speculating, when there was no need to. All anyone had to do was read the court opinions, which would have taken less time than it takes to read this thread.

I'm not sure off-hand whether this could've started out in federal court - I doubt it, even with diversity - but even if it had, it wouldn't have made any difference. There would've been a trial, a judge would've made a decision based on Florida law, and the people who lost would be unhappy. This happens every day. As I've been saying all along, the only difference here is that Terri's parents have managed to make more noise about it. There is no basis for assuming that a federal court would have done a better job than the state court.

Now, it's always possible that the Supreme Court will set entirely new precedent and hold that the use of hearsay evidence in probate cases of this nature is improper. But based on existing law, I'm willing to bet that they won't. I'll be surprised if they even grant certiorari, but politics might require it.

I haven't studied habeus corpus in many years but, while I understand the analogy, it's a stretch. An arrest and conviction by agents of the state is a rather different problem than medical treatment decisions made by state probate courts, and I think the Supreme Court has already made it clear that the federal government should not stick its nose in the latter cases. One could certainly make the argument that any case where a person's life is at stake is automatically entitled to federal judicial review, but are you really willing to make that argument? I don't think that's what the Constitution intends. Besides, aren't you the one who's always worried about clogging up the courts? If it's held that this type of case is automatically entitled to federal judicial review, you're going to need a lot of Drano.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sorry, one thing I have learned is that newspaper accounts of legal issues are not an accurate source of information about legal issues. That's one thing that both sides of this debate would do well to remember.

You're absolutely right. I've been trying to make the same point to you and others for ten pages now.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Mithras:
[B]Hmm. Why don't you just voluntarily go without higher brain function for 15 years then report back to us here and tell us how nice it is?

There is an obvious joke to be made here, and I just want to point out that I am specifically refraining from making it.

Such a gentleman.