PDA

View Full Version : Terri Schiavo: Due process denied?



johnwk
February 20th, 2005, 01:27 PM
Unlike most who have discussed the Terri Schiavo case, my interest and concern in the case is not the outcome of the case as a priority, but the process by which that outcome has been reached.

My observation is that Terri has not been afforded fundamental due process of law--- the right to the protection of a jury, and the right to be represented in court by counsel in a case in which that state has been called upon to end her life.

Some have stated Terri is not entitled to the above mention constitutional protections, and I have attempted to rationalize such thinking. My only conclusion is that those who make such a claim believe Terri is a piece property and its fate is being litigated by two opposing parties, her parents and her husband, in which case the property in question would indeed have no right to the protection of a jury, nor a right to be represented in court by counsel.

But Terri is not “property”! She is not the “property” of her husband, nor the “property” of her parents, and therefore, because the state has been called upon to exercise its power to end Terri‘s life, Florida’s constitutional guarantees are set into motion and provide protection to Terri against arbitrary government action.

The protections that are afforded are: “No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability”, and, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” And, what due process is guaranteed? "The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate."

Some have suggested that the right to the protection of a jury is not applicable in Terri’s case because it is not a criminal case. But Florida’s own Supreme Court in Case No. 79,396 _B.J.Y., Petitioner/Appellant, vs. M.A., Respondent/Appellee. [April 29, 1993], has made it quite clear the protection of a jury is a vital part of Florida’s due process and “…is not to be narrowly construed.”

Fact is, the protection of a jury was waived in Terri’s case by her adulterous husband and her parents, and done so without Terri’s knowing or willing consent. And yet, there is no provision in Florida’s constitution allowing Terri’s right to the protection of a jury to be waived without her knowing or willing consent in a case in which the state has been called upon to end her life.


Had Terri left a legally recognizable written end of life directive as in the Browning or Bludworh Case, or an oral end of life directive as in Satz v. Perlmutter, in which the Court accepted oral testimony from the patient taken at a bedside hearing, [a hearing in which the patient expressed a carefully thought out and deliberate end of life directive], the court would have concrete evidence from the patient’s own lips or hand and merely be authenticating such wishes prior to enforcing those wishes.

But in Terri’s case there is no evidence from Terri’s own lips or hand expressing her wishes. There is only the questionable testimony given by her adulterous husband that Terri wants to be left to die, and, the testimony given by a brother of Michael Schiavo, and a sister-in-law of Michael __ in each case the “testimony” alleged nothing more than random and inconsequential remarks were made by Terri, none of which could be legally construed to be a carefully considered and intentional end of life directive!

And what has the state decided to do? Ignore Terri’s right to be represented in court by counsel, and a judge, Judge Greer, has taken it upon himself to act as a judge for Terri, decision maker for Terri, counsel for Terri, jury for Terri, and then, issued a court order to end Terri’s life, and has sided with Terri’s adulterous husband in his Star Chamber Court proceeding rather than provide Terri with the protection of a jury whose constitutionally assigned duty is to sort out the facts of the case and “…to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power -- to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the over-zealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge." -- see:Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 US 522 , 530 (1975)

In the Browning case it was noted that:

"The Ethics and Advocacy Task Force, as amicus curiae, raises a very legitimate concern that the "right to die" could become a license to kill. There are times when some people believe that another would be "better off dead" even though the other person is still fighting vigorously to live. Euthanasia is a crime in this state. 782.08, Fla.Stat. (1987). See 765.11(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). Despite the tremendous advances achieved in this century, the world has witnessed the extermination of retarded and mentally disturbed persons for whom a foreign government decided that death was the proper prescription. Thus, it cannot be overemphasized that the remedy announced in this opinion and the procedures designed to safeguard that remedy are based upon the patient's right to make a personal and private decision and not upon other interests. Browning, 543 So.2d at 269

In view of the fact there was no evidence from Terri’s own lips or hand expressing a carefully decided end of life directive, it is obvious Judge Greer and the state’s judicial system has issued an order to end Terri’s life based upon Terri’s medical condition, and not upon clear and convincing evidence [ Florida’s required legal threshold to be met] documenting what her wishes are.

Perhaps Terri would want to be left to die and Judge Greer’s decision is what Terri would want, but, one thing is certain, the process by which a court order has been issued to end Terri’s life is not within the four corners of our constitutional system until Terri is represented in court by counsel and afforded the protection of a jury to evaluate the testimony alleging Terri wants to be left to die.

Judge Greer ignored the fundamental separation of powers in our constitutional system when he decided to act as a judge for Terri, decision maker for Terri, counsel for Terri, jury for Terri, and then, issued a court order to end Terri’s life. A fundamental separation of powers between judge and jury was eloquently pointed out by the SCOTUS in Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 106, (1895):

“The trial was thus conducted upon the theory that it was the duty of the court to expound the law, and that of the jury to apply the law as thus declared to the facts as ascertained by them. In this separation of the functions of court and jury is found the chief value, as well as safety, of the jury system. Those functions cannot be confounded or disregarded without endangering the stability of public justice, as well as the security of private and personal rights.”

Apply the process by which the State of Florida has issued a court order to end Terri’s life in all future cases in which the state is called upon to end a person’s life and we are left with a Star Chamber Court system in which the state is free to render arbitrary decisions and ignore the fundamental safeguards our founding fathers provided in a written constitution.

The honorable Governor of Florida has called for the protection of a jury in Terri’s case. Perhaps it is now time for him to go a step further and file a 14th Amendment due process appeal in the SCOTUS asserting Terri has not been afforded the right to be represented in court by counsel, nor afforded the protection of a jury by Florida’s Judicial system in a case in which the state has been called upon to end her life. Since there is no case law which addresses these rights as could be applied in Terri’s case, an appeal limited to these two fundamental and basic rights is an appropriate question for the SCOTUS to address.


Sincerely,

John William Kurowski, Founder,
American Constitutional Research Service

Schadenfrau
February 21st, 2005, 03:41 PM
Please stop cutting and pasting your diatribes all over the internet. It suggests that you're more interested in ranting than you are in discussion.

Schadenfrau
Founder
Wired NY Posters For Internet Manners

johnwk
February 25th, 2005, 08:54 AM
Please stop cutting and pasting your diatribes all over the internet. It suggests that you're more interested in ranting than you are in discussion.

Schadenfrau
Founder
Wired NY Posters For Internet Manners

Actually, I am interested in discussing the rule of law as applied in Terri's case. This is what I have found regarding the rule of law, do you have any constructive comments?


The SCOTUS upheld in CRUZAN that a state may require a “clear and convincing evidence standard” to support the assertion that it is the patient’s wish to die. In Terri’s case that standard was never met. The Court in CRUZAN concluded that :

“…a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that in this case the testimony adduced at trial did not amount to clear and convincing proof of the patient's desire to have hydration and nutrition withdrawn. In so doing, it reversed a decision of the Missouri trial court which had found that the evidence "suggested" Nancy Cruzan would not have desired to continue such measures, but which had not adopted the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" enunciated by the Supreme Court. The testimony adduced at trial consisted primarily of Nancy Cruzan's statements made to a housemate about a year before her accident that she would not want to live should she face life as a "vegetable," and other observations to the same effect. The observations did not deal in terms with withdrawal of medical treatment or of hydration and nutrition. We cannot say that the Supreme Court of Missouri committed constitutional error in reaching the conclusion that it did.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is Affirmed.”

The Court came to this conclusion primarily because, when in doubt as to a patient‘s wishes, “err on the side of life“!

There is no evidence from Terri’s own lips or hand indicating a carefully thought out end of life directive that she wants to be left to starve to death.

In Terri’s case, her husband has gone into court to obtain a court order to carry out what he alleges to be Terri’s wishes. A guardian does not have any authority to impose his/her own beliefs for that of the patient‘s. In our legal system, and in order for the court to issue an order to end Terri‘s life, a legal threshold must be satisfied which requires “clear and convincing evidence” that Terri carefully considered and knowingly and willingly left an end of life directive expressing what her husband alleges are her wishes..

In Terri’s case there is no evidence from her own lips or hand, and, in addition to assertions made by Michael’s brother and sister in law asserting Terri made some random and inconsequential comments about a life/death situation, there is only the flimsy testimony of her adulterous husband who claims Terri made a few more inconsequential remarks, none of which can be legally construed to be a carefully thought out and intentional end of life directive as is required under the clear and convincing standard. Fact is, Greer based his decision upon Terri’s medical condition and not her wishes in violation of the rule requiring “clear and convincing evidence” of Terri’s wishes.

In the Browning and Bludworth cases written directives prepared by the patient expressing their wishes were accepted by the court as being clear and convincing evidence, and in Satz v. Perlmutter the Court accepted oral testimony from the patient taken at a bedside hearing expressing an intentional and deliberate end of life directive.

In the Browning case the Court states in crystal clear language:

“As we previously noted, the right involved here is one of self-determination that cannot be qualified by the condition of the patient. In this case, as in Bludworth, the patient was unable to personally or directly exercise the right to refuse medical treatment. Significantly, the patients in both cases, while competent, “had executed written documents expressing their wishes.”

The court went on to emphatically state: “A surrogate must take great care in exercising the patient's right of privacy, and must be able to support that decision with clear and convincing evidence.”

So, contrary to what is suggested by the starve Terri to death crowd, the truth is, Terri’s adulterous husband may not waltz into court and obtain a court order to starve his wife to death because he alleges that is his wife’s desire . . . He must support that claim with “clear and convincing evidence”

The honorable Governor of Florida has called for the protection of a jury in Terri’s case. Perhaps it is now time for him to go a step further and file a 14th Amendment due process appeal in the SCOTUS asserting Terri has not been afforded the right to be represented in court by counsel, nor afforded the protection of a jury by Florida’s Judicial system in a case in which the state has been called upon to end her life. Since there is no case law which addresses these rights as could be applied in Terri’s case, an appeal limited to these two fundamental and basic rights is an appropriate question for the SCOTUS to address.

A fundamental separation of powers between judge and jury was eloquently pointed out by the SCOTUS in Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 106, (1895):

“The trial was thus conducted upon the theory that it was the duty of the court to expound the law, and that of the jury to apply the law as thus declared to the facts as ascertained by them. In this separation of the functions of court and jury is found the chief value, as well as safety, of the jury system. Those functions cannot be confounded or disregarded without endangering the stability of public justice, as well as the security of private and personal rights.”

In Terri's case, Florida judges acted as a judge for Terri, a decision maker for Terri, legal counsel for Terri, jury for Terri and then issued a court order to end her life.
Apply the process by which the State of Florida has issued a court order to end Terri’s life in all future cases in which the state is called upon to end a person’s life and we are left with a Star Chamber Court system in which the state is free to render arbitrary decisions and ignore the fundamental safeguards our founding fathers provided in a written constitution.


As I have repeatedly stated: Unlike most who have discussed the Terri Schiavo case, my interest and concern in the case is not the outcome of the case as a priority, but the process by which that outcome has been reached. Terri has not been afforded basic fundamental constitutional protections to insure her wishes are carried out and not the wishes of her adulterous husband, her parent's wishes, or the beliefs of a judge that Terri ought to be left to starve to death because of her medical condition.

And what is the function of a jury which has not been afforded to Terri?

Its constitutionally assigned duty is to sort out the facts of the case and “…to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power -- to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the over-zealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge." -- see:Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 US 522 , 530 (1975)


JWK
ACRS

"The Ethics and Advocacy Task Force, as amicus curiae, raises a very legitimate concern that the "right to die" could become a license to kill. There are times when some people believe that another would be "better off dead" even though the other person is still fighting vigorously to live. Euthanasia is a crime in this state. 782.08, Fla.Stat. (1987). See 765.11(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). Despite the tremendous advances achieved in this century, the world has witnessed the extermination of retarded and mentally disturbed persons for whom a foreign government decided that death was the proper prescription. Thus, it cannot be overemphasized that the remedy announced in this opinion and the procedures designed to safeguard that remedy are based upon the patient's right to make a personal and private decision and not upon other interests. Browning, 543 So.2d at 269

ZippyTheChimp
February 25th, 2005, 03:13 PM
Two posts. First sentence of first post...

Unlike most who have discussed the Terri Schiavo case, my interest and concern in the case is not the outcome of the case as a priority, but the process by which that outcome has been reached.

Followed by...

adulterous husband
Once.

adulterous husband
Twice.

adulterous husband
Again.

adulterous husband
Yet again.

adulterous husband
One more.

adulterous husband
Wait, another.

Did I miss any?

Google "Terri Schiavo""adulterous husband"
Look at all the pages you get.

Edward
February 25th, 2005, 03:43 PM
Our friend Kurowski thinks he has a license to kill - with his unbearably boring posts.

I am thinking on introducing a quota on the length of his posts...

johnwk
February 25th, 2005, 04:48 PM
Two posts. First sentence of first post...

Followed by...

Once.

Twice.

Again.

Yet again.

One more.

Wait, another.

Did I miss any?

Google "Terri Schiavo""adulterous husband"
Look at all the pages you get.

Adulterous husband is mentioned as it questions the credibility of testimony given by Terri’s husband. The credibility of a witness is very much part of our legal system. A person who breaks a marriage contract and engages in infidelity, and then runs into court claiming his wife wants to be starved to death , would appear to not be as credible a witness who has not broken such a contract.

ZippyTheChimp
February 27th, 2005, 06:56 AM
The order of six times is what an attorney does to drive home a point to a jury. An attorney is generally concerned with the outcome of the case.

Once is sufficient to impart information to a forum.

johnwk
February 28th, 2005, 07:44 AM
The order of six times is what an attorney does to drive home a point to a jury. An attorney is generally concerned with the outcome of the case.

Once is sufficient to impart information to a forum.

Zippy,

In the state of Florida, there is a clear and convincing evidence standard which must be met of a patient’s wishes before a court order can be lawfully issued to end a patient’s life.

Here is an account of the flimsy testimony (http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/08/Tampabay/Schiavo_s_wishes_reca.shtml) which Judge Greer considered to be “clear and convincing evidence” of Terri’s wishes.


For a legal perspective concerning “clear and convincing evidence”, a standard which Florida has adopted, see:CRUZAN v. DIRECTOR, MDH, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=497&invol=261) and then ask yourself if the clear and convincing evidence standard has been met in Terri’s case.



“We believe that Missouri may permissibly place an increased risk of an erroneous decision on those seeking to terminate an incompetent individual's life-sustaining treatment. An erroneous decision not to terminate results in a maintenance of the status quo; the possibility of subsequent developments such as advancements in medical science, the discovery of new evidence regarding the patient's intent, changes in the law, or simply the unexpected death of the patient despite the administration of life-sustaining treatment, at least create the potential that a wrong decision will eventually be corrected or its impact mitigated. An erroneous decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, however, is not susceptible of correction.. . . . It is also worth noting that most, if not all, States simply forbid oral testimony entirely in determining the wishes of parties in transactions which, while important, simply do not have the consequences that a decision to terminate a person's life does. At common law and by statute in most States, the parol evidence rule prevents the variations of the terms of a written contract by oral testimony. The statute of frauds makes unenforceable oral contracts to leave property by will, and statutes regulating the making of wills universally require that those instruments be in writing…There is no doubt that statutes requiring wills to be in writing, and statutes of frauds which require that a contract to make a will be in writing, on occasion frustrate the effectuation of the intent of a particular decedent, just as Missouri's requirement of proof in this case may have frustrated the effectuation of the not-fully-expressed desires of Nancy Cruzan. But the Constitution does not require general rules to work faultlessly; no general rule can. . . . In sum, we conclude that a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state.We note that many courts which have adopted some sort of substituted judgment procedure in situations like this, whether they limit consideration of evidence to the prior expressed wishes of the incompetent individual, or whether they allow more general proof of what the individual's decision would have been, require a clear and convincing standard of proof for such evidence. . . . The Supreme Court of Missouri held that, in this case, the testimony adduced at trial did not amount to clear and convincing proof of the patient's desire to have hydration and nutrition withdrawn. In so doing, it reversed a decision of the Missouri trial court, which had found that the evidence "suggest[ed]" Nancy Cruzan would not have desired to continue such measures [just as in Terri’s case] . . . but which had not adopted the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" enunciated by the Supreme Court. The testimony adduced at trial consisted primarily of Nancy Cruzan's statements, made to a housemate about a year before her accident, that she would not want to live should she face life as a "vegetable," and other observations to the same effect. The observations did not deal in terms with withdrawal of medical treatment or of hydration and nutrition. We cannot say that the Supreme Court of Missouri committed constitutional error in reaching the conclusion that it did.”


The fact is, in Terri’s case there is a requirement of “clear and convincing evidence” to be met, which has not been meet by accepted legal standards, and Judge Greer arbitrarily issued a court order to end Terri’s life based upon Terri’s medical condition, and not upon “clear and convincing evidence” of her wish to be starved to death because of her existing medical condition.

Without “clear and convincing evidence “ being produced in court, Terri has been denied the due process which requires such evidence to be produced. And this denial of due process is in addition to Terri not being afforded her own legal counsel in a case in which the state has been called upon to end her life, and not being afforded the protection of a jury to assess the evidence asserted to be her wish.

JWK

ZippyTheChimp
February 28th, 2005, 08:05 AM
Actually, I agree with your position on this matter. However, there is no need to repeatedly hit us over the head with the same point.

I was not aware until recently that the video that is always played in TV reports is over 8 years old, and that the court has blocked the release of any current video.

johnwk
March 6th, 2005, 06:03 PM
Actually, I agree with your position on this matter. However, there is no need to repeatedly hit us over the head with the same point.

I was not aware until recently that the video that is always played in TV reports is over 8 years old, and that the court has blocked the release of any current video.

I didn't know that about the video either, but my concern in the case is about the process by which the power of the state is used in a life/death situation.

Oh, BTW, just found this about Judge Greer, and there may be more, but I must first do a little more research to confirm my facts.

In a Florida Appeals Court ruling (http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/legal/lgln/06.00.html), Justice Stevan Northcutt found that “homophobia crept into Greer’s other factual determinations.”

Curious how the starve Terri to death crowd, largely composed of pro-homosexual same sex marriage advocates, support a homophobe when it comes to him prohibiting food a water to be given to Terri and basing his decision upon her medical condition and not her wishes, and they reject the legal definition of “marriage” (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm)

ZippyTheChimp
March 22nd, 2005, 07:58 PM
Curious how the starve Terri to death crowd, largely composed of pro-homosexual same sex marriage advocates, support a homophobe when it comes to him prohibiting food a water to be given to Terri and basing his decision upon her medical condition and not her wishes, and they reject the legal definition of “marriage” (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm)
I suppose I shouldn't object to the above agenda-driven remark, since it is no different than what is going on on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

First, I have to amend my position on the video. I found out that the 10 second total time of the clip was edited from over 30 hours of tape in which nothing happened.

Congress should not be legislating in any individual case, but a rational debate should be started on "end of life" issues.

Ninjahedge
March 23rd, 2005, 01:50 PM
You also have to realize a few things:

He did not up and leave her the day she got hurt. He tried for 4 years to get her everything he could to bring her back, including cebral electrode implants for stimulation.

He was known as a continuing nuisance at the care facility because he was just there too much.

Here's a good one, Terry's parents actually encouraged him to go see other people before the case began.

Here's another good one, the video everyone keeps using is not something that happened all at once. It was over 9 hours of tape edited down to the few times she had a response.

Now, you may say these responses indicate something, but tests have comfirmed that she has no function. Tests given by more than just the people looking to "starve her to death". The council/expert hired by JEB BUSH to look into this "regretably" informed us all that he was unable to reproduce any of the reactions no the tape, or prove any semblance of conciousness whatsoever.

Even he said she was Brain DEAD.





Now, as a counter to this arguement, all i hear is people saying "right to life", "you are starving her" and "He is an adulterer", all emotional arguements that have nothing to do with the outcome of the case.

Add to it the involvement of more NATIONAL POLITICIANS on an issue that should have stayed local.



WE HAVE NO FRIGGING BUISNESS IN THIS!!!! This is not a national event or concern!

As was said on the daily show (paraphrased).

'The government, sad that it cannot offer its pledged duty to provide something for every American, has triumphed in striving to give something to a single person.'

Edward
March 23rd, 2005, 02:20 PM
Not letting a dead person go is not entirely new development - in Mausoleum in Red Square in Moscow, an institute of russian scientists is using state of the art machinery and medicine to keep Lenin's corpse from deteriorating.

Edward
March 23rd, 2005, 02:22 PM
For more than 80 years I might add - Terry has a long way to go...

ryan
March 23rd, 2005, 02:41 PM
Sorry to mix polarizing issues, but where are all these right-to-lifers as the death penalty comes back into fashion? The cynicism of right-to-lifer strategizers continually impresses me. I have read repeatedly Terry Schiavo is just a pawn in the anti-abortion agenda. That to establish a new right to be kept alive even at this low brain activity level would be a step towards outlawing abortion again.

Ninjahedge
March 23rd, 2005, 04:35 PM
Sorry to mix polarizing issues, but where are all these right-to-lifers as the death penalty comes back into fashion? The cynicism of right-to-lifer strategizers continually impresses me. I have read repeatedly Terry Schiavo is just a pawn in the anti-abortion agenda. That to establish a new right to be kept alive even at this low brain activity level would be a step towards outlawing abortion again.


Right to life is just a sound byte.

Seriously, saying their full stance would not make it easy to shout it at you as you drive by Central Park trying not to look at the grossest fetal pictures they could find.

They only want "good" people to live. To hell with the rest of them.

lif_o_integrity
March 25th, 2005, 03:47 PM
This is an actual Reply to an email I received today concerning Terri Schiavo (My original email is below the response).

The email address comes from webmaster@foxtimes.com, but the signature and name associated to it are from Roger Ailes, Chairman and CEO of Fox News. Now you ask "Is Roger Ailes really that insensitive? Or is the Webmaster trying to play a prank?" I have no idea, but whoever wrote this is as inhumane as anyone I've ever heard of... Stuffing Terri Schiavo and mounting her on the wall of Fox News?

Well, you read it and tell me what you think. This email is untampered with; forwarded in original format.

David

--------------------
Roger Ailes wrote:



Dear Dave,


It's a real pleasure hearing from righteous Christians like yourself. Unforunately it looks like Terri is not going to make it. So your petition is kind of stupid, no?

Actually, I'd like to get ahold of Terri's corpse, you know, once she's kicked the bucket and all. I'm fairly wealthy, so it'll be a cinch getting the body from the undertaker. But I think we could probably get it stuffed, put a little makeup on it - you know, a wig and stuff - and stand it up on the set of "FOX and Friends." Brian Kilmeade could talk to it every morning about the latest NBA scores and stuff. You know, throw in a few "working stiff" jokes. What do you think about that?

Anyway, thanks for the letter Don. I do enjoy a good laugh from time to time.

Roger Ailes, Esq.
Chairman and CEO, FOX News





ORIGINAL MESSAGE


Subject: I'd like to suggest a story. From: "David" <> (david.dischler@gmail.com) Date: Fri, March 25, 2005 11:17 am Priority: Normal
To Whom it May Concern,

As a concerned citizen, I am writing to you with a plea...

As you well know, Terri Schiavo is currently being starved to death in
our own country. As a measly citizen, at times, I feel so powerless and
yet hold such strong feelings as to the outcome of this woman's poor
life; and I know there are many others that feel as I do.

My request is that if there is any possibility of you being able to air
or post the following link to a petition concerning her feeding tube.

Click here -> http://www.justicecoalition.org/petition2.htm

If you are not able to air it, please respond as to any steps I could
possibly take to make it possible to display the link even once or of
any other ways you may be able to help get the word out.

Any help is much appreciated.

Special Thanks,

David

Edward
March 25th, 2005, 04:01 PM
Anyway, thanks for the letter Don. I do enjoy a good laugh from time to time.
Thanks for the post, David. I do enjoy a good laugh from time to time.

ZippyTheChimp
March 25th, 2005, 04:44 PM
...:)

BrooklynRider
March 28th, 2005, 11:52 AM
Police 'showdown' over Schiavo averted

By CAROL MARBIN MILLER

Miami Herald


PINELLAS PARK, Fla. — Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo was not to be removed from her hospice, a team of state agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted - but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, The Miami Herald has learned.

Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told police in Pinellas Park, the small town where Schiavo lies at Hospice Woodside, on Thursday that they were on the way to take her to a hospital to resume her feeding.

For a brief period, local police, who have officers at the hospice to keep protesters out, prepared for what sources called "a showdown."

In the end, the squad from the FDLE and the Department of Children & Families backed down, apparently concerned about confronting local police outside the hospice.

"We told them that unless they had the judge with them when they came, they were not going to get in," said a source with the local police.

"The FDLE called to say they were en route to the scene," said an official with the city police who requested anonymity. "When the sheriff's department and our department told them they could not enforce their order, they backed off."

The incident,known only to a few and related to The Herald by three different sources involved in Thursday's events, underscores the intense emotion and murky legal terrain that the Schiavo case has created. It also shows that agencies answering directly to Gov. Jeb Bush had planned to use a wrinkle in Florida law that would have allowed them to legally get around the judge's order. The exception in the law allows public agencies to freeze a judge's order whenever an agency appeals it.

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

Participants in the high-stakes test of wills, who spoke with The Herald on the condition of anonymity, said they believed the standoff could ultimately have led to a constitutional crisis and a confrontation between dueling lawmen.

"There were two sets of law enforcement officers facing off, waiting for the other to blink," said one official with knowledge of Thursday morning's activities.

In jest, one official said local police discussed "whether we had enough officers to hold off the National Guard."

"It was kind of a showdown on the part of the locals and the state police," the official said. "It it was not too long after that Jeb Bush was on TV saying that, evidently, he doesn't have as much authority as people think."

State officials on Friday vigorously denied the notion that any "showdown" occurred.

"DCF directed no such action," said agency spokeswoman Zoraya Suarez.

Said Bush spokesman Jacob DiPietre: "There was no showdown. We were ready to go. We didn't want to break the law. There was a process in place and we were following the process. The judge had an order and we were following the order."

Tim Caddell, a spokesman for the city of Pinellas Park, declined to discuss Thursday's events.

SHELTER FOR SCHIAVO

The developments that set Thursday morning's events in motion began the previous afternoon, when the governor and DCF chief Lucy Hadi held an impromptu news conference to announce they were considering sheltering Schiavo under the state's adult protection law. DCF has been besieged, officials say, by thousands of calls alleging Schiavo is the victim of abuse or neglect.

Alerted by the Bush administration that Schiavo might be on her way to their facility, officials at Morton Plant Hospital went to court themselves Wednesday, asking Circuit Judge George Greer, who ordered the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube last week, what to do.

"It's an extraordinary situation," said Beth Hardy, a hospital spokeswoman. "I don't think any of us has seen anything like it. Ever."

Greer signed an order Wednesday afternoon forbidding DCF from "taking possession of Theresa Marie Schiavo or removing her" from the hospice. He directed "each and every and singular sheriff of the state of Florida" to enforce his order.

But Thursday, at 8:15 a.m., DCF lawyers appealed Greer's order to judges at the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland.

That created the window of time to seize Schiavo. When DCF filed its appeal, it effectively froze the judge's Wednesday order. It took nearly three hours before the judge found out and canceled the automatic stay, shortly before 11 a.m.

Administrators of the 72-bed hospice, who have endured a withering siege of their facility by protesters since Greer ordered Schiavo's feeding tube removed on March 18, declined to discuss Thursday morning's events in any detail.

"I don't really know, or pretend to know, the specifics of what is going on behind the scenes," said Mike Bell, a spokesman for Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, which operates Woodside.

DCF INTENTIONS

According to sources, DCF intended to take Schiavo to Morton Plant Hospital, where her feeding tube had been reinserted in 2003 following a previous judicial order allowing its removal. But hospice officials were aware that the hospital was not likely to perform surgery to reinsert the tube without an order from Greer.

"People knew that taking [Schiavo] did not equate with immediate reinsertion of the feeding tube," a source said. "Hospital officials were working with their legal counsel and their advisors, trying to figure out which order superseded which, and what action they should take."

Hardy, the hospital spokeswoman, said she does not believe the hospital was made aware Thursday morning that DCF and state police planned to bring Schiavo in. "We were not aware of that three-hour period," she said. "It's not a discussion we even had, really."

George Felos, Michael Schiavo's attorney, said he does not think DCF officials knew of the window of opportunity they had created until well after they filed their appeal.

"Frankly, I don't believe when they filed their notice of appeal they realized that that gave them an automatic stay," Felos said. "When we filed our motion to vacate the automatic stay . . . they realized they had a short window of opportunity and they wanted to extend that as long as they could.

"I believe that as soon as DCF knew they had an opportunity, they were mobilizing to take advantage of it, without a doubt."

Miami Herald staff writers Phil Long and Marc Caputo contributed to this story.

Deimos
March 31st, 2005, 10:05 AM
Schiavo dies 14 days after tube removed
Death comes after courts repeatedly ruled against parents
BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 9:59 a.m. ET March 31, 2005

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - Fourteen days after a court ordered her feeding tube removed, and after multiple attempts by her parents to get the order lifted, Terri Schiavo passed away on Thursday.

The family battle over whether to keep her alive galvanized the nation.

The case had spent seven years winding its way through the courts, with the parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, repeatedly on the losing end.

The nation’s high court on Wednesday declined to intervene for the sixth time. Hours earlier in an 9-2 ruling, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta declined to grant a new hearing in the case — the fourth time since last week that it ruled against the Schindlers.

NewYorkYankee
March 31st, 2005, 02:11 PM
Starving people to death....Welcome to America! What a country!

Schadenfrau
March 31st, 2005, 02:18 PM
It's less cruel than keeping someone "alive" for the purpose of using them as a political pawn.

NewYorkYankee
March 31st, 2005, 02:38 PM
O please, no one deserves to be starved to death. As a political pawn? Explain yourself please, Im not following.

ryan
March 31st, 2005, 03:04 PM
O please, no one deserves to be starved to death. As a political pawn? Explain yourself please, Im not following.

Have you followed this at all? Withholding invasive artificial life support is hardly "starvation" and I'm disgusted that cynical pro-life PR has convinced anyone otherwise. Would you call pulling the plug on a comatose patient "assault"? Pro-lifers are trying to erode abortion rights by establishing new special rights such as the BS Laci Peterson Law and by fighting euthanasia and now passive "do not resuscitate" type agreements.

From abc.com (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=600937)

http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/printlogo.jpg


GOP Talking Points on Terri Schiavo

Memo, Obtained by ABC News, Was Circulated Among Senate Republicans


Mar. 21, 2005 - The following memo listing talking points on the Terri Schiavo case was circulated among Republican senators on the floor of the Senate.

This is an exact, full copy of the document obtained exclusively by ABC News and first reported Friday, March 18, 2005, by Linda Douglass on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings."

S. 529, The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act

http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/img_bullet_orangedot.gif Teri (sic) Schiavo is subject to an order that her feeding tubes will be disconnected on March 18, 2005 at 1p.m.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/img_bullet_orangedot.gif The Senate needs to act this week, before the Budget Act is pending business, or Terri's family will not have a remedy in federal court.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/img_bullet_orangedot.gif This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/img_bullet_orangedot.gif This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/img_bullet_orangedot.gif The bill is very limited and defines custody as "those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment."

http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/img_bullet_orangedot.gif There is an exemption for a proceeding "which no party disputes, and the court finds, that the incapacitated person while having capacity, had executed a written advance directive valid under applicably law that clearly authorized the withholding or or (sic) withdrawl (sic) of food and fluids or medical treatment in the applicable circumstances."

http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/img_bullet_orangedot.gif Incapacitated persons are defined as those "presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding or withdrawl (sic) of food fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law."

http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/img_bullet_orangedot.gif This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy.


Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Venture

Schadenfrau
March 31st, 2005, 03:30 PM
NewYorkYankee, read any article about the Schiavo case and you'll be unable to avoid the waft of right-wing fundamentalism. Randall Terry doesn't jump on board any train that's not headed for neo-con Looneyville.

NewYorkYankee
March 31st, 2005, 04:09 PM
I understand what you guys are saying. But, I just dont think you should be able to starve someone, even if they were in her condition. Just a matter of my opinion.

BrooklynRider
March 31st, 2005, 04:21 PM
Actually, in the "real world" that I live in, no one starved her. Some people are unable to breathe any longer and they die. Some people's hearts don't beat any longer and they die. When an animal of any sort, including human beings, can no longer eat, they die. No one killed her. If she was looking good and still responding as her father stated, then she would have asked for a cookie or a glass of lemonade. Ventilator, heart machine, feeding tube are all artificial means of keeping a body alive.

All of this "fight" for a woman unable to say "boo" and we have people all over the country crying out who are ALIVE wanting healthcare and Congress is silent. Too big an issue to rush through a speedy remedy. Political B.S. She's dead. Let her rest in peace. Now Mr. Schindler can get big bucks on a speaking tour instead of fighting for control of his dead daughter to grab her life insurance and malpractive reward. If he were my father, I'd disown him. What a manipulative jerk.

ryan
March 31st, 2005, 04:27 PM
I understand what you guys are saying. But, I just dont think you should be able to starve someone, even if they were in her condition. Just a matter of my opinion.

I understand and respect the pro-life, anti-euthanasia argument unless it is coupled with a pro-death penalty clause, which to me is absurdly hypocritical - especially for christians. I still take issue with the word stave, because it sounds active or criminal, which I know is the intent.

What about the pawn part?

Schadenfrau
March 31st, 2005, 04:30 PM
I'll see you Schiavo's father and add her mother, BrooklynRider. For a woman who's "too upset" to visit her dying daughter in her last days, she sure spends a lot of time holding press conferences.

ryan
March 31st, 2005, 04:33 PM
All of this "fight" for a woman unable to say "boo" and we have people all over the country crying out who are ALIVE wanting healthcare and Congress is silent.

Or all the outrage about abortion, and yet no one wants to fund medicaid, welfare or schools. Like abstract concepts are easier to fight for than ugly realities.

NYatKNIGHT
March 31st, 2005, 04:39 PM
Where are all these "high moral" do-gooders for the millions of fully conscious people who are really starving? Why aren't they holding vigils for them or risking arrest to feed them?

Someone please pull my plug if I ever become a "talking point" for the GOP, or any political or religious group for that matter.

R.I.P. Terri Schiavo.

BrooklynRider
March 31st, 2005, 04:43 PM
We ought to pull the feeding tube out of Congress and let it die too.

ryan
March 31st, 2005, 04:48 PM
We ought to pull the feeding tube out of Congress and let it die too.

Soooo offensive, but on-topic. From lowculture.com: (http://www.lowculture.com/archives/2005/03/feeding_tube_fr.html)

NewYorkYankee
March 31st, 2005, 06:13 PM
Actually, in the "real world" that I live in, no one starved her. Some people are unable to breathe any longer and they die. Some people's hearts don't beat any longer and they die. When an animal of any sort, including human beings, can no longer eat, they die. No one killed her. If she was looking good and still responding as her father stated, then she would have asked for a cookie or a glass of lemonade. Ventilator, heart machine, feeding tube are all artificial means of keeping a body alive.

All of this "fight" for a woman unable to say "boo" and we have people all over the country crying out who are ALIVE wanting healthcare and Congress is silent. Too big an issue to rush through a speedy remedy. Political B.S. She's dead. Let her rest in peace. Now Mr. Schindler can get big bucks on a speaking tour instead of fighting for control of his dead daughter to grab her life insurance and malpractive reward. If he were my father, I'd disown him. What a manipulative jerk.

Okay, so becuase she couldnt ask for a cookie or glass of lemonade its okay to pull the tube? Who cares if its artificial, no one should be able to decide when she dies. Im crying for this woman, who cannot speak, yes. Im also, against the death pentalty, BTW. No one should be able to decide if another human being lives or dies.

TLOZ Link5
March 31st, 2005, 06:59 PM
The removal of the feeding tube is actually a standard medical procedure. The cause of death is normally dehydration, not starvation. For a person in a persistent vegetative state, it is not a painful death, albeit quite a slow one. Renal failure also plays a role, so even if the tube had been restored at the last minute, it is likely that Mrs. Schiavo's kidneys would have been very badly damaged.

With due respect to the dead, Mrs. Schiavo should be a poster girl for an anti-eating disorder campaign, not the right-to-lifers. Her collapse was caused by potassium deficiency brought on by her bulimia and a bizarre liquid diet where she would drink 15 glasses of iced tea a day. She was 26 years old when she had a massive heart attack as a result of hypokalemia.

A sad end to a mostly sad life. At least now, however, she is at peace.

NewYorkYankee
March 31st, 2005, 07:03 PM
TLOZ, who cares if it was painful or not. The point of my view is that its wrong to kill somone like that. Plain and simple, its the same as murder. IMO.

ryan
March 31st, 2005, 07:25 PM
Im also, against the death pentalty, BTW. No one should be able to decide if another human being lives or dies.

Sorry - I wasn't trying to extract your opinion about the death penalty, or argue with you specifically about that point - I was just kind of ranting.

I am interested your take on our perception of Terri Schiavo being used as a pawn by politicians.

NewYorkYankee
March 31st, 2005, 08:29 PM
Its okay, I just thought I'd toss that in. Just to make sure ppl here didnt mistake me for the typical southern, right wing, fundamentalist that I am not. :)

I think that her being used as a "pawn" of politics is BS. A matter this serious shouldnt be so politically involved with "Republican this, Democrat that". I DO think though, that the gov shouldve made them reinsert her tube.

johnwk
April 1st, 2005, 08:58 AM
Okay, so becuase she couldnt ask for a cookie or glass of lemonade its okay to pull the tube? Who cares if its artificial, no one should be able to decide when she dies. Im crying for this woman, who cannot speak, yes. Im also, against the death pentalty, BTW. No one should be able to decide if another human being lives or dies.


New York Yankee,

The sad thing in this whole event was tearfully expressed by Terri’s sister --- “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do”

What the kill Terry crowd has permitted in their fervor to supposedly carry out Terri’s wishes, is to establish a new precedent under Florida law . . . a very, very dangerous precedent!

That precedent now allows a sitting judge to ignore previous case law and take it upon himself to set a new standard within the meaning of “clear and convincing evidence’___ a new standard in which the express wishes of a patient are no longer necessary from the patient’s own lips or hand for the court to act which may now accept what is said by others to be the patient’s wishes, and then may act to issue a court order to end the patient’s life, which is contrary to what was allowed in the Browning decision and required the patient’s wishes to come from their own lips or hand!

Indeed, the kill Terri crowd has breathed new meaning into what is considered “clear and convincing evidence” and has set a precedent in Florida in which a judge may arbitrarily now decided what is and what is not “clear and convincing evidence” of a patient’s wishes, and that the testimony of an adulterous husband, having two children out of wedlock during a ten year long extramarital love affair while his real wife was incapacitated, who pleads to a judge for personal convenience that his real wife said she would want to be starved to death, may accept such a plea as being within the meaning of “clear and convincing evidence” ___ a new standard which rejects the carefully thought out and documented review of the meaning of ’clear and convincing evidence” as understood under American Jurisprudence for hundreds of years and carefully examined by the SCOTUS in the CRUZAN CASE, and was observed in the Browning decision, a standard which judge Greer thumbed his nose at to accommodate and adulterous husband‘s wishes, while the Kill Terri crowd cheered him on!

It is, without question, that the Kill Terri Crowd know not what they have done.


JWK

The Ethics and Advocacy Task Force, as amicus curiae, raises a very legitimate concern that the "right to die" could become a license to kill. There are times when some people believe that another would be "better off dead" even though the other person is still fighting vigorously to live. Euthanasia is a crime in this state. 782.08, Fla.Stat. (1987). See 765.11(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). Despite the tremendous advances achieved in this century, the world has witnessed the extermination of retarded and mentally disturbed persons for whom a foreign government decided that death was the proper prescription. Thus, it cannot be overemphasized that the remedy announced in this opinion and the procedures designed to safeguard that remedy are based upon the patient's right to make a personal and private decision and not upon other interests. Browning, 543 So.2d at 269

BrooklynRider
April 1st, 2005, 11:10 AM
JWK-

You need to learn how to have an open and respectful dialogue. You continue to pollute this forum with your hate filled posts. In this forum, people have made thoughtful, although opposing, comments on thie issue. Your inflammatory comments (e.g. referring to people as the "Kill Terri Crowd") further supports the fact that (1) your posts boast tyrannical ideology that is not in line with the function and purpose of open forum dialogue (2) you shown no regard for previous posts in a thread, interrupting a logical flow of conversational writing with what is generally referred to as a "flame" (3) you repeatedly misrepresent yourself, hiding behind an "organization" whose sole membership consists of "you".

Your post is a perfect example of the kinds of posts that should be censored and the kind of poster who should be banned. You have just indulged in the most egregious kind of name calling, you have neglected to show any respect or common courtesy for other forum members, and you completely short-circuit an otherwise interesting and challenging thread by, not only dismissing and disregarding opposing views, but by subjecting posters widely involved in numerous threads in this forum, and who have EARNED the respect of others, to intolerant, insulting and hateful attacks.

Perhaps your blog doesn't see the traffic this forum does and it would seem with good reason. Here we discuss issues and at times generate emotional and passionate reactions, but rarely do we engage in the type of cold, nasty, foolish, crude commetary you repeatedly subject us to. Your posts are an absolute cancer in this forum.

ryan
April 1st, 2005, 11:41 AM
The "kill terri crowd" catchphrase is funnier than any parody. ever.

BrooklynRider
April 1st, 2005, 12:00 PM
Okay, so becuase she couldnt ask for a cookie or glass of lemonade its okay to pull the tube? Who cares if its artificial, no one should be able to decide when she dies. Im crying for this woman, who cannot speak, yes. Im also, against the death pentalty, BTW. No one should be able to decide if another human being lives or dies.

Yankee-

There certainly are medical ethical issues involved. Medical science has the ability to keep bodies alive indefinitely. In my opinion, medicine and medical treatment should be used to cure disease and illness, effectively treat chronic illness, provide necessary external support to individuals in order that they may fully function to their born capacity. We know her body could have survived longer with the feeding tube. What would you say if medicine could keep her alive indefintely (I mean REALLY INDEFINITELY) for 50 more years? Another century? Medical knowldge can do that just by replacing each failing system with a machine and pouring fuel into it?

All life comes to an end at some point. Death must be accepted, welcomed and celebrated in the same way we celebrate birth. I implore you to review the media manipulation of this issue.

(1) We had the initial video of Terri looking toward her mother. The year on the date of that video was 2002. A couple of days ago, every news broadcast reported that "new" video of Terri Schiavo had been released. That "new" video footage had a date of 2003. Manipulation.

(2) Republicans immediately went into motion to "save Terri Schiavo". No less than Anderson Cooper on CNN, opened his broadcast by repeating three times within the first five minutes of broadcast that "Democrats were blocking the bill that would keep Terri Schiavo alive". Actually, the Democrats demanded a quorum and although they were individual objections to the Republican moves, what they were demanding was a RECORDED VOTE as opposed to a voice vote, which does NOT record how each individual member of Congress votes on a bill. This was a purely political ploy by Republicans to play to the fundmentalist base, while also shielding them from criticism from the parts of that party who are stridently support "state's rights". The media was complicit. Manipulation.

(3) The same people (i.e. Republican extremists) who passed laws to bolster the "sanctity of marriage", passed legislation and allocated money to promote marriage, and have argued about the long history as marriage as the foundation of our civilization, attempted to deny Michael Schiavo the right to make this very difficult decision about his WIFE, after seeing her non-responsive, on life support for 15 YEARS, and with absolutely resounding evidence that she was in a Persistent Vegtative State. She was not Terri Schindler when she died. She was Mrs. Michael Schiavo and, to the government's displeasure, they were not able to listen in on the private conversations that married couples generally have about issues like this. Manipulation.

Consider for just one moment how many other people TODAY might be having feeding tubes removed, ventilators disconnected, and heart machines stopped due to similar situations - without this circus. Consider for a moment who stands to gain from the absurd commotion this case resulted in and the shifting of the nation's attention from the President's losing battle to raid Social Security, the absolute deterioration in Iraq, and the intelligence report that came out yesterday about the President's tacit dismissal of evidence that Iraq did not, in fact, have WMD - including Colin Powell's sharp criticism of the policy and Rumsfeld yesterday. Manipulation.

None of this would have been pursued had the legislators involved, like Tom Delay, been absolutely certain that Michael Schiavo was within his legal rights, the medical procedures were ethical and sound and that, in the end, Terri Schiavo would, indeed, die. She HAD to die for the Republicans to further press their "activist judiciary" agenda. The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin reviewing 10 judges that were rejected last year for their extremist views, who the President insists on renominating. This issue is part of a great manipulation of the public to believe that the judges and courts, in this case, exceeded the boundaries of their position (they did not) and created a "new" policy through activism from the bench (they did not). The Constutition and the checks and balances of governmental powers in this country are under an all out assault on every front. Manipulation.

This case passed through the local, state, and federal systems and, what happened was viewed as legal and right. We did not sit in that courtroom and hear the evidence. What we were presented with was the Terry Randal Operation Rescue (anti-choice) Press Machine, with a very willing activist father of a brain dead child ready to play the role needed to advance an agenda. We didn't get any "news" on the case. We got reports of the courts rulings, the family's emotional reaction and pleas, political grandstanding and video tape that was manipulated to portray the woman as responsive, vocal and functional at some level. Manipulation.

Now, the Fear Agenda is moved forward through the implication that the government, through our court system, can now kill you. Oh my goodness, we have no where to turn! Whatever will we do? Terrorists! Mexicans! Judges! OH MY! (Manipulation.)

Real NEWS would have INVESTIGATED the story and explained the issues, the legislative reaction, who Terry Randall (the family adviser) is and cited the legalities involved. The news presented us with crap - emotional fodder - press releases and, if you research, a full out enactment of the Republican agenda and speaking points on this issue.

Maybe a more interesting news story might have been on why an earthquake of equal magnitude in the exact same place in Indonesia, did not produce the Tsunami condition that was created by what they claim was an earthquake of the same magnitude in December. (Seek out real news - don't be duped - escape the herd of the sheeple).

NewYorkYankee
April 1st, 2005, 02:13 PM
Brooklyn,
I understand what you are saying. The media manipulation, and the repub. extremist jumping to politics is stupid. Ive already said that. All Im saying on this issue IS, no one should be able to pull the feeding tube out of anothers mouth and let them die. Life is not a thing that WE should be able to decide. Do you understand where I am coming from? This is such an emotional thing for me, my words may be coming out crazy.

ryan
April 1st, 2005, 02:31 PM
Life is not a thing that WE should be able to decide.

Seems to me that all the invasive things we do to keep a body alive are active decisions. Why is it ok to put a feeding tube in, but not take it out? Is it only ok to play god to put off death? If it's a religious argument, either way the actions are interferring with god or nature. Why are actions to keep the body alive ok, but not to let it die? Why all the urgency to preserve Terri Schiavo's body? (her parent's attachment seems especially macabre - like they just couldn't let go. Perhaps they felt responsible for not helping her with her eating disorder?)

Religious people I know that have been very clear that they did not want to be kept from dying because they believed that they were going to an afterlife, and being kept on life support prolonged their suffering.

Jasonik
April 1st, 2005, 03:59 PM
I am happy with the Shiavo outcome in that the courts upheld the supremacy of a health care proxy to dictate what care is to be accepted or refused.

Would those clamoring for the gov't to step in and 'save' Rerri Shiavo's 'life' also wish for doctors to force a child of Jehova's Witnesses to have a blood transfusion against their wishes and more importantly their religion?

If anything I hope that more people setting up living wills and talking about the subject of dying with some level of control and dignity will reduce the amount of medical resources expended to prolong somene's 'life' by a week, a few days, or even a few hours. I hope that there will be a collective shift, or at least a dialogue, toward looking at life and death matters in a qualitative, rather than purely quantitative manner.

BrooklynRider
April 1st, 2005, 07:09 PM
Seems to me that all the invasive things we do to keep a body alive are active decisions. Why is it ok to put a feeding tube in, but not take it out? Is it only ok to play god to put off death? If it's a religious argument, either way the actions are interferring with god or nature. Why are actions to keep the body alive ok, but not to let it die? Why all the urgency to preserve Terri Schiavo's body? (her parent's attachment seems especially macabre - like they just couldn't let go. Perhaps they felt responsible for not helping her with her eating disorder?)

Religious people I know that have been very clear that they did not want to be kept from dying because they believed that they were going to an afterlife, and being kept on life support prolonged their suffering.

::clap, clap, clap::

Thank you for finding words for what I was thinking.

BrooklynRider
April 1st, 2005, 07:25 PM
This is such an emotional thing for me, my words may be coming out crazy.

I'm trying to understand why it is so emotional for you. Is it something you feel strongly about and it makes you angry to have no ability to influence it? Are you overcome with extreme sadness? Do you feel fear that this could happen to someone else?

Can you explain your emotion(s) and what is generating it? I'm assuming you did not know her. Are you living in an environment that is reacting strongly to this? explosively?

This happens ALL THE TIME.

You might actually want to do volunteer work at a hospice to face this emotion. I remember a nurse I once new who worked in a hospice. She told me and a group of people that more people died on her shift than any other. She was very proud of that. We were all kind of aghast. Then she explained that she felt it was because she helped create an environment in which these dying people were allowed to go if they wanted to. It was very moving to see the genuine care she actually had for these people. She compared her experience to the same feeling nurses in the delivery room feel when a life comes into the world.

It was a very interesting, challenging and moving conversation we all had. This culture is very uncomfortable with death. People need not to be told to hold on. They need to be told it is okay to go. It's not cold and we are not killing them. It's the cycle of life. It is amazing and it is, at times, sad.

johnwk
April 1st, 2005, 09:34 PM
JWK-

You need to learn how to have an open and respectful dialogue. You continue to pollute this forum with your hate filled posts. In this forum, people have made thoughtful, although opposing, comments on thie issue. Your inflammatory comments (e.g. referring to people as the "Kill Terri Crowd") further supports the fact that (1) your posts boast tyrannical ideology that is not in line with the function and purpose of open forum dialogue (2) you shown no regard for previous posts in a thread, interrupting a logical flow of conversational writing with what is generally referred to as a "flame" (3) you repeatedly misrepresent yourself, hiding behind an "organization" whose sole membership consists of "you".

Your post is a perfect example of the kinds of posts that should be censored and the kind of poster who should be banned. You have just indulged in the most egregious kind of name calling, you have neglected to show any respect or common courtesy for other forum members, and you completely short-circuit an otherwise interesting and challenging thread by, not only dismissing and disregarding opposing views, but by subjecting posters widely involved in numerous threads in this forum, and who have EARNED the respect of others, to intolerant, insulting and hateful attacks.

Perhaps your blog doesn't see the traffic this forum does and it would seem with good reason. Here we discuss issues and at times generate emotional and passionate reactions, but rarely do we engage in the type of cold, nasty, foolish, crude commetary you repeatedly subject us to. Your posts are an absolute cancer in this forum.


Name calling? Sorry, but I don’t believe identifying an intended action promoted by a group is “name calling”. It is merely a convenient way to identifying them. Those who supported Terri’s feeding tube being removed, without having evidence from Terri’s own lips or hand concerning an end of life directive, a directive expressing it was her wish to reject food and water under certain preconceived conditions, were in fact promoting that the force of government ought to be used to take her life without her express wishes being known. It is as simple as that.

As to the rest of your personal attack upon me, your vitriol merely confirms that you are incapable or unwilling to engage in meaningful discourse with regard to the various points of law and issues I have raised.


JWK

johnwk
April 1st, 2005, 09:49 PM
I am happy with the Shiavo outcome in that the courts upheld the supremacy of a health care proxy to dictate what care is to be accepted or refused.


Dictate? A proxy dictating [meaning there is no express wishes of the patient] whether or not a patient lives or dies? In fact, that is the very situation every freedom loving person ought to fear … a dictator.

As to your comment concerning more people setting up living wills, I agree with you fully…there are too many people, even family members, who would not think twice about offing a relative to gain access to their assets!

JWK

The Ethics and Advocacy Task Force, as amicus curiae, raises a very legitimate concern that the "right to die" could become a license to kill. There are times when some people believe that another would be "better off dead" even though the other person is still fighting vigorously to live. Euthanasia is a crime in this state. 782.08, Fla.Stat. (1987). See 765.11(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). Despite the tremendous advances achieved in this century, the world has witnessed the extermination of retarded and mentally disturbed persons for whom a foreign government decided that death was the proper prescription. Thus, it cannot be overemphasized that the remedy announced in this opinion and the procedures designed to safeguard that remedy are based upon the patient's right to make a personal and private decision and not upon other interests. Browning, 543 So.2d at 269

NewYorkYankee
April 1st, 2005, 11:39 PM
Ryan, its just a personal issue for me.

Brooklyn, Its emotional for me becuase I feel so sorry for terri. I mean, I believe in my heart that she wanted to live. I just think about how she must;ve felt in that bed thinking about what was happening. I just feel very sorry for her, and that makes me very depressed.

ryan
April 2nd, 2005, 04:52 PM
NYY-

Do you realize that all doctors that examine Terri Schaivo - including those brought in by her parents - agreed that she actually could not and did not "think?" That she had no brain function was not disputed. What was disputed was her potential to regain any brain function. Maybe that can ease your mind?

ryan
April 2nd, 2005, 05:05 PM
Dictate? A proxy dictating [meaning there is no express wishes of the patient] whether or not a patient lives or dies? In fact, that is the very situation every freedom loving person ought to fear … a dictator.

Really, your unimaginative semantic flaming isn't interesting or entertaining (ok the "kill terri crowd" one was funny) Can you try to reason out your arguments so they contribute to the forum, rather than just spit out dramatic vitriol?

Yes, "dictate" shares etymology wth "dictator" but so does "dictation" and "dictaphone" woo hoo a pun! Jasonik's language was very clear, and there is no way to infer that he encourages abuse of health care proxy status.

NewYorkYankee
April 2nd, 2005, 08:30 PM
NYY-

Do you realize that all doctors that examine Terri Schaivo - including those brought in by her parents - agreed that she actually could not and did not "think?" That she had no brain function was not disputed. What was disputed was her potential to regain any brain function. Maybe that can ease your mind?


Well, I just cant stop feeling this way when I look at her. When her nurse leaned down and kissed her, and what looked to me like she smiled. It seems she was so hopeless and waiting for someone to help her. I dont know, I havnt thought about it much today or yesterday. I just know shes in a better place now, so her soul can rest in peace.

Ninjahedge
April 4th, 2005, 11:38 AM
Well, I just cant stop feeling this way when I look at her. When her nurse leaned down and kissed her, and what looked to me like she smiled. It seems she was so hopeless and waiting for someone to help her. I dont know, I havnt thought about it much today or yesterday. I just know shes in a better place now, so her soul can rest in peace.


NYY, the main problem is that people have a tendency to anthropomorphise just about anything. Combine that with empathy and you have people assigning their feelings to EVERYTHING.

A thunderstorm is angry, even though "it" could really care less. You can have a happy cloud, or a sad wind, you can have a stubborn car, a devious pesky device (copy machine). We keep assigning what WE want that object to think and feel based on what WE think and feel.

Terri was gone 15 years ago. An unhappy woman that suffered from bulemia was kept alive by the people that loved her (Michael included) that tried to deny to THEMSELVES the reality of the situation. That THEY somehow failed her in seeing her problem and getting her treated.

After Michael tried his best, he started to let go. Her parents did not stop him. It was only after MONEY came in that everyone started having different opinions as to what was wrong and right.

The only thing that I can say is that I would have trusted the families true intension, to keep her alive from love, if it wasn't for the slanderous track they took in trying to do so. They did not fight an honest fight and regardless of the true story, they did not leave me with a feeling that they were doing this for Terri.

Now as for Randal Terry, he is just a political scumbag. He brought in poeple who were willing to protest anything they did not understand (as shown by the guy that tried to break in to get her a sandwich, and the guy that wanted to steal a gun so he could kill to prove that he supported life).

Ah well.

As for her, let her GO already.



Ironic last statement there, eh?

Schadenfrau
April 4th, 2005, 12:19 PM
Well, I just cant stop feeling this way when I look at her. When her nurse leaned down and kissed her, and what looked to me like she smiled. It seems she was so hopeless and waiting for someone to help her.

The few seconds of footage incessantly repeated on television were culled from hundreds of hours of video.

What the footage does not show is Schiavo's parents holding flashing strobe lights behind the person they wanted her to "see".

Schiavo had no brain function other than involuntary reactions: moving eyes, groaning, etc. What the video shows is not Schiavo reacting to stimuli, but a disintegrating brain on autopilot.

ryan
April 4th, 2005, 04:35 PM
Now as for Randal Terry, he is just a political scumbag.

Calling Randall Terry a scumbag is generous. He's on the wrong side of so many issues, and like so many other wingnuts, his personal life is a mess of hypocrisy. From mediamatters.org: (http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220001)

Who is Randall Terry?

http://mediamatters.org/static/video/randall-terry.jpg
Christian activist Randall Terry (http://www.randallterry.com/home/index.cfm?page=1) has reappeared in the news in recent days as the spokesman for the parents of Terri Schiavo. Terry, founder of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue and the Society for Truth and Justice (http://www.societyfortruthandjustice.com/), appeared on Fox News at least four times in the past four days -- on the March 18 edition of Hannity & Colmes, and during live coverage of the Schiavo case on March 20 and March 21. But Terry has a controversial past that was not fully disclosed in any of his Fox News appearances or on the March 19 edition of National Public Radio's Weekend Edition, which aired a brief clip from Terry. In all but one of those instances, Terry was identified only as the Schindler family spokesman.

Only when Terry appeared on a March 21 "Fox News Alert" did another guest -- Fox News contributor and Democratic strategist Susan Estrich -- point out that Terry was "involved in the anti-abortion movement" and with Operation Rescue, which "operated outside the law."

On his own website, Terry noted (http://www.randallterry.com/home/index.cfm?page=1) that he "has been arrested over forty times for peaceful opposition to abortion," but he neglected to mention the details of his anti-abortion activities with Operation Rescue in the 1980s and 1990s. In an April 22, 2004, Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32934-2004Apr21?language=printer), staff writer Michael Powell summarized some of Terry's anti-abortion actions:





In 1988, Terry and his legions started standing in front of local abortion clinics, screaming and pleading with pregnant women to turn away. They tossed their bodies against car doors to keep abortion patients from getting out. They waved crucifixes and screamed "Mommy, Mommy" at the women. When Terry commanded, hundreds went jellyfish-limp and blockaded the "death clinics."

In 1989, a "Holy Week of Rescue" shut down a family planning clinic in Los Angeles. More than 40,000 people were arrested in these demonstrations over four years. Subtlety wasn't Terry's thing -- he described Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, as a "whore" and an "adulteress" and arranged to have a dead fetus presented to Bill Clinton at the 1992 Democratic National Convention.

Additional evidence suggests that actions by Terry and Operation Rescue may have provoked violence at abortion clinics. As the New York Times reported on July 20, 2001, "One of his [Terry's] most avid followers in Binghamton was James E. [sic: C.] Kopp, now charged in the 1998 murder of a doctor who performed abortions in Buffalo [New York]." Kopp was convicted (http://www.courttv.com/trials/kopp/verdict_ap.html) of second-degree murder and sentenced (http://www.courttv.com/trials/kopp/050903_sentence_ap.html) to 25 years to life in prison. A November 6, 1998, Times report further detailed Terry's connection to Kopp:




In July 1988, when Randall Terry drove through the night from his home in Binghamton, N.Y., to Atlanta to start the series of anti-abortion protests that would finally put his new hard-line group, Operation Rescue, onto America's front pages, James Charles Kopp was in the van riding alongside him, said former leaders of Operation Rescue.




And when Mr. Terry was arrested on the first day of Operation Rescue's "Siege of Atlanta," Mr. Kopp followed him into jail, said the leaders, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Along with more than 100 other Operation Rescue members, according to some people who were there, Mr. Kopp remained in jail for 40 days and adhered to Mr. Terry's orders not to give a real name to the police or courts.

After his release, Mr. Kopp returned to Operation Rescue's Binghamton headquarters, and was there working alongside Mr. Terry as the group's power and influence in the anti-abortion movement surged in late 1988 and 1989, according to the former leaders of Operation Rescue.


Further, the Miami Herald reported (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/11183114.htm) on March 20 that Operation Rescue's "sympathizers continue to make an impact, some serving for the Bush administration."



As CNN noted (http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/04/abortion.rico.lawsuit/) on March 4, 1998, Terry was named in a lawsuit -- seeking to "force anti-abortion leaders to pay for damages caused in clinic attacks" -- which was filed by the National Organization for Women (NOW) under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, and Terry settled with NOW out of court. The New York Times reported on November 8, 1998, that Terry "filed for bankruptcy last week in an effort to avoid paying massive debts owed to women's groups and abortion clinics that have sued him." As the Los Angeles Times reported on February 28, Terry's use of bankruptcy law to avoid paying for the judgments against him helped prompt Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) to propose an amendment to the bankruptcy bill recently passed by Congress that "specifically would prevent abortion opponents from using the bankruptcy code to escape paying court fines," although it was not included (http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/08/pf/bankruptcy_law.reut/) in the final version of the bill. Versions of that amendment appeared in earlier versions of the bankruptcy bill, which stalled action on it in 2002 and 2003 when "a core of House Republicans balked" at the provision, the Los Angeles Times noted.

According to a June 14, 2003, report by the conservative World Magazine (http://www.worldmag.com/) (no longer available online, but reprinted (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/945796/posts) on the right-wing bulletin board Free Republic), Terry solicited donations by declaring on his website that "The purveyors of abortion on demand have stripped Randall Terry of everything he owned," but failed to disclose that the money would be used to pay for his new $432,000 house. The report noted Terry's defense: "Terry told World that he wanted a home where his family will be safe and where 'we could entertain people of stature, people of importance. I have a lot of important people that come through my home. And I will have more important people come through my home.' " World noted that the same month he paid the deposit on his new home, a court ruled that Terry, who divorced his first wife and has remarried, "was not paying a fair share of child support." In an article on his website, Terry denounced (http://www.randallterry.com/home/index.cfm?page=14) the World report as "journalistic trash, a 'hit piece' of malice and misinformation."

Terry's words and personal life have also stirred controversy. As the Fort Wayne (Indiana) News Sentinel reported on August 16, 1993, at an anti-abortion rally in Fort Wayne, Terry said "Our goal is a Christian nation. ... We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. ... Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules." In that same speech, Terry also stated that "If a Christian voted for [former President Bill] Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple." According to a March 18, 2004, press release (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=27662), Terry declared on his radio program that "Islam dictates followers use killing and terror to convert Western infidels." As The Washington Post reported on February 12, 2000, in his 1995 book The Judgment of God (http://www.randallterry.com/store/item-detail.cfm?id=2&storeid=3) Terry wrote that "homosexuals and lesbians are no longer content to secretly live in sin, but now want to glorify their perversions." In a May 25, 2004, interview (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2004_May_25/ai_n6150955) about his gay son with The Advocate, Terry stated that homosexuality is a "sexual addiction" that shouldn't be rewarded with "special civil rights."

According to the February 12, 2000, Washington Post report, Terry was censured by his church, the Landmark Church of Binghamton, New York, for a "pattern of repeated and sinful relationships and conversations with both single and married women." Terry denies the accusation.

— A.S.

Posted to the web on Monday March 21, 2005 at 8:35 PM EST

Ninjahedge
April 4th, 2005, 06:16 PM
What a nice guy.... >:|

Golden Eagle
April 5th, 2005, 12:57 AM
I wouldn't call him no scum bag, but he certainly is a little strange. I don't think it is right to set out and conquer a secular nation... yet as a Christian conservative in Dallas, I think his views are just too radical. If they were more decent... and less boastful, people would take him more serious and he would be less of a whack-job. :rolleyes:

Reminds me of John Brown. Yes, slavery was immoral. But was it necessary to go an a rampage and murder as many people as you can in Kansas?

I hope that isn't on Terry's agenda for real.

Oh but this guys handling of people that support him is just disgusting. That should be a felony. Elect me (you Dallasites reading this) and we'll put a stop to this abuse and malarkey for good. Internet schminternet, every penny of those donations should be given back.

Oh, and he must not be very popular if he needs donations to pay for a $400,000 house. Even in Dallas where the median house is $150,000 you'd imagine that a media figure can afford nicer things.

Oh that's right. He has his addictions. :eek:

ryan
April 5th, 2005, 12:49 PM
He also said:

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good ... if a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple. Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country..."

TLOZ Link5
August 1st, 2005, 06:10 PM
What we learned from the Terri Schiavo case:

1) Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, and Tom Delay are all world renowned neurologists.

2) 22 successive court battles that all ended in exactly the same way means there is something wrong with the courts, not the Schindler's case.

3) Mike is after money which is why he turned down 1 million dollars and 10 million dollars to sign over guardianship.

4) Congress and the State Legislature of Florida has nothing better to do than pry into the private medical affairs of others.

5) Pulling life support is bad in Florida when authorized by the legal next-of-kin, but pulling life support is good in Texas when you run out of money and the mother pleads not to pull the plug on her baby.

6) Medical diagnoses are best performed by watching highly edited videotape made by Randall Terry rather than in person by trained physicians.

7) Minimum wage making nursing assistants are more qualified to diagnose a persistent vegetative state than experienced neurologists.

8) Cerebral spinal fluid is a magical potion that can mimic the entire functions of a missing cerebral cortex.

9) 15 years in the same persistent state is not really enough time to make an accurate diagnosis.

10) A feeding tube that infuses yellow nutritional goop is not really "life support".

11) Jesus was wrong when he said that a man and woman should leave their parents and cleave only to each other.

12) Marriage is the most sacred of all unions, except when it isn't.

13) Interfering in a family's private tragedy is a great reason to cut short a vacation, but getting a memo that warns a known terrorist is determined to strike inside the US is cause to relax and finish up some R&R.

14) Pro-lifers are really compassionate people which is why they are hoping that Michael Schiavo dies a horrible painful death.

15) The Supreme Court of the United States and the State Supreme Court of Florida mean "Maybe" when they are saying "No!".

16) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a bleeding heart liberal.

17) 7 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican presidents, so it's Clinton's fault.

18) A judge who makes rulings based on the law is obviously an atheist, liberal, democratic activist even though he is a conservative, Republican, Southern Baptist.

ablarc
August 1st, 2005, 09:23 PM
Lol!