Your Take on the Schiavo Case
 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/20/schiavo/index.html

Greetings Brothers and GC fam... I'm sure most of you have already heard the latest on this case. This "personal family" issue has the potential to set off some dangerous precedents in regards to the federal government intrusion into personal citizens affairs(I know that last statement is strange...lol)

What are your feelings on this issue?

Exactly what you said. This could set a dangerous precedent with government intrusion into private affairs.

Plus, considering how young she was when it happened and the total unexpectancy ofit, I am not surprised the couple did not have a living will.

Yet I can't understand why no one wants to believe the husband when he said that at one point she said she would not want to be keep alive like this. It would not have been unusual for something like that to come ujp in conversation, maybe around something they saw in the news.

I mean, is she really living?

A former girlfriend mentioned that he admitted to her that she never mentioned this situation to her. I believe this situation is so complex. I am completely unnerved by the instrusion of the president and congress. However, I think the husband is a little shady. Perhaps, I have absorbed too many of the articles demonizing the husband. While, I agree that it's his decision and his alone when to terminate the life of his wife, I question his reasons. But again, it's not my place. That's an issue for him and his God.

I sincerely hope that my family would not allow to live a life such as this young lady. This is not a winning situation for either side and pray for the husband and the parents.

Government has no right to make this decision. I'm sorry that the president and congress have become involved in this very personal issue. To that end, a personal will is needed reqardless of ones age.

Maybe you guys can help me out. I'm a little confused about the bill that was passed yesterday. Is the legislation against euthanasia in general, or was it specifically for Schiavo?

This is a tough, tough situation. Generally I always come down on the side of preservation of life, but given the competing "familial" interests this is really hard.

..but I am always suspicious when the politicians jump in, particularly given the role reversal that's taken place. Repubs calling for federal intervention into what was previously a state matter, and Dems (at least Schultz) seeking to minimize that same federal role.

What I'm finding interesting is that all the right-to-life folks are remaining silent about Sun Hudson, the AfAm babyperson who died last week when his life support was taken off. :confused:

ETA: I wonder why Michael Schiavo hasn't divorced Terri. If that happened, perhaps she could stay alive because the Schindlers, her folks, would be the responsible parties.

The man said he loved his wife and vowed to love honor etc. He could devorce her - he has two kids by someone else and it is not an issue of money.

the long and short of it...
 

the bill allows schiavo's feeding tube to be placed in while the supreme court looks at the case again to determine if there are other options. this is what her family wanted, the husband is against.


i was talking at brunch yesterday with friends and someone brought an interesting point out. all of this hubbub that the republicans are making has to do with the 'promises' they made to their constiuents. the republicans campaigned at many churches speaking to a variety of religious leaders 'encouraging' them to vote. there is ALOT of religious attention surrounding this with many of these groups having their say.

i think its appalling but why are we surprised? this is what happens when we expect the govt to step in on certain issues. we get the govt inserting their will.

i think that as hurt as the family is, they have NO RIGHT to push for what they want. schiavo has a husband and he seems to be doing what is best..advocating for what his wife wants. my belief is that more than likely the schiavos had a conversation regarding their last wishes. the pain felt by the family who are not in support of the husband is immense and to me borders on simple insanity and nasty behavior.

if i were in this scenario it would be simple since we are in the process of having our documents put in place. we are both clear that we each will have the ONLY say in what is best for the other if one of us becomes gravely ill or dies. knowing our families, it is the best way.

this is a sad case, but the govt grandstanding is simply ridiculous.

This case bothers me on so many levels..but what concerns me the most that when discussing this with my mother I discovered that we have opposing views on this...now as a single unmarried woman i'm going to have to get my desires put in an iron clad written living will since I can forsee her being in the same situation if I do get married and my husband actually tries to do what I asked (which is do NOT leave me on a feeding tube when my brain has gone to mush). She'll pretend we never had the conversation..ok argument over this case.

As mentioned Mr. Schaivo has not filed for divorce because he is trying to honor his wife's wishes. Its not about money (he is not getting any money from this as blasted on other sources). I was hot watching him respond to Dashel (Republican who brought the bill up) - Dashel hasn't met his wife, met with any of her doctors - anyone with any relation to the case. This is purely political.

Re: the long and short of it...
 

Interesting points, darling1, but we expect the federal government to step in (and the sooner the better) when state/local jurisdictions fail to uphold the law (usually in civil rights violation situations, but the theory is the same.) Sure, politics are being played here, but that's just part of the current political climate.

I think the family has every right to push for the preservation of their child/relative's life. Maybe you've read something I haven't but I haven't read anywhere that this couple had such a conversation which would make this issue moot. I heard he's taken a friend, "girlfriend," whatever. I'm not judging his action, but that does make me take another look at the "he's looking out for his wife's best interests" argument in light of this.

TOM DELAY - R Texas

Tom Daschel is no longer a Senator.

Re: Re: the long and short of it...
 

i agree with you. personally, i think its for the birds and that in instances like this our officials need to be called to task.

i was also making an implication regarding any conversation schivo and her husband had regarding her wishes. i agree that the entire family should be involved in the process, however the spouse in most cases should have the final say. he did at one point and now because schiavo's parents and other supports that has been overruled.

i watched cbs on saturday when the brother of terry schiavo talked about her husband having another family. his comments were completed offensive and make this entire situation even more hurtful.

Re: Re: the long and short of it...
 

Actually, Tony, if it is a state law issue, the feds are supposed to stay out of it. The state supreme court is the ultimate interpreter of state law. Now, it might actually be a federal issue since they are making it into what sounds like a constitutional rights issue with the right to life twist.

I wish that I could quickly locate the bill that passed so that I can read it for myself. It seems like what happened was the House passed a bill giving jurisdiction for the federal court to review the state court's decision. If this is the case, that's bogus because jurisdiction is defined by the Constitution, not the legislators.

This same bologna happened when Baby Bush didn't like the finding of the Florida state supreme court in Gore v. Bush. They took it to the Federal Supreme Court and tried to make it into a federal issue when there really still is a question as to whether or not the feds had jurisdiction to take it.

It's the same garbage in a new garbage can.

I wish that I could remember whether the constitution-based best interests standard is rebuttable based upon evidence that the person is not in the best interest of the person being spoken for. I think that if there is no dispute as to the best interests, however (although there always is), I think that the husband has the say.

Re: Re: Re: the long and short of it...
 

If I'm not mistaken didn't the Federal Supreme Court refuse this case twice?

I think starvation is cruel but I can't help but see the sad irony in pulling the feeding tube now considering she ended up in this situation because of an eating disorder.:(

STEELTRAP
My sentiments exactly, girlfriend. Funny I just said this to my mother in law:
"If she were a minority and/or poor, no one would give a rat's azz!"

Kinda selective in their holier than thou "protesting"

Your mother and my mother must be related. I am married and I want my wishes in writing cause I know my moms will be trippin! :rolleyes:

Thank God we still have some freedom!!!!

My take? I think she should be allowed to die. I don't see how keeping her on the feeding tube is doing anyhing for her except fulfilling the desires of her parents. Her doctors have said that she has no chance at recovery. I know that miracles happen every day, but I don't see how keeping her alive is serving her best interests.

This is a good example of how everyone should have these arrangements set up, if anything does happen.

Why allow her to starve to death for over two weeks. That seems cruel. Why not give her an injection so she can die peacefully.

The United States Government should not be involve with this. This is a family issue.

Even though Sun had a fatal genetic disorder, I still think that the selective protesting is valid. Then again, the GOP is playing to its base, and Patisha (thanks Soror HN) isn't its base.

My understanding was that the because of the advanced nature of her condition, the starvation wouldn't cause her any more agony than she is already experiencing. I could be wrong though.

Federal Judge denies appeal
 

TAMPA, Fla. (March 22) - A federal judge on Tuesday refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, denying an emergency request from the brain-damaged woman's parents. The parents' lawyer quickly filed a notice of appeal.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge James Whittemore came after feverish action by President Bush and Congress on legislation allowing the contentious case to be reviewed by federal courts. The judge said the 41-year-old woman's parents had not established a ''substantial likelihood of success'' at trial on the merits of their arguments.

The notice of appeal was filed electronically hours later with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta by David Gibbs III, an attorney for Terri Schiavo's parents. The notice tells the court that the full appeal will follow. That court was already considering an appeal on whether Terri Schiavo's right to due process had been violated.

Whittemore wrote that Schiavo's ''life and liberty interests'' had been protected by Florida courts. Despite ''these difficult and time-strained circumstances,'' he wrote, ''this court is constrained to apply the law to the issues before it.''

The Bush administration ''would have preferred a different ruling,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters in Albuquerque, N.M., where the president was visiting a senior center.

''We hope that they would be able to have relief through the appeals process,'' McClellan said.

While Rex Sparklin, another attorney for the parents, said the appeal was needed to ''save Terri's life,'' Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, praised the ruling.


The Schiavo Case



AP


Monday, 1:11AM: President Bush signs legislation that allows a federal court to hear the case.

Tuesday: Federal judge refuses to order reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TIMELINE

1990: Oxygen fails to reach Schiavo's brain, causing permanent damage. Husband Michael is named legal guardian.

1998: Husband petitions for the removal of wife's feeding tube.

Her Story: See Schiavo Timeline

Sources: AP, cnn.com



''What this judge did is protect the freedom of people to make their own end-of-life decisions without the intrusion of politicians,'' Simon said.

Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo's brother, said his family was crushed. ''To have to see my parents go through this is absolutely barbaric,'' he told ABC's ''Good Morning America'' on Tuesday. ''I'd love for these judges to sit in a room and see this happening as well.''

Attempts to reach the woman's father, Bob Schindler, were unsuccessful early Tuesday. George Felos, the attorney for husband Michael Schiavo, hung up twice when reached by reporters from The Associated Press.

But Scott Schiavo, Michael Schiavo's brother, called the judge's decision ''a good thing,'' and said he did not believe Congress should have intervened.

''There's not a law that's made for this,'' Scott Schiavo said in a telephone interview. ''This is something that goes on 100 times a day in our country, that people, their wish to die with dignity is not a federal issue.''

The tube was disconnected Friday on the orders of a state judge, prompting an extraordinary weekend effort by congressional Republicans to push through unprecedented emergency legislation Monday aimed at keeping her alive.

Gov. Jeb Bush was described by a spokeswoman as ''extremely disappointed and saddened'' by the federal judge's decision not to order the tube reconnected. ''Gov. Bush will continue to do what he legally can within his powers to protect Terri Schiavo, a vulnerable person,'' said spokeswoman Alia Faraj.

Terri Schiavo did not have a living will. Her husband has fought in courts for years to have the tube removed because, he said, she would not want to be kept alive artificially and she has no hope for recovery. Her parents contend she responds to them and that her condition could improve.

Court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Doctors have said she could survive one to two weeks without the feeding tube.

Gibbs argued at a Monday hearing in front of Whittemore that letting Terri Schiavo starve would be ''a mortal sin'' under her Roman Catholic beliefs and urged quick action: ''Terri may die as I speak.''

But Felos argued that keeping the woman alive also violated her rights and noted that the case has been aired thoroughly in state courts.

''Yes, life is sacred,'' Felos said. ''So is liberty, particularly in this country.''

Michael Schiavo said he was outraged that lawmakers and the president intervened in a private matter. ''When Terri's wishes are carried out, it will be her wish. She will be at peace. She will be with the Lord,'' he said on CNN's ''Larry King Live'' late Monday.

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly. Her collapse was later linked to a potassium imbalance believed to have been brought on by an eating disorder. A successful malpractice lawsuit argued that doctors had failed to diagnose the eating disorder. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding tube to keep her alive.

According to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 909 adults taken over the weekend, nearly six in 10 people said they think the feeding tube should be removed and felt they would want to remove it for a child or spouse in the same condition.


03-22-05 1049EST

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

You know, I really don't get it.

First, it seems like the right to lifers want to oppose abortion b/c it is not natural and they want to adhere to nature. Now, it seems like they want to use technology to go *against* nature. I don't get it. Do they want science and technology interfering with life or not???

SC

Re: Re: Re: Re: the long and short of it...
 

I don't catch your drift RBL. Can you elaborate?

SC

Short answer....YES....but only the way that suits their belief systems!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the long and short of it...
 

Yes..(although I think I misread) I was under the assumption that Bush was signing a law to make the federal courts review this case...(in an attempt to reverse the state court decision) but I know CNN had reported that on two occasions the federal Supreme Court refuse to hear the case.....I guess I was a little confused..

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the long and short of it...
 

Yeah, I think that you're right now (although I haven't really read alot on the case). I think that I saw that the Sup Ct refused to take it. Don't know about another fed court.

I haven't been keeping up? How's the team doing? I haven't been watching March Madness at all this year. I actually like the Fighting Illini now...D. Brown got game. :)

SC

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the long and short of it...
 

Oh those Blue Devils are still marching:)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the long and short of it...
 

Alright, alright. Who do they play next?
SC

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the long and short of it...
 

Some team called Michigan State:D

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the long and short of it...
 

Aww, boo!
What's the weather in NC? We are happy in the Chi to get a high of 40 degrees today! One's perspective is just all skewed when it's cold every month out of the year. Good luck to your team. They can take 'em.

SC

According to physicians, she's in an unconscious state. She doesn't know when she's hungry or thirsty. Her blinking and moving only shows that the brain stem is working, but there are no other reactions in any other part of the brain. She's basically like they said, in a vegetated state with no chances of ever gaining consciousness.

I personally think the parents are just delaying the inevitable, and don't want to let go. Their child, to me, is already gone. It's unfair to let her be like this. They need to let her go to God.

She's already unconscious, so she wouldn't know that she was starving...she'd just go on to God like she should have been allowed to do years ago. This must be very hard for the family and for the husband, because seeing her like this is already painful enough, but to have Congress butting in is even worse.

We know she's starving. Criminals are treated better. *smh*

Also, we have the same type of individuals in our school systems. They are "tested" and everything based on their eye movements, etc. *smh*

I think it's really sad. I understand her family's point of veiw and her husband. I dont know any person who would want to be in the state that she is in for 15 years! Yet if it were my mother i would try to hold on to her as long as her heart is still beating. It's hard to let go of someone you love so dearly. Yet her husband( who now has a girlfriend and 2 kids), i can understand his point of veiw he knows that his wife wont ever be the same again or close to that, he is trying to move on after 15 years who wouldnt! Yet personally after i get married i know my wide is suposed to make those choices, BUT im leaving those choices to my mother and father if they are still around. I believe the people who bought me into this world and cared for me and knew me best for all my life should be the ones to make that choice. I know the bibie says that when a man is married he must leave the home of his mother and father and be one with his wife, but thats just me. I would hope my family knows me well enogh to know i wouldnt want that, but i'll take me chances with them before i would with someone i've only known for part of my life,

15 years of being kept alive on a minimal level, but completely brain-dead...I mean, besides everything else...I think it's a waste of a hospital bed and supplies that somebody else that actually need them, could be using...this woman will NEVER recover...it's time to let go...
Did I misunderstand that Ms. Schiavo got to be in this state because she was severely anorexic and something went wrong?

Yes. She was bulimic. I think she had a stroke or a heart attack or something, but whatever it was, the bulimia set it off and put her in the state that she's in.

As I've said before, dogs and cats are not allowed to die in this manner. You would have everyone on their granny after you if you starved Fido to death - incapcitated or not.

I'm sorry, but the husband still does not sit well with me. How noble of him to honor what he claims is her desire - but yet you dishonor your vow of marriage by taking a new girlfriend, having kids, etc. - But yet, someone I'm suspose to believe you have her best interest at heart?

I still don't understand why he didn't just give her parents power of attorney because its obvious he's moved on.

-How could a husband with two families have either wife's best interest at heart?

-I'm in geriatrics, and have seen a "vegetative state". Granted, Terri's quality of life isn't wonderful, but she is alive.

-She's on a morphine drip. Have any of y'all been on a morphine trip? It's pretty euphoric, if not completely putting you out. Her father accidentally bumped her bed, and she came out of the drip's euphoria, and looked right up at her father.

-Terri is capable of swallowing. If the feeding tube had to be removed, why wasn't she permitted fluids? Because they want her dead!

I guess what I want to say is that I'd be afraid to play God. Call me what you will, but I do fear the Lord, just as I also love Him. I have no idea what His plan is for Terri, but I'm sure there is a purpose. (Romans 8:28)