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.:(