Terri Schiavo: Please explain something to me...

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by thepoetinmyhear

Only because they originally raised a legitimate question as to his motives. If it were shown that he was unfit to be her gaurdian then the power to decide as it were would have moved to the parents.

Okay, I see. I guess I didn't consider that the court could decide that he was unfit to be her guardian, and then his words would no longer matter. I don't know why that didn't occur to me.

[thepoetinmyhear]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Okay, I see. I guess I didn't consider that the court could decide that he was unfit to be her guardian, and then his words would no longer matter. I don't know why that didn't occur to me.

Actually this is the typical venue when parents and spouses disagree and there is no living will. Insurance policies with big payoffs are usually cited as the reason either the parent or spouse is in favor of pulling the plug (not to imply that these cases are common, they aren't and certainly none have appeals and moved up and down the courts as much as this one has). Many people, however, wouldn't think of this because they either have living wills or have discussed the issues with both parents and spouse or the parents and spouse know the person well enough to agree on what the person would want.

[GateandGarden]

Doesn't this say something about his intentions?

From the site Mikki posted:

"Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri's parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer."

Granted, he didn't have the power anyway, but if he were just thinking of himself, wouldn't he have taken the money? Just a thought.

[thepoetinmyhear]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

From the site Mikki posted:

Doesn't this say something about his intentions?

"Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri's parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer."

Granted, he didn't have the power anyway, but if he were just thinking of himself, wouldn't have take the money? Just a thought.

Absolutely. This is far more money being thrown around than originally was awarded to the Schiavos in the malpractice suit. The second offer, incidentally was confirmed by Florida radio station so take that with as much salt as you feel is necessary.

[skcin]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Whether you or I think her quality of life is good or bad is not the point. Whether she is happy to see her mom wal;k in the room is not the point. Whether she tries to raise her arm to wave is not the point. She did want want to live this way!

Good point. I guess it would be easier for me to accept if she wrote something down. I personally wouldn't want to live like that either, but I don't know if I'd want to starve to death to end my suffereing. I'll have to think about it & write it down!

[heyjupiter678]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...21.html?sub=AR

For Bush, High Drama and Mixed Reviews

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, March 21, 2005; 12:50 PM


It's unanimous here in Washington: We've just witnessed some great political theater. It doesn't get much better than the president rushing home from his beloved ranch to sign emergency, life-or-death legislation passed by Congress in the middle of the night.

But there is no such unanimity when it comes to speculation over what President Bush's primary motivation was for making such a dramatic move. And the long-term impact of his decision on voters -- and the country -- is still anyone's guess.

David Gregory reported on the NBC Nightly News that Bush's surprise return to the White House is "being seen as either an attempt to defend innocent life or a crass act of political theater. . . .

"To be sure, the Schiavo case has become a core right-to-life issue for political conservatives, Bush's political base," Gregory said, but "aides deny a political motive on the president's part, saying as long as there is a dispute about Terry Schiavo's intent -- whether she wants to live or die -- every effort must be made to protect her."

And while the issue has indeed inflamed the social conservative leadership, there are early signs that Bush's endorsement of federal intervention in the case could prove deeply unpopular with the general public -- and might even backfire.

Gary Langer reports for ABC News on a new ABC News poll which shows: "Americans broadly and strongly disapprove of federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, with sizable majorities saying Congress is overstepping its bounds for political gain. . . .

"That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more -- 70 percent -- call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.

"This ABC News poll also finds that the Schiavo case has prompted an enormous level of personal discussion: Half of Americans say that as a direct result of hearing about this case, they've spoken with friends or family members about what they'd want done if they were in a similar condition. Nearly eight in 10 would not want to be kept alive."

[ . . . ]

Bush's Past on Life and Death

So how will Bush's past actions hold up as the press inevitably looks back to see how he's reacted in previous life-or-death matters?

Bush has been a fervent supporter of the death penalty. And as Alan Berlow wrote in the Atlantic in 2003, an examination of clemency memos written by then-Gov. Bush's then-legal counsel Alberto Gonzales "suggests that Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute."

McClellan was asked about the death penalty parallel during yesterday's gaggle on Air Force One.

"Q Can you talk to me -- again, this comes up. Can you explain the difference between this case and the President's support of the death penalty? I mean, I know this comes up in other culture of life issues, but can you explain the difference here?

"MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I can tell you why the President supports the death penalty, he's made that clear before. That the President believes it's a deterrent that helps save lives, and that's why he supports the death penalty.

"Q But isn't that inconsistent with what he's doing today?

"MR. McCLELLAN: The reason he supports the death penalty is because it helps -- he believes that it helps save lives, and he's stated that view clearly and consistently over a number of years."


Bush's Texas Life-Support Law

And in what many liberal bloggers are calling an example of outright hypocrisy, Bush signed a Texas law in 1999 that created a legal mechanism to allow attending physicians and hospital ethics boards to pull the plug on patients -- even if that specifically contradicts patient or family wishes.

As it happens, a major test case for that law was resolved just last week -- with a baby's death.

Leigh Hopper writes in the Houston Chronicle: "The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.

"Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a chronic vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now. . . .

"Texas law allows hospitals [to] discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree."

"Where, I would ask, is the outrage?" blogger Mark A.R. Kleiman wrote in a post that went careening around the blogosphere yesterday.

Later, blogger Digby wrote: "By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. . . .

"Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on Medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country. . . .

"Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is 'stepping in to save Terry Schiavo' mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain."

----------

[gldstwmn]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/stein...s-stein21.html
He's baaaack . . .

If you don't see the connection between the pro-life movement and the Schiavo case, the anti-abortion pros certainly do. The spokesman for Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, is no other than notorious anti-abortion nut job Randall Terry.

http://www.livingston.net/wilkyjr/link24.htm

The Anti-Abortion Movement

One of the tendons that helps bind the religious element with the far right is the abortion issue. White supremacists often fear that abortion among Aryans is a cause for the dwindling majority of whites seen in the nation. Amidst the violent part of the anti-abortion crowd are often found cross sections of the most extreme right in the nation.

Author Frederick Clarkson reported that as recently as February 2001, at the presidential inauguration, a White Rose Banquet was held at the capitol. At the banquet, aid was raised for the 14 anti-abortionists currently serving a total of 200 years in prisons for vandalism, arson and murder. Rev. Michael Bray was a host for the event and has written a book that justifies the murder of abortion doctors, a position not foreign to many spokesmen in these elements. Paul Hill’s letter was read to the crowd two years ago at the same meeting. Hill is the man who shot and killed an abortion doctor and is awaiting his execution in prison. The Department of Justice records that these kinds have performed more than a dozen murders, 15 attempted murders, 209 bombings, 72 arsons and 750 death and bomb threats. Clarkson claims that there are even Catholic Priests advocating such violence as justifiable.2 Anti-abortion activist, Randall Terry, has advanced violent proposals as solutions to the issue.

The National Abortion Federation reports a steady ten year increase in violence at abortion clinics. Rev. Matt Trewhella, of the U. S. Taxpayers Party, is quoted in the NAF mail out as saying, "We should be forming militias. This Christmas, I want you to do the most loving thing...buy each of your children a SKS rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition."3

Seldom do Religious Right preachers advocate any form of violence. Their rhetoric might be mixed with extreme statements, but such violence is rare. Others, like Randall Terry, have advocated such positions. Terry does enjoy a following among the more respectable elements of the Religious Right. Terry believes it is a sin for every Christian couple to not have as many children as possible.4 Terry has publicly praised Colorado pastor Pete Peters, who is among the most violent advocates of the movement. Peters prescribes the killing of homosexuals as a splendid Biblical model for today.

Both Terry and Peters adhere to Reconstructionism principles. Gary North, who is one of the leading writers of the Reconstructionst movement in the country said of abortion, "How long do we expect God to withhold His wrath, if by crushing the humanists who promote mass abortion...He might spare the lives of literally millions of innocents?"5

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Michael was on Larry King last night, with his attorney..some pretty tense callers..one asking "How much money does Michael get when Terri dies?"

And the attorney said "Michael gets nothing.."

This is def. a tough case, and it's hard to decide...if she is in this vegetative state, which I believe she is..as do many experts, and the only movements she has are nerves and reflexes...then "starving" her would not bother her, her brain would not be able to communicate that to her, and she would never know it...thus would not be inhumane....according to Michael she is not STARVING in fact.

You have many people who say "Terri Schiavo, however, is not a dying woman.Terri is a healthy woman with a disability." I think that's stretching things a lot..

It's really a tough case to handle, but in actuality it's simple : Michael is her legal guardian, the courts have determined that Terri did not wish to live with a feeding tube sustaining her life, Michael asked the doctors to take it..It's as simple as that legally.

The right wing politicians are eating this up, claiming "Democrats in the House just caused Terri to lose two more meal.." They are making a political issue, for political gain--something they can bring with them to their next election, and claim they tried to save that poor woman's life..it's all about LIFE, although they vote NO to a bill that would spend money on limiting abortions, provide better options and healthcare to pregnant teens and potential ones..

There is no denying Terri is in a PVS, and patients in a PVS have no higher cognitive function and no chance of recovering. Terri's parents lie when they say there are possible new treatments that could help Terri, when Terri's higher brain centers have been replaced by fluid...you cant repair what's not there.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Terri's father also claims that yesterday when he told Terri a judge was going to hear her case, that she smiled...I think these people are living in a fantasy world and need help

Chris

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by heyjupiter678

"MR. McCLELLAN: The reason he supports the death penalty is because it helps -- he believes that it helps save lives, and he's stated that view clearly and consistently over a number of years."

[SuzeQuze]

This is the part of the hypocracy that outrages me the most.

"As it happens, a major test case for that law was resolved just last week -- with a baby's death.

Leigh Hopper writes in the Houston Chronicle: "The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.

"Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. "

This is disgusting and people in other countries must be shaking their heads in disbelief over this. I mean with an infant you just never know, he could have developed, they still weren't sure. This was because the family couldn't pay, how awful.

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

This is the part of the hypocracy that outrages me the most.

"As it happens, a major test case for that law was resolved just last week -- with a baby's death.

Leigh Hopper writes in the Houston Chronicle: "The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.

"Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. "

This is disgusting and people in other countries must be shaking their heads in disbelief over this. I mean with an infant you just never know, he could have developed, they still weren't sure. This was because the family couldn't pay, how awful.

Yes, I think that's a perfect example of Bush's hypocrisy.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Yes, I think that's a perfect example of Bush's hypocrisy.

I hate that man so much. God forgive me.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

Terri's father also claims that yesterday when he told Terri a judge was going to hear her case, that she smiled...I think these people are living in a fantasy world and need help

Chris

I think they're living in a fantasy world because of severe grief. It's a parents' worst nightmare to bury their child. But Terri is not going to recover and her mind is already dead. Hopefully, they'll realize when she passes, that she is at peace.

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by The Tower

A feeding tube for someone who can't swallow is just as much life support as a ventilator is for someone who can't breathe on their own power. Ventilators are shut down on people all the time- why is the feeding tube any different? All this publicity would never occur if the situation were mirrored with the person being on a ventilator for life support. It wouldn't even make the local paper.

I think a ventilator is different than a feeding tube. Ventilators are much more invasive of a procedure than a feeding tube.