| |
|
#286
03-27-2005, 07:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
 And my grandmother said the same thing your mom did  I know I would NOT want to be kept alive that way....of course the one consolation is that hopefully she is really not aware what is going on ya know? I think technically she died 15 years ago....so hopefully these past 15 years haven't been total hell on Earth for her....
|
|
#287
03-27-2005, 09:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
http://www.timesleader.com/mld/times...n/11245844.htm
Death from dehydration a gentle process, scientists say BY STACEY BURLING AND MICHAEL VITEZ Knight Ridder Newspapers PHILADELPHIA - (KRT) - Terri Schiavo is dying now as many aged and sick people have for eons. Though some people see letting her die of dehydration as inhumane, doctors say it is a surprisingly gentle process. "Nature has given us a wonderfully peaceful way to exit this life," said Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire. "The dominant way that mammals die is that, at some point, they lose interest or the ability to eat or drink. The physiology and experience of people who are unable or refuse to eat or drink after progressive or advanced illness is one that is very gentle and very comfortable." John Hansen-Flaschen, chief of pulmonary, allergy and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, made a similar point, saying, "This is the way many, many people died over all of the millenniums until medicine got so actively engaged in the process." Courts have ruled that Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state. By definition, she has no awareness of herself or her environment and no ability to experience pleasure, pain or, for that matter, thirst, Hansen-Flaschen said. Paul Marik, director of the division of pulmonary and critical care at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, said Schiavo may react reflexively to pain, but only the most primitive part of her brain, the brain stem, is working. The higher parts of her brain are incapable of perceiving that pain. "Pain is a conscious interpretation of what's happening," he said. "If you can't interact with the environment, if you're not awake and you're not conscious, you can't perceive pain." Schiavo, who began her ninth day without nutrition or water Sunday afternoon, will die of dehydration, not starvation, the doctors said. It will cause her kidneys to fail. Toxins will build up in her blood, eventually causing her heart to stop beating. Dehydrated patients gradually weaken, drift into a coma, and appear to die painlessly, Marik said. "It's a very painless and very compassionate way of dying," he said. Even a normal, healthy person would feel little discomfort after the first few days of thirst, the doctors said. Caregivers typically moisten the mouths of patients who have stopped eating and drinking, Byock said. Many, Hansen-Flaschen said, also give morphine, more to relieve the worries of relatives than to lessen pain. ---
__________________
-Mikki 3317
|
|
#288
03-29-2005, 11:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I thought this was interesting - I think it is RANK hypocrisy for the far right and others to call this judicial activism when all Judge Greer did was apply the law
  washingtonpost.com It's The Law, Not the Judge But These Days the Bench Is the Hot Seat By Jeffrey Rosen Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page B01 The response to the rulings in Terri Schiavo's case, following close after the murder of a state judge in Atlanta and a federal judge's family in Chicago, has put not only judicial opinions but judges themselves suddenly under the spotlight. The U.S. Marshals Service reports a "dramatic increase" in threats against federal judicial officials in recent years. And political attacks on judges seem to grow ever more vitriolic. The title of a best-selling new book makes its unsubtle point: "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America." Judges today are being catapulted into public view as personalities who seem fair game for attack rather than as anonymous oracles of the law. Part of the reason for this is the legalization of politics: Both liberals and conservatives are increasingly asking judges to decide issues -- from the right to die to presidential elections -- that politics are unable to resolve. As a result, when politicians and disappointed litigants don't like the result of a judicial decision, they feel emboldened to demand a new judge rather than accepting their defeat with good grace. This new personalization of the judiciary poses grave threats to the idea of judicial independence, which judges should try to resist by avoiding the spotlight rather than courting it. The Schiavo case is the most dramatic illustration of this trend in which politicians try to cherry-pick judges who agree with them and attack those who do not. Judge George W. Greer, the circuit court judge who presided over the case in Pinellas County, Fla., has been vilified throughout the ordeal: Opponents picketed him, bombarded him with harassing letters and e-mails, and threatened to impeach or even kill him. The response of Congress and the president to his ruling was unprecedented: They attempted to select a judge more to their liking by passing a law directing federal courts to ignore Greer's findings and to reexamine the case. But two federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same legal conclusions as Greer. That suggests the law is clear. But what did the disappointed petitioners do? They denounced the judiciary in general: "The judges are running this country," Schiavo's father, Robert Schindler, said Thursday afternoon outside the hospice where his daughter has received much of her care since she collapsed in 1990. Congress has contributed mightily to this poisonous atmosphere. Both parties are responsible for the escalating warfare over judicial nominations, which is now on the verge of blowing up the Senate, as Republicans prepare to eliminate the filibuster and Democrats prepare to retaliate by bringing other Senate business to a halt. This self-destruction would cap a decade of attacks on judges by both parties. In 2003, for example, Congress passed a law requiring that every time a federal judge reduces a sentence, the judge's name should be reported to Congress. "The game is over for judges," announced Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). There have been at least nine periods in American history when Congress has tried to curb judicial independence, beginning with the Jeffersonian Republicans' attacks on the Marshall court. What makes the current wave of judge-bashing unusual is that virulently personal attacks now come from both sides of the political spectrum. Liberals routinely denounce such Supreme Court justices as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as partisan conspirators, and they publish books with titles like "Right Wing Justice: The Conservative Campaign to Take Over the Courts." And conservatives respond in kind. "Some justices have been senile, racist, and crooked," Mark Levin, author of the conservative "Men in Black," told the National Review Online. According to Levin, "de facto judicial tyranny" today "frustrates and disenfranchises the American people and thwarts representative government." In addition to its intemperance, the accusation that judges are anti-democratic elitists is also flatly wrong. As Mark Tushnet of Georgetown University Law Center argues in a less popular but far more convincing new book, "A Court Divided," the Rehnquist court has actually supported the views of a narrow majority of the American people, rather than thwarting them, in all the most controversial cases of the culture wars, involving affirmative action, gay rights and access to early-term abortions. In the Schiavo case, too, polls show that a majority of Americans agreed with the federal judge's decision not to reinsert the feeding tube and strongly disagreed with Congress's effort to interfere in the legal battles. What can explain the odd gap between the political attacks on judges as tyrannical activists and the reality that, in most cases, for better or worse, they reflect the constitutional views of national majorities? The most obvious culprit: interest groups. Although judicial nominations are not a salient political issue for most of the country, they matter intensely to groups on the extreme left and right, who want to use the courts to achieve results they are unable to win at the ballot box. But there may be a political price to this pandering: President Bush and congressional Republicans have been placating their religious and social conservative base while alienating the rest of the country. What's more, judge bashing by the president and Congress creates an atmosphere of disrespect that encourages citizens to personalize the judiciary as well. In this more polarized, less hierarchical age, more people are proving unwilling to accept judicial decisions with which they disagree: If Congress can demand a new judge when it doesn't like the result of a case, why shouldn't a disappointed litigant, as well? Journalists contribute to this personalization by emphasizing in stories about the courts, the political affiliation of federal judges and the presidents who appointed them. And even juries have succumbed to the pressures for personalization. Until the 1960s, jurors generally refused to talk to the press, reflecting the widespread convention that justice is blind; today, in high-profile trials, they have their own booking agents pitching them for the morning talk shows within moments after a verdict. But judges are not entirely powerless in the face of these relentless cultural and political forces. Their most effective defense is to follow the law as scrupulously as possible and not to be rattled by political pressures. "All the judges have banded together to support Judge Greer," Schiavo's father lamented. It's important, too, for judges not to be rattled by political attacks into grandiose assertions of judicial supremacy. When the Rehnquist Court, in reaffirming Roe v. Wade in 1992 and the case requiring cops to give Miranda warnings in 2000, asserted that it alone was entitled to interpret the Constitution, it exaggerated its own political importance in a way that invited further congressional attacks. Finally, to the greatest degree possible, judges should try to avoid the spotlight. In the 19th and 20th centuries, there were no judicial memoirs, in the modern sense. The first justice to present himself as a celebrity was William O. Douglas, who published a largely fictionalized account of his Pacific Northwest boyhood in 1974. But Douglas's unfortunate example may have been a harbinger of things to come. Not long ago, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor appeared on the morning talk shows to promote her own autobiography of her Western girlhood. And Clarence Thomas recently sold a memoir for $1.5 million. A better approach is that of William Rehnquist, who told C-SPAN that he always admired Robert E. Lee's refusal to write a memoir; the chief justice didn't think it appropriate for judges to reveal their personalities in public. Unlike some of his colleagues, Rehnquist understands that ill-advised exercises in self-revelation only encourage citizens and politicians to respond to judges in personal terms. At the vmoment, the judiciary is the last branch of American government that has largely resisted the strong public pressures on officials to bare their emotions and personalities in public. And in our violently polarized age of celebrity, judges will encourage the personalization of justice at their own peril. Jeffrey Rosen is a law professor at George Washington University and legal affairs editor of the New Republic. His latest book is "The Naked Crowd" (Random House). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle
__________________
 save the cheerleader - save the world
|
|
#289
03-30-2005, 12:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Federal Appeals Court grants additional review to Schiavo's parents:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/
__________________
~Heather~ Well, someday when we're older And my hair is silver gray Unbraid with all of the love that you have Like a soft, silver chain . . .
|
|
#290
03-30-2005, 01:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#291
03-30-2005, 01:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think experts have concluded that even in the tube is reinserted now, the damage is irreversible at this point. But, stranger things have happened in this case - I mean she has lived an extraordinary amount of time so far. It just hurts me to think that this poor woman could be in pain from the method of euthanizing her. I respect the court's holding, but just hate hate hate the method - I think it is barbaric. I think they should have given her a lethal injection instead of starving her. This whole thing just is horrible.
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world
|
|
#292
03-30-2005, 01:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Also, there is an old, old, old saying in law that goes "why else would they take it if they did not want to grant the request?" So, we shall see - in my experience, this saying rings true often. Interestingly, the court did not order the tube reinserted and this poor woman could be dead at any given minute. This makes me wonder if this is not some kind of political play - something to the effect of the 11th Cir. issues its ruling overturning the trial court just as she dies, thus vindicating the pro lifers.
Also, Heather - how did they get back into the 11th Cir. The Court has already refused to hear this. I thought when the Court refuses cert. (or whatever it was in this case) from the 11th Cir.'s ruling, all lower courts have no jurisdiction, much less the jurisdiction to hear the same case en banc Maybe this Emergency Motion is a sep. civil action? I need to haul out that Fed. Rules of Civil. Pro. 
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world
|
|
#293
03-30-2005, 01:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well, here is the answer to my question!!!!!
From the NY Times (emphasis supplied) March 30, 2005 Appeals Court Grants Additional Review in the Schiavo Case By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 1:40 a.m. ET ATLANTA (AP) -- A federal appeals court early Wednesday agreed to consider a petition by Terri Schiavo's parents for a new hearing on whether to reconnect their severely brain-damaged daughter's feeding tube. The ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came on Schiavo's 12th day without nourishment. The Schindlers had argued that the District Court ``committed plain error when it reviewed only the state court case and outcome history.'' Now, the court is considering the request for a new trial rather than whether the state court rulings have met legal standards under Florida law, which is what federal courts have done in the case up to now. Earlier Tuesday, Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler, described his daughter as ``failing'' following his visit Tuesday. ``She still looks pretty darn good under the circumstances,'' Schindler said. ``You can see the impact of no food and water for 12 days. Her bodily functions are still working. We still have her.'' Schiavo's parents have maintained that their daughter would want to be kept alive. Schiavo's husband, Michael, insists he is carrying out her wishes by having the feeding tube pulled. Federal courts were given jurisdiction to review Schiavo's case after Republicans in Congress pushed through unprecedented emergency legislation over the weekend aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life. But federal courts at two levels rebuffed the family. _______________________________________________________________ Interestingly, what is the basis for a new trial. There are usually two: 1. The trial court erred - which here appears to already have been decided that it did not - thus they cannot raise that one or 2. New Evidence - the only thing here is the attorney's utterly meritless statement that this poor woman grunted something like "I Want" which I thing she (the attorney) should be disbarred for because it clearly is a lie - at least to me.
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world Last edited by strandinthewind; 03-30-2005 at 01:59 AM..
|
|
#294
03-30-2005, 03:14 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Last edited by gldstwmn; 03-30-2005 at 03:17 AM..
|
|
#295
03-30-2005, 11:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 expressing that she is experiencing it.I saw an interview with Phelps last night and the interesting thing about him and his ilk is that they talk a great game of "we do not know Mrs. Schiavo's wishes" but even if this poor woman had written down her desire to have the tube removed, they would still be against it and do everything to stop it. Thus, the crux of my issue with this case - they are full of crap for suggesting that they would respect anyone's wishes not to choose life in this instance. For me, it all comes down to this, the Florida legislature, which is hardly a liberal body, set forth the method for determining the intent of a person like this when there is no formal document expressing their desire. Due in part to the sanctity of marriage, the law vests the right in the spouse to make the call and sets forth the type of evidence it can consider. The Judge (a staunch R and Baptist who has been thrown out of his church over this mind you ) followed the law in this case. So, there is no evidence of any judicial activism at all despite the impassioned but unfounded cries of it. The judge's decision, which includes the finding of no bad intent on behalf of Mr. Schiavo, has been upheld by every court in the land that could possibly review it. So, I think the proper course is to respect the husband's desire as much as it grates on my that this poor woman is starving to death as we speak. It really is no one's business once the court ruled and the appeals were exhausted. But, the politicians cannot let it go. They are milking this publicity cow for all it is worth. That is just sick.
__________________
save the cheerleader - save the world Last edited by strandinthewind; 03-30-2005 at 11:12 AM..
|
|
#296
03-30-2005, 11:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It's called comfort measures. It is done for all hospice patients. Morphine is NOT given to kill a patient. It is NOT given to speed up the dying process. It is NOT given for ****s and giggles. I got reallllllllllly angry when the father said they were trying to kill her. REALLY PISSED. As a nurse, myself, it really hurt my feelings to think that people are fast at making assumptions before educating themselves on the subject at hand. Morphine is given because we do not want the patient to be in pain. Are they experiencing it? Possible. Can they voice that they are? Not often. We as nurses want to make the dying process as painless as possible....brain dead or not.
__________________
Curtis
|
|
#297
03-30-2005, 11:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
If that would have been...
someone in my family I would kindly let 'em slip from this life and let 'em know I will see someday on the otherside of this existence...I already know 2 people who are awaiting me someday
__________________
"To acknowledge death is to accept freedom and responsibility."
|
|
#298
03-30-2005, 11:38 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Rick Santorum was on CNN last night and Aaron Brown cornered him on his comment that all the courts were wrong. Santorum puffed up his chest and decried the Florida and 11th Circuit decisions but got completely tongue tied when asked about the Supreme Court. It was rather amusing to watch him squirm.
|
|
#299
03-30-2005, 11:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
~Heather~ Well, someday when we're older And my hair is silver gray Unbraid with all of the love that you have Like a soft, silver chain . . .
|
|
#300
03-30-2005, 11:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
~Heather~ Well, someday when we're older And my hair is silver gray Unbraid with all of the love that you have Like a soft, silver chain . . .
|
 |
|
|
$3.40
Blues: The British Connection Bob Brunning PB Alexis Korner Mayall Groundhogs
$59.99
$5.40
Bob Brunning Sound Trackers Music Series Hardcover 6 Book Lot Pop, Metal, Reggae
$59.99
BLUES: THE BRITISH CONNECTION By Bob Brunning *Excellent Condition*
$63.95
Linear Mode
