Bush signed it.

[radek2166]

Bush Signs Bill That May Let Schiavo Live

28 minutes ago Politics - U. S. Congress


By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) signed emergency legislation sent to him by Congress early Monday to allow Terri Schiavo's parents to ask a federal judge to prolong their daughter's life, capping days of emotional debate over who should decide life and death.




"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life," Bush said in a statement after signing the bill.


After flying back to Washington from his Texas ranch, Bush had waited at the White House to sign the measure permitting a federal review of the case, which could trigger the reinsertion of feeding tubes needed to keep the brain-damaged Florida woman alive.


The House passed the bill on a 203-58 vote early Monday after calling lawmakers back for an emergency Sunday session for debate that stretched past midnight.


The measured was backed by 156 Republicans to 5 who voted against it and 71 who did not vote; 47 Democrats voted in favor, 53 against and 102 did not vote. The lone independent in the 435 member house did not vote.


The Senate approved the bill Sunday by voice vote.


Republican supporters said the "Palm Sunday Compromise" seeks to protect the constitutional rights of a disabled person and rejected suggestions that political motives lay behind the last-minute maneuver.


"When a person's intentions regarding whether to receive lifesaving treatment are unclear, the responsibility of a compassionate nation is to affirm that person's right to life," said House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. "In our deeds and public actions, we must build a culture of life that welcomes and defends all human life."


Many Democrats who opposed the bill said the congressional vote placed lawmakers in the middle of issues best left to state courts and family members.


"Today, congressional leaders are trying to appoint Congress as a judge and jury," said Rep. Jim Davis (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla. "If we do not draw the line in the sand today, there is no limit to what democratic principles this Congress will ignore or what liberties they may trample on next."


House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. and others rejected the description of the brain-damaged woman as persisting in a "vegetative" state.


"She laughs, she cries and she smiles with those around her. She is aware of her surroundings and is responsive to them," he said. "This is a woman who deserves a chance at life and not a death sentence of starvation and dehydration."


Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., rejected the notion that elected lawmakers could accurately diagnose her condition.


"The caption tonight ought to be: We're not doctors, we just play them on C-SPAN," he said.


House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said the federal district court in Florida, which is open 24 hours a day, had already been informed that a petition would be filed as soon as the president signs the measure — with the presumption a judge will order that the tube be replaced.


"Time is not on Terri Schiavo's side," DeLay said. "The few remaining objecting House Democrats have so far cost Mrs. Schiavo two meals already today."


Even though the legislation paved an avenue for federal jurisdiction in the legal case, there was no way to determine in advance how or when a judge would rule — or even which judge would be assigned the case by lottery.





Lawmakers who left Washington on Friday for the two-week Easter recess had to make abrupt changes in plans, backtracking for a dramatic and politically contentious vote.

In a special session Sunday afternoon, Democrats refused to allow the bill to be passed without a roll call vote.

That meant a vote could not occur before 12:01 a.m. Monday — the start of a new legislative day. Still, the measure was handled on an expedited calendar that required a two-thirds majority to pass.

The House has 232 Republicans, 202 Democrats and one independent.

The legislation would give Schiavo's parents the right to file suit in federal court over the withdrawal of food and medical treatment needed to sustain the life of their daughter.

It says the court, after determining the merits of the suit, "shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights" of the woman. Injunctive relief in this case could mean the reinserting of feeding tubes.

"It gives Terri Schiavo another chance," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said after the late-afternoon voice vote in a near-empty Senate chamber. "It guarantees a process to help Terri, but does not guarantee a particular outcome."

Frist also noted that the bill, responding to some Democratic objections, does not affect state assisted suicide laws or serve as a precedent for future legislation.

A Senate bill passed by the House is returned to the Senate enrollment clerk's office where it is printed on parchment and, when speed is important, driven immediately to the White House by Senate personnel. There, the White House clerk takes custody of the legislation and prepares it for the president to sign into law.

The White House made arrangements for Bush to sign the measure at any hour, although without fanfare.

The Democratic whip, Rep. Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., said his office was telling members to vote their conscience on the issue and there was considerable Democratic support for the bill.

Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. Her feeding tubes were removed Friday afternoon at the request of her husband, who says that his wife expressed to him before she fell ill that she did not want to be kept alive under such circumstances.

House and Senate committees at the end of the week issued subpoenas seeking to force the continuation of treatment, but that move was rejected by a Florida court.

Schiavo could linger for one or two weeks if the tube is not reinserted, as has happened twice before.

Republicans distanced themselves from a memo suggesting GOP lawmakers could use the case to appeal to Christian conservative voters and to force Democrats into a difficult vote. DeLay said he and other GOP leaders hadn't seen the memo and that he would fire any staffer who wrote such a document.

[Cyrus]

Life of fetus --> worth preserving
Life of person in vegetable condition --> worth preserving
Life of human beings in Iraq & elsewhere --> worthless
Life of human beings on death row --> worthless

Somehow, in the conservative mind, all that is derived out of the Good Book.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Life of fetus --> worth preserving
Life of person in vegetable condition --> worth preserving
Life of human beings in Iraq & elsewhere --> worthless
Life of human beings on death row --> worthless

[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam wasn't killing Iraqis anyway? And lots of 'em, too? So the Iraq part of your line is dishonest, for to be fair you must weigh BOTH ways in which Iraqi lives would have been lost. Therefore you can't just fault the US for lack of concern over Iraqi lives. Hell, I'd be more inclined to say that we would have evinced a lack of concern over Iraqi lives if we hadn't deposed Saddam. But again, both scenarios must be weighed.

The US is also building democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq--a HUGE victory for human rights and for "the lives" of people in Iraq and elsewhere.

As for Terry Schiavo, her condition is at least somewhat debatable (as far as I, or you, know anyway). She might NOT be a complete vegetable.

[ QUOTE ]
Somehow, in the conservative mind, all that is derived out of the Good Book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, a statement both overly cynical and intellectually dishonest. You know good and well that not all conservatives derive their philosophies from religion, and you know that not all the things you listed above do all Christians favor.

You're no dummy, Cyrus. Therefore no matter which side of an issue you take, you really ought to have more respect for proper intellectual etiquette (in other words, don't overstretch your analogies, simplifications, or groupings).

[QuadsOverQuads]

Here's a fun one for followers of the Schiavo case:

Do a Google search on "Texas Futile Care Law".

This is a law which George W. Bush signed, as governor of Texas, which allows hospitals to withdraw life support from terminally ill patients -- against the wishes of the family -- once the family runs out of money and the hospital declares that there is "no hope" of revival.

It's being used as we speak (the Texas courts just balked and issued a temporary injunction to prevent a Texas hospital from using this law to turn off the respirator of a 68-year-old man -- you know, that thing that keeps him alive -- against his family's wishes, because the family had simply run out of money).

Such is the great "reverence for life" that Mr. Bush brings to the Oval Office.

Fortunately, however, our joke of a media can be counted on to completely ignore Mr. Bush's blatant hypocrisy and crass political opportunism, as it pretty much always does.

Hail to the Chief, rah rah rah, etc.


q/q

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold it. What's Saddam got to do with it?? I posit a bunch of relations and you immediately start waffling. Each of the following propositions should be assessed. I say they're all true -- for the conservative mind. If you say different, explain why.

Life of fetus --> worth preserving
Life of person in vegetable condition --> worth preserving
Life of human beings in Iraq & elsewhere --> worthless
Life of human beings on death row --> worthless

[ QUOTE ]
As for Terry Schiavo, her condition is at least somewhat debatable. She might NOT be a complete vegetable.

[/ QUOTE ]

(The only issue of the four that you cared to address.)

I'm not in favor of being cavalier with human life at all! On the contrary, I'm in favor of the most extreme prudence. But this has been in the courts for some years now. Where else should such a case be decided? Not in the courts? In church perhaps? Or by some plebiscite?

What's the President and Congress got to do with this? Where will the meddling in personal affairs of citizens of the executive and the lelgislative branch stop? Why do you think that this does not create a dangerous precedent? Surely you cannot believe that pangs of conscience overwhelmend the Congress - or Dubya - and forced their hand.

And when was the last time that the GOP-ruled Congress and the GOP's President rushed to legislate, and to spend the better part of the night legislating, to save one human being's life? Not in matters of death row convicts or bombing runs in foreign countries, that's for sure.

My set of relations stands.

[zaxx19]

Life of human beings on death row --> worthless

Hmm I think we have finally come to a point we agree on...

Lets take the child rapist/murderer recently arrested in Fla.

I admit to not caring one Iota for his life...while deeply caring for the life of Iraqi Kurds, Shiaa, women, non-elite Sunni, Christians, all of whom seem to be better off after the removal of Saddam..hey thats only like 96% of the population though so you got a point.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Life of fetus --> worth preserving
Life of person in vegetable condition --> worth preserving
Life of human beings in Iraq & elsewhere --> worthless
Life of human beings on death row --> worthless

Somehow, in the conservative mind, all that is derived out of the Good Book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet more ignorant drivel from a wacky neocommie.

This would be more like it.

Life of fetus --> worth preserving
Life of person in vegetable condition --> worth preserving
Life of human beings in Iraq & elsewhere --> worth preserving
Life of human beings on death row --> worth punishing

If you are so stupid as to think that human beings in Iraq and elsewhere are "worthless" to Conservatives you are even more ignorant than Dead. I simply cannot see how you think Conservatives feel lives in Iraq and elsewhere are worthless. That's probably because its what the liberals think of the blacks and the other minorities and the elderly. Worthless, except for the vote. The only frightening thing is that there is more evidence to support my wacked out suggestion than yours. You troll.

[jaxmike]

you don't know what words mean do you?

the two things you are talking about are unrelated. do you see why?

[jaxmike]

I think you can sum up the arguments like this. (as a generalization, i think this is more than fair)

Conservatives are in favor of executing guilty criminals.
Liberals are in favor of executing innocent children.

[Utah]

This is a tricky case. However, I dont really see alterior motives in this, although I could be wrong. Conservatives have been furious of this specific case for quite some time and I remember reading articles about it last year. I didnt see a single article that tried to tie this into a bigger agenda.

I have a lot of trouble with the legislature passing quick laws like this because it inevitably leads to bad laws. However, it is in the realm of the legislature to do so as long as the laws are constitutional. There is a strong check and balance on such activities as the voters are elected officals.

Did you not find this case troubling before the congressional action, even if you did not think action was warranted?

[zaxx19]

Im a conservative...and pretty ambivalent about it actually.

Really just a case in point on why a binding living will should be MANDATORY for obtaining or renewing a drivers liscense....simple as the organ donor program enrollment.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]



Hold it. What's Saddam got to do with it??

[/ QUOTE ]

You claimed lack of concern about lives in Iraq, so I am pointing out that choosing the option of not invading Iraq might have suggested equal (or perhaps more) unconcern about lives, due to the nature and acts of Saddam's bloody and brutal regime.

[ QUOTE ]
I posit a bunch of relations and you immediately start waffling. Each of the following propositions should be assessed. I say they're all true -- for the conservative mind. If you say different, explain why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vast overgeneralization. Some conservatives may hold only hold some, not all, of the views you listed.

Life of fetus --> worth preserving
Life of person in vegetable condition --> worth preserving
Life of human beings in Iraq & elsewhere --> worthless
Life of human beings on death row --> worthless

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
As for Terry Schiavo, her condition is at least somewhat debatable. She might NOT be a complete vegetable.



(The only issue of the four that you cared to address.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I adressed the claim over concern for Iraqi and other overseas lives above.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not in favor of being cavalier with human life at all! On the contrary, I'm in favor of the most extreme prudence. But this (Schiavo case) has been in the courts for some years now. Where else should such a case be decided? Not in the courts? In church perhaps? Or by some plebiscite?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not 100% convinced she is a complete vegetable and I'd be surprised if you are so convinced. That is the problem I have with that line of yours above.

You painted all conservatives with the same brush, then went on to claim they all derived the listed views from the Bble. Very sweeping and very inaccurate.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Life of human beings in Iraq & elsewhere --> worthless

[/ QUOTE ]

If conservatives believed this, the iraq war would not have started.



[ QUOTE ]
But this has been in the courts for some years now. Where else should such a case be decided? Not in the courts? In church perhaps? Or by some plebiscite? What's
the President and Congress got to do with this? Where will the meddling in personal affairs of citizens of the executive and the lelgislative branch stop? Why do you think that this does not create a dangerous precedent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
And when was the last time that the GOP-ruled Congress and the GOP's President rushed to legislate, and to spend the better part of the night legislating, to save one human being's life? Not in matters of death row convicts or bombing runs in foreign countries, that's for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, it's really too bad Terri Schaivo wasn't a mass murderer. Maybe then the president could just grant her a pardon.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Forget whether ypu think the Florida judge overstepped his authority.
Forget whether you think she should be euthanized or not.
This bill is a SERIOUS violation of the US Constitution. Specifically it is a MAJOR violation of the state's rights clause of the US Constition. Some so-called conservatives will b*tch about the federal govt overstepping its authority and yet they'll approve of this type of federal intervention. The only authority that could intervene in this case is the state of Florida and NO ONE ELSE. You can't have it both ways. Either support the constitution's limit on federal powers ALL-THE-TIME or don't.

We need 9 Scalia's on the supreme court to stop this madness....

In general, like Bush43's foreign policy but his domestic policy sucks. This bill reminds me of the so called "campaign finance reform" bill which actually a full frontal assault on freedom of political speech....and Bush43 signed that piece-of-****. Then the Supreme Court actually OK'd the bill.

Sometimes I feel I'm living in Bizarro World. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Specifically it is a MAJOR violation of the state's rights clause of the US Constition. Some so-called conservatives will b*tch about the federal govt overstepping its authority and yet they'll approve of this type of federal intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. However, if that is so then a judge will rule as such or the issue will go to the supreme court and the law will be reversed.

To campaign finance bill, didn't scalia side with the majority?

[Felix_Nietsche]

"if that is so then a judge will rule as such or the issue will go to the supreme court and the law will be reversed."
************************************************** ******
This assumes the supreme court will respect the US Constitution.
I'm not that optimistic. Any court that supports retrictions on freedom of speech 90 days before an election can not be trusted.

"To campaign finance bill, didn't scalia side with the majority?"
**************************************
No.....He did not. He called it a sad day for the freedom of speech.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec03/cfr_12-10.html

[Felix_Nietsche]

Scalia also voted with the courts 'liberals' to protect flag burning as a type of political speech. Scalia is an originalists.
He interprets the US Constitution as the authors intended. For example, the death penalty was considered an acceptable punishment 200 years ago and therefore he thinks it is intellectually dishonest to claim that the death penalty is now is 'cruel and unusual' punishment and therefore in unconstitutional.....

http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/index.ssf?050328on_onlineonly01

[Utah]

I think Scalia rocks. However, I was always disappointed that he limited free speech in the campaign finance reform decision. I guess I just had my facts wrong.

The only other thing that I have heard that dissapointed me was that he thought law was derived from God. However, I am not 100% sure he said that.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Forget whether ypu think the Florida judge overstepped his authority.
Forget whether you think she should be euthanized or not.
This bill is a SERIOUS violation of the US Constitution. Specifically it is a MAJOR violation of the state's rights clause of the US Constition. Some so-called conservatives will b*tch about the federal govt overstepping its authority and yet they'll approve of this type of federal intervention. The only authority that could intervene in this case is the state of Florida and NO ONE ELSE. You can't have it both ways. Either support the constitution's limit on federal powers ALL-THE-TIME or don't.

We need 9 Scalia's on the supreme court to stop this madness....

In general, like Bush43's foreign policy but his domestic policy sucks. This bill reminds me of the so called "campaign finance reform" bill which actually a full frontal assault on freedom of political speech....and Bush43 signed that piece-of-****. Then the Supreme Court actually OK'd the bill.

Sometimes I feel I'm living in Bizarro World.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm also appauled

[adios]

An editorial from today's WSJ:


Terri Schiavo and the Law
March 21, 2005; Page A16

If there have been no surprises since the time we went to press last night, today will be Terri Schiavo's fourth day without food or water. By the end of the day, both Houses of Congress are expected to have passed, and President Bush is expected to have signed into law, a bill that will allow a federal court to review her case. The hope is that a federal judge will order that her feeding tube be reinserted.

And then it will be off to the races again as her case works its way through the federal judiciary, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court. In Florida so far, at least 19 judges in six courts have weighed in on Mrs. Schiavo's case since 1990, when she suffered the heart attack that left her severely brain damaged.

Since then her parents have been locked in a highly public legal battle with her husband, Michael, who says that Terri would not have wanted to live in an incapacitated state. Mrs. Schiavo was a practicing Catholic and she left no living will, but a Florida judge years ago agreed with Mr. Schiavo -- a finding of "fact" that has made the subsequent appeals difficult.

Another judge might look differently today on Mr. Schiavo's right-to-die claims given his apparent incentives to be rid of the burden of a severely disabled wife. He lives with a girlfriend, with whom he has children. It was not until 1993, after a medical-malpractice jury awarded him roughly $1 million for Terri's long-term care, that he began to seek his wife's death.

A Florida court has twice before ordered Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube removed -- in 2001 and 2003. Six days after the latter episode, the Florida legislature passed "Terri's Law," which allowed Governor Jeb Bush to intervene. Last year the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Terri's Law was unconstitutional.

We review this history both to show how poorly Florida's legal system has served Mrs. Schiavo, and to explain the reasons that Congress is taking the extraordinary step of intervening in what normally would be considered a matter solely for a state's judicial system. The conservative Republicans leading this effort -- Senators Bill Frist and Rick Santorum, Representative Tom DeLay -- are taking hits for supposedly abandoning their federalist principles.

We'd have more sympathy for this argument if the same liberals who are complaining about the possibility of the federal courts reviewing Mrs. Schiavo's case felt as strongly about restraining the federal judiciary when it comes to abortion, homosexuality, and other social issues they don't want to trust to local communities. In any event, these critics betray their lack of understanding of the meaning of federalism. It is not simply about "states' rights." Conservatives support states' rights in areas that are not delegated to the federal government but they also support federal power in areas that are delegated.

Think of an analogy to the writ of habeas corpus. As John Eastman of the Claremont Institute points out, "We have federal court review of state court judgments all the time in the criminal law context." The bill before Congress essentially treats the Florida judgment as a death sentence, warranting federal habeas review. Mrs. Schiavo is not on life support. The court order to remove the feeding tube is an order to starve her to death. Moreover, Mrs. Schiavo is arguably being deprived of her life without due process of law, a violation of the 14th Amendment that Congress has the power to address.

The "right to die" has become another liberal cause, part of the "privacy" canon that extends through Roe (abortion) and Lawrence (homosexuality) and the Ninth Circuit's views on assisted suicide that the Supreme Court is taking up this year. Of course, it gets a little messy when someone is actually being killed, and a husband with a conflict of interest is the one who claims she wanted to kill herself, but the left apparently believes these are mere details that shouldn't interfere with the broader cause. Thus the discovery of federalism.

Terri Schiavo's case is a tragedy for her and her family. Beyond the immediate question of whether she lives or dies, her case may well have the salutary effect of demonstrating to the elites who want the right to kill oneself embedded into law that there is another side to the debate that is going to be heard.

The idea that the Federal courts never overturn state court rulings is just plain wrong. Witness recent Supreme Court decision on the death penalty for 16 and 17 year olds. From my laymans understanding there seems to be a 14th amendment issue here. Starving a woman to death in the name of supporting the right to die? It could take her weeks to starve to death for crying out loud. Dogs in an animal shelter are treated better than that. Her husband?You mean that guy that's living with another woman and has two children by that woman? C'mon.

[MMMMMM]

Good column I think.

Re your comments:

[ QUOTE ]
Starving a woman to death in the name of supporting the right to die?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we don't have legal euthanasia (as opposed to assisted suicide which might be legal in some places in America?) and I think legal euthanasia would be a horrible thing. Seems they are getting around that somehow, maybe because arguable removing a feeding tube may not technically constitute euthanasia. Still it's pretty damn close.

[ QUOTE ]
It could take her weeks to starve to death for crying out loud. Dogs in an animal shelter are treated better than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point there; a lethal injection would be more humane but then that would seem too much like murder to most people so they can't do that. Yet starving her to death is pretty close anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
Her husband?You mean that guy that's living with another woman and has two children by that woman? C'mon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup he looks pretty bad in this. I wonder if she dies does he get to keep the remainder of the money instead of having to return it? Probably so I would guess.

I think it takes a lot of balls on his part to go against her parents' wishes on this. Does he really think he knows Terri better than they do?

Is Terri in a lot of pain? I doubt it because we haven't heard anything like that. So what's the harm in letting her live, the money is already provided for her care. Does Michael Schiavo just want to keep the money? I don't see why he couldn't just go on with his life even with her living; after all that's pretty much what it seems he's been doing anyway.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not 100% convinced she is a complete vegetable and I'd be surprised if you are so convinced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither am I.

And I already made it very clear that I'm personally in favor of extreme prudence when dealing with human lives. In general, I'm in favor of keeping people alive, rather than the opposite.

Note that the trend in the United States is towards allowing hospitals to make life-or-death decisions on the single basis of a hospital doctor's diagnosis and whether the patient ..had paid his bills! (Viz the Futile Care bill signed into law by Texas Governor Bush.)

I will copy verbatim the opinion of a legal eagle, posted on another website, whose opinion I personally value a lot:

[ QUOTE ]
Her husband specifically denied himself the opportuniy to make this decision, although it was his right as her guardian. He chose instead to defer to the court's decision. [People] allow [their] ignorance on the subject to cause [them] to post such absurd statements as accusing him of trying to have her "executed".
<font color="white"> . </font>
[Congressman] Tom DeLay is trying to substitute his wisdom for that of the legal process. Absent explicit instructions, we should "error on the side of keeping her alive". [But] the matter of her wishes has been decided in the courts. DeLay does not wish to recognize this for the simple reason that it does not agree with his personal view of the universe. There is nothing more to discuss.
<font color="white"> . </font>
No one should be meddling in such things other than the individuals involved.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Americans truly do not understand where their freedom comes from, and more importantly, how easily it can be lost. We must be vigilant when people start trying to mess with our rights.

[/ QUOTE ]


So, yes, I would abide by the courts' decision, if I was sure it was taken with the proper diligence and meticulousness.

My questions, related to the Congress/Bush intervention, have not been answered. It's a pity that so few libertarians have jumped up to protest. No worries, mates...

[MMMMMM]

You seem to put an awful lot of faith in the wisdom of the courts, Cyrus. I don't. Bad court decisions are a dime a dozen nowadays, it seems.

[adios]

An article about the first guardian ad litem.

The Guardian (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/337laakp.asp)

From the time of the ward's accident, the ward's parents have been vitally interested in her welfare . . . After the falling out between the ward's parents and her husband, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler pursued removal litigation in an effort to have Mr. Schiavo removed as their daughter's guardian and to have themselves appointed guardians of her person . . . They have also pursued litigation against him to gain access to medical and financial information concerning the ward which was withheld by the ward's husband, with only partial success. They express extreme frustration with the current situation in which they have virtually no input into the decision making process concerning their own daughter. The ward's parents visit her regularly but at times when they won't have to confront Mr. Schiavo.

Moreover, rather than the Schindlers not being interested in seeing Terri, as was asserted on Larry King, Pearse noted that it was Schiavo who "has isolated the ward from her parents."

*As of April 4, 1998, Terri's trust fund held $713,828.85. "Thus," wrote Pearse, "Mr. Schiavo will realize a substantial and fairly immediate financial gain if his application for withdrawal of life support [tube-supplied food and water] is granted." (Schiavo now claims that there is only $50,000 left in the account, the bulk of the money having gone to pay his attorneys.)

*At the time of the report, only Schiavo claimed that Terri would not wish to be kept alive if severely incapacitated. "However," Pearse opined, "his credibility is necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the ward's sole heir at law in the event of her death while still married to him. Her death also permits him to get on with his own life." (Subsequent to the filing of the report, and perhaps in response to it, Schiavo's brother and sister-in-law came forward to claim Terri made similar statements in their presence. In this regard it is worth noting that no member of Terri's family, or any of her friends, recall her ever making any such statements to them.)

*Pearse concluded, "Given the inherent problems already mentioned, together with the fact that the ward has been maintained the life support measures sought to be withdrawn for the past 8 years, it is the recommendation of the guardian ad litem that the petition for removal be denied."


Judge Removes Professor as Terri Schiavo's Guardian ad Litem (http://www.prisonpotpourri.com/SCHIAVO/Judge%20Removes%20Professor%20as%20Terri%20Schiavo 's%20Guardian%20ad%20Litem.html)

He eventually claimed Terri is in a persistent vegetative state and determined that Terri had no chance of recovery. However, Wolfson also said a swallow test should be administered to determine if Terri could eat and drink on her own if courts overturned Terri's law allow Michael to remove Terri's feeding tube again.

No such test has been given due to Michael Schiavo's opposition to this test. Reports from Terri's parents are that they were stripped searched when visiting their daughter yesterday to make sure that they didn't carry in any food or water for her. I can't fathom what the harm would be in retaining the guardian ad litem.

Also:

George Felos, the assisted suicide advocate who is Michael's attorney, agreed with Demers that Wolfson should be removed. Felos is getting help in the lawsuit from the ACLU.

Of course Michael wanted the guardian ad litem removed.

Unbelievable how this case has gone down.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I dont really see alterior motives in this

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't either. If husband were financially motivated, he would have taken the million dollars offered to let her live (also, my understanding is that the vast majority of the settlement has been spent on medical treatment.) If he wanted to marry his girlfriend he could just get a divorce. The fact that he has a girlfriend (and 2 kids with her) isn't as big of a deal to me as people make it sound. His wife has been in a vegetative state for 15 years. Is it really surprising that at some point during those 15 years he moved on? So the question is, why hasn't he just moved on...why doesn't he just walk away. The ONLY answer that makes any sense to me (I'm willing to hear the counter arguments) is that he truly believes that he is carrying out his wife's intent and to just "give up" that fight would be directly counter to what she would want. This should be a fairly easy case --- I really don't see where her parents have a say in the matter (especially over the say of her husband/guardian.)

[Broken Glass Can]

Good to see you posting, Elwood.

5 posts so far in the month of March - way under quota.

We need you, some of these new liberals don't even try to make reasoned arguments.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
5 posts so far in the month of March - way under quota.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've been really busy and a lot of the discussions haven't been all that interesting to me...

[tolbiny]

"I'm not 100% convinced she is a complete vegetable and I'd be surprised if you are so convinced"

The problem i have is this- multiple courts and court appointed doctors have come to this conclusion. I am not saying we just blindly accept a court's rulings, but passing legislation when they come to a conclusion that is contrary to either1. popular opinion or 2. a majority of senators opinions.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm not 100% convinced she is a complete vegetable and I'd be surprised if you are so convinced"

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Tolbiny,

As I posted before, I haven't beem following the case closely. Since her parents claim she responds to them I find it hard to believe she is a complete vegetable. Perhaps she is incapable of recovery...that I can much more easily believe. We don't have a law that allows us to euthanize the severely retarded or the handicapped, and I think it is a good thing we don't.

Also, there may be a very real distinction between being a complete vegetable and being in a "vegetative state". I don't even know what the term "vegetative state" really means, precisely that is.

To have a firmer view of things I would need access to the medical information myself and even then I'm not sure I could be sure. My best guess is that if someone responds to family then they are not in a *complete* vegetative state.

I don't believe in just taking the court's word for it 100%. Also if I'm not mistaken I think that past decision, which ruled on her state, was quite controversial and has been strongly disputed. Again here I don't have enough information.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in just taking the court's word for it 100%

[/ QUOTE ]

What alternate system of justice do you propose?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course Michael wanted the guardian ad litem removed.

Unbelievable how this case has gone down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unbelievable is right.

Michael Schiavo has long since moved on with his personal life and has another woman and has kids by her. I'd say he has effectively divorced Terri in action and on principle if not on paper. I don't think it is ethically right to have him still considered her primary guardian at this point; rather her parents should be her guardian.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in just taking the court's word for it 100%

[/ QUOTE ]

What alternate system of justice do you propose?

[/ QUOTE ]

Taking his word for it 100%

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't believe in just taking the court's word for it 100%

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

What alternate system of justice do you propose?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no other proposal. I just think people put WAY too much faith in our courts. Also the number of bad court decisions that seem to have been made (in my limited exposure) seems rather high.

Maybe there should be an IQ test for jurors to qualify;-)

Look at the verdict in the OJ trial. I'm sure you would be able to pull a few other boneheaded verdicts out of your reservoir of knowledge if you'd care to.

It's probably the best system there is, but that doesn't mean it always comes up with the most accurate or the most just decision. Hence I think some healthy skepticism is warranted when looking at many court decisions. In particular I think it is an error to take a court verdict as 100% right just because that's what they came up with. Yes, it may be the most likely to be correct in most cases, but that doesn't make it certain, not by a long shot.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at the verdict in the OJ trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad example. I saw most of the evidence in the OJ trial and, while it's clear that OJ did it to the casual observer, the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ did it in a court of law. The jury returned the correct verdict and had I been in the same situation I would have voted "not guilty."

In fact, most of the "bad rulings" people talk about are simply a result of their ignorance to the facts. Ironically, that puts the OJ verdict in the same class as Terri Schiavo after all ;-)

[MMMMMM]

Ok, I agree the OJ case is not the best example. It's just what popped into my head first /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to put an awful lot of faith in the wisdom of the courts. I don't. Bad court decisions are a dime a dozen nowadays, it seems.

[/ QUOTE ]

While not placing such a low value on courts' decisions (was that a fire sale?), I already stated categorically that the utmost prudence should be exercised when dealing witha human life.

Which means judicial prudence, in the Schiavo case, where the woman's husband had full authority as a guardian to order the removal of the tubes without being challenged by anybody. The husband, probably unwilling to take on the burden of a life-or-death decision, chose to put the matter to the courts. And it went the rounds of the courts for 15 years.

Now, I don't have the details of the case, in legal terms, but, faith or no faith inn the court system, this seems a long enough time and prudence for me. And it would have been probably shorter were it not for the woman's parents undestandable challenges to the inevitable. Or the GOP's moral crusade (read : political hackery).

What else is there outside personal choice and the courts - vigilantism?? Or, government interference?

We seem to be getting the latter in the Schiavo case but those otherwise quite vocal supporters of individual freedoms are perversely silent on this one.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree the OJ case is not the best example.

[/ QUOTE ]

To atone, read up some (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440223822/qid=1111555070/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-8994359-4913516).

[ QUOTE ]
It's just what popped into my head first.

[/ QUOTE ]

The junk filter's off for weeks.

[MMMMMM]

Don't you think it a bit peculiar that the one person who stands to benefit from Terri's death is still her guardian? He has divorced her in principle and by action (new GF, kids by her, etc.) if not on paper anyway. I would think her parents should be her guardians at this point. It's not like she is on life support systems. Her parents say now that she is shriveling up she has stopped responding to them during eye contact, whereas she previously did respond.

I think it is sick that Michael Schiavo is still her guardian and I am surprised at the blind acceptance of this status by so many. Conflict of interest = obviously, and many years now living with another woman, new kids by her, etc. = he is no longer married to Terri in his heart. So why is he still her guardian? Something is screwed up here and rotten in Denmark and I'm surprised more people don't see it this way and feel highly suspicious of Mr. Schiavo and his motivations, especially at this late date. Heck he could have obtained a divorce no doubt pretty easily by now...but NO, he'd rather stick around and kill her. No reports of her being in pain before this or being uncomfortable (that I'm aware of), and she makes eye contact with people and responds in some fashion. It's not like she is on a dialysis machine or breathing machine--she just can't take food orally. There are others who can't take food orally, yet there aren't people clamoring for their deaths and demanding they not be given food intravenously. There are also other people of very limited capacity or seriosly brain damaged, yet in this society we don't kill genuine idiots or those who have been left incapacitated by stroke.

Why do so many take Mr. Schiavo's word for it that she would have chosen not to be fed? The guy has had a CLEAR conflict of interest. I thought in this country the right to life (for adults, anyway) actually meant something. But no, they are going to make her starve/die of dehydration. A painful way to go to say the least.

I don't trust Michael Schiavo on this and I am perplexed at why so many seem to. If he didn't want to "take on the burden", he didn't have to put it through the courts; he could have let her parents be her guardians.

As for "individual freedoms"--if Terri had had a living will signifying what Mr. Schiavo claims, then I would agree with you. Instead we have only the testimony of a guy with clear conflicts of interest--as well as the dispute of her parents. (By the way, I'd guess her parents probably know her better than Michael Schiavo does).

Peope trusting Michael Schiavo on this = seems crazy (to me at least). So I don't see how this matter can be framed in terms of protecting Terri's individual rights by killing her.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do so many take Mr. Schiavo's word for it that she would have chosen not to be fed?

[/ QUOTE ]

You go on about the husband's testimony as to the wife's allegedly expressed wishes -- but, to me, this is not the prime consideration. What's central in the case is whether the wife is a living being with conscience and/or hope to get better (someday) or not.

Which is a matter of the courts to decide - after hearing both sides' medical opinion. (I'm sure both sides have presented to the courts credible, albeit contrary, opinions!)

So, once again, if not the courts - who?


[ QUOTE ]
The guy has had a CLEAR conflict of interest. It is sick that Michael Schiavo is still her guardian and I am surprised at the blind acceptance of this status by so many.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the case was first put to the courts, Michael Schiavo had not yet "moved on" (other woman, etc). And, as his wife's legal guardian, he had every right to order unilaterally the removal of the feeding tubes, since there was (according to her doctors) ample medical evidence supporting such a course. No one would have been accused, then, for murder -- neither morally nor legally.

The case, right now, is not between what "the husband wants" and what "her parents want". If it was like that, then you could have a modicum for reasoning the husband out, as potentially having a conflict of interest.

This is about keeping a sick woman, a possibly brain-dead woman, on life support or not. It is a case that should be examined practically irrespective of who brings it forward to the courts.

To put it plainly to you, if a matter of life and death (not some monetary compensation) is put to the court, then the court has the obligation to examine the matter irrespective of any potential ulterior motives that the contesting parties might have (such as wanting to get some insurance money, etc).

--Cyrus

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think it a bit peculiar that the one person who stands to benefit from Terri's death is still her guardian?

[/ QUOTE ]

When is this not the case with a spouse? That argument is specious at best.

I am shocked by how many people take such great offense to the fact that the man has a girlfriend. His wife has been all but dead for 15 years.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do so many take Mr. Schiavo's word for it that she would have chosen not to be fed

[/ QUOTE ]

Because absent evidence otherwise (and theories about him being in it for the money are not evidence), our system should believe that a husband knows better than anyone else the wishes of the wife.

[ QUOTE ]
(By the way, I'd guess her parents probably know her better than Michael Schiavo does).

[/ QUOTE ]

Why on earth would you believe that the parents of an adult child would know their wishes over that of a spouse? That seems like an insane position to me unless you have some evidence that you're holding back on us.

[adios]

Nice post M. Let me add a couple of things.

1. You wrote:
he is no longer married to Terri in his heart. So why is he still her guardian? Something is screwed up here and rotten in Denmark and I'm surprised more people don't see it this way and feel highly suspicious of Mr. Schiavo and his motivations, especially at this late date. Heck he could have obtained a divorce no doubt pretty easily by now...but NO, he'd rather stick around and kill her.

The obvious reason not to divorce her revolves around the issue of community property. She has a trust fund from a malpractice suit regarding her condition. From written reports Michael claims there's only $50,000 left. Terri's first guardian ad litem stated that there was over $700,000 when he filed his report with the court. Michael has claimed that legal fees have eaten up this trust fund. Legal fees that he's allocated to kill her. If that doesn't beat all! The first guardian ad litem recommended that Terri be kept on the feeding tube.

2. You wrote:
No reports of her being in pain before this or being uncomfortable (that I'm aware of), and she makes eye contact with people and responds in some fashion. It's not like she is on a dialysis machine or breathing machine--she just can't take food orally. There are others who can't take food orally, yet there aren't people clamoring for their deaths and demanding they not be given food intravenously.

According to the article I posted yesterday, Terri's second guardian ad litem recommended that Terri be given a test as to whether or not she could eat and drink without the feeding tube. Michael would not agree to this and fought to have Terri's second guardian ad litem reomoved from the case which he was after a Florida law was deemed unconstitutional. Mind you a guardian ad litem for Terri isn't unconstitutional.

So here we have the courts refusing to order recommendations of the two guardian ad litems the Terri's had, the court appointed representitives that are designated to represent her best interests.

3. After winning the malpractice lawsuit Michael has refused to try any sort of therapy for Terri. I'm not familiar with all of the medical testimony in this case but I can surmise that a convincing case has been made (including the second guardian ad litem) that she exists in a permanent vegatative state. However, many have come forward disputing this including a doctor who was nominated for a Nobel prize in medicine in 1999. I think it's fair to say that medical technology has made a lot of advances since Terri won her malpractice suit.

4. Terri's parents claim (I admit they're totally biased) that they were denied access to medical records of Terri's medical records about her condition for a long time. I believe they gained access when they brought this matter before the courts. They claim that police reports and the records point to Micael as a perpetrater of domestic abuse that led to Terri's attack. They claim that when they brought this up to the D.A., the D.A. told them that the statute of limitations had run out on attempted murder. Thus there wouldn't be a criminal investigation. The irony here is that I'm sure her parents will press the D.A.'s office for a murder investigation if and when Terri succumbs.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]


This is about keeping a sick woman, a possibly brain-dead woman, on life support or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, she is definitely NOT brain-dead, as the doctors have said. She is of greatly reduced functionality but she is not even unconscious. She wakes and sleeps. DEFINITELY NOT brain-dead.

She is also not on "life support"--she merely cannot ingest food orally. "Life support" implies breathing apparatus, dialysis, things like that. Many people cannot ingest food orally.

We don't have euthanasia laws in this country (thank goodness). What they are doing is essentially euthanasia (except that starvation/dehydration is a cruel way to die or be killed).

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I am shocked by how many people take such great offense to the fact that the man has a girlfriend. His wife has been all but dead for 15 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't "take offense" to it at all; I just think he is essentially no longer married to her except on paper. He could also easily have a conflict of interest here. So I don't think this spouse necessarily knows best, or necessarily has her best interests at heart. I'm amazed you don't seem to have someserious reservations yourself at least, in this particular instance. Spousal custodial privilege is a generally designed law, and just like clothes, the average size does not fit the exceptional cases. I think the circumstances are exceptional enough that he should not be the de facto default guardian especially 15 years later.

What if he had gotten a divorce--he might almost as well have, right? Would you still think he should be the primary guardian then? Well, the main difference between that and the current situation is merely a scrap of paper as he has long since taken up life with another woman and kids.

At the very least you should suspect a possible conflict of interest (even subconsciously motivated; he might not be acting in her best interest but might not realize that, if so).

[youngin20]

I find that people are making judgements about TRUSTING peoples motives, or BELIEVING certain things, such as the fact that BELIEVING she is in a permanently vegatative state, or not TRUSTING her husband because he obviously has a conflict of interest. I TRUST the 3 of 5 doctors who say she is in a vegatative state. Why? Because I see no alternative recourse. Medical cases are far from cut and dry(especially involving the brain), so all we can do is accept a general consensus. For example, a person close to me has been dealing brain issues for the past few years, lack of cognition, reduced mental stamina and several other problems were the effects. However, doctors quibbled about this for quite some time. BUT, the two doctors who dissent about the fact that she is in a persistent(or in one case permanent vegatative state.) Second, it IS possible for this man to have a terrible conflict of interest in this case. However, it is also possible, and a case can be made, that he simply cares about the shell that used to be his wife. (I say this because people who suffer brain injuries, as anyone with experience knows, are not the same person.) How painful would it be for you to see your significant other, with seemingly no cognative ability to speak of (the balloon and the smiling at the mother were inconsistant results, and deemed by the court NOT to be acts of cognition.) I can understand how this could be a motivating factor, if he felt she would not have wanted to live that way. Essentially, this is WHY we have a court system. To evaluate these facts, and rule on whether a certain action is appropriate. Saying that you lack faith in the court system, is saying that you lack faith in the american government. Also, allowing the executive and legaslative branch to breach the separation of powers is something I find a bit scary. Just because the court system has provided a few "bad decisions" is no reason to lose faith in the system entirely. These decisions are generally based on well thought out analysis, and we have elected these judges to positions of power, because we believe in their analytical ability. I see this as a case of morality replacing political thought. I personally am not a republican nor a democrat, which people may see as me being centrist, and republicans seem me as leftist when i disagree with them, and democrats seem me as conservative when i disagree with them. But I find thatit is really difficult to believe in such partys when they do not adhere to their firmly historically stated beliefs on how government should be organized. For a party that cherishes states rights, this seems to be a massive change in ideology. I would appreciate any answers, one because i find this topic very interesting, and thought provoking, but lets please keep the discourse civil.

[elwoodblues]

I admittedly don't know everything about this particular case (because, I haven't found the minutia of the details very relevant.) For me the relevant facts are:

*Michael Schiavo is Terri's husband
*Absent a living will Husbands are appointed guardians to act out the wishes of their spouse
*Husband claims that wishes of spouse are to be removed from support
*There is no evidence suggesting otherwise (there's a lot of conjecture, but no evidence)

That's it. His potential alterior motives are interesting conjectures, but that is all.


I have yet to hear what he has to gain by having her killed. The money is, apparently, all but gone. The ONLY 2 logical explanations at this point are: 1) he is trying to save face from his initial grab at money, or 2) he is trying to act out the wishes of Terri. We should presume that it is #2 unless #1 can be proven (not just with conjecture.)

[adios]

Michael Schiavo on Nightline (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/print?id=584124)

Transcript: Michael Schiavo on 'Nightline'
Husband at the Heart of the 'Right to Die' Case Speaks to Chris Bury
Mar. 16, 2005 - Michael Schiavo won a series of lengthy court battles for the right to take his severely disabled wife, Terri, off life support, but now faces a new challenge from Florida lawmakers who are seeking to pass a bill that would stop him from doing so.

Terri Schiavo collapsed in 1990 and suffered severe brain damage. She has been kept alive by a feeding tube ever since and has been unable to speak or care for herself. Her parents have insisted she is not in a persistent vegetative state, as doctors appointed by the court have concluded. They also believe she would not have wanted to be allowed to die.

While Michael Schiavo has only rarely spoken to the press, he gave an interview to ABC News' Chris Bury as the bill moves through the state legislature and the day for removing his wife's feeding tube approaches.

The following is a transcript of their conversation.

BURY: Joining us now from Dunedin, Fla., Michael Schiavo and his lawyer George Felos.

Michael, you've had very little to say outside of what's been filed in the legal briefs over the last year or so. Why have you decided to come out tonight and have something to say?

SCHIAVO: The reason why I've been keeping private for the longest time ever here, I've always wanted to protect my wife's privacy. I don't like -- I didn't want to put her picture all over the news. I just wanted to keep her private.

And today, and what's going on in the legislation, is really the reason why I'm starting to speak out, because it's outrageous.

BURY: When you say the legislation, I assume what you're talking about is the bill back now in the Florida legislature, which actually passed a committee in the legislature today and could be on Governor Bush's desk by Friday, which is the same day that Terri's feeding tubes are to be removed. Is that right?

SCHIAVO: That's correct.

You know, it's really uncomprehensible to think that a private family matter that has gone through the judiciary system for the past seven years -- I mean, we're talking all the way up to the United States Supreme Court -- and for a governor to come into this without any education on the subject and push his personal views into this and have his Republican legislation pass laws so that this doesn't happen.

He's basically jumping right over the state court's decision. We might as well not have any state courts.

BURY: Just, Michael, so we can all understand the legislation -- as I understand it, this would require that before the feeding tubes could be removed from someone in a vegetative state, they would have had to have left written instructions to the effect that that was OK with that. Is that correct?

SCHIAVO: That's what they're trying to pass now, yes.

BURY: And let me ask your lawyer, George Felos: How problematic is this legislation for you?

FELOS: Chris, this is the second time this has happened.

As everyone knows, in October 2003 the governor sent armed men to Terri's death bed, took her to a hospital and had surgery performed on her against her will.

The Florida Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional, and it also said there is absolutely nothing the Florida legislature can pass that can undo the result in Terri Schiavo's case. Yet, in response to political pressure, the legislature is poised to pass another unconstitutional bill.

And not only that, it's not just Floridians' rights that are at stake, but everyone in the country. There is a bill in the United States Congress, and this bill in the United States Congress would virtually let any family member bring a federal court habeas corpus proceeding, which would tie up a case like that for years in federal court, which would make it virtually impossible for anyone to remove artificial life support.

And I want to mention, too, for everyone listening out there, this bill, filed in federal court, does not pertain just to vegetative patients. It doesn't pertain just to removal of feeding tubes. It pertains to removal or refusal of any type of medical treatment.

BURY: Just for the sake of argument, if this Florida bill moves through the legislature and Governor Bush signs it as early as Friday, does that move the whole thing back into the courts?

SCHIAVO: Well, we'll have to see what, in fact, passes on Friday.

It may very well delay implementation of Terri's rights. We certainly hope that it will not. But it is beyond any doubt that the Florida Supreme Court will once again declare such a law unconstitutional.

BURY: Michael, did Terri, your wife, leave any kind of written instructions about her wishes?

SCHIAVO: She didn't leave any written instructions. She has verbally expressed her wishes to me and other people.

BURY: She had verbally expressed them in what context exactly?

SCHIAVO: Through watching some TV program, a conversation that happened regarding her uncle that was very ill.

BURY: And how long ago was that?

SCHIAVO: Oh, we're talking -- it's now been 15 years. We're talking a couple of year, three years before this happened to Terri.

BURY: So there's no kind of written record at all. It's basically your recollection and those of other family members.

SCHIAVO: Yes, it is.

FELOS: But, Chris …

BURY: Go ahead, George.

FELOS: You have to remember that statistics show that something around 20 [percent] to 30 percent of adult Americans have written living wills. And if you're going to try to restrict families and patients from making decisions to stop artificial life support because patient declarations were oral, then the vast majority of Americans are going to be prevented from making these types of decisions.

SCHIAVO: People make these comments all the time. They talk about this with their loved ones every day. People's feedings -- tube feedings -- are stopped across this country every day.

If my wife wasn't the celeb, as everybody is calling her now, there would be no discussion in the legislation right now.

My other -- are they going to start pushing legislation for removing ventilators? Are they going to start forcing people to take chemo against their wishes?

What they're doing is, they're making the decisions for us. That's what this country is coming down to. They're going to make the decisions for us.

BURY: In this …

SCHIAVO: Big Brother is going to do that.

BURY: Michael, in the heated rhetoric that's swirling around this case and has been for a number of years now -- all kinds of charges have been flying back and forth.

First of all, do you stand to benefit financially in any way from your wife's death?

SCHIAVO: There is no money. I will receive not a penny.

BURY: You did receive something of a malpractice settlement north of $1 million at one point, is that correct?

SCHIAVO: Yes.

FELOS: Well, no.

BURY: And what happened to that?

FELOS: Michael didn't receive those funds. Those were received in Terri's guardianship and it was a bank who was her guardian of the property that administered those funds.

BURY: But the question remains: What happened to those funds?

FELOS: Well, those funds have been used for Terri's medical care and guardianship expenses and costs and fees over many, many years.

Those funds are virtually gone, and Mr. Schiavo is not going to inherit or gain one penny by the result of Terri's death.

BURY: And so, Michael, who is now -- and let's get the camera over to Michael if we can -- Michael, who is now paying for Terri's case?

SCHIAVO: Actually, right now, she's listed on the indigent list for hospice. They were taking care of her. They take very good care of her.

BURY: It's got to be very expensive.

SCHIAVO: She had -- I haven't received any bills from it, so I couldn't tell you how much it would cost.

BURY: Your wife's family and their supporters have been arguing in the most graphic terms that what you are going to allow happen on Friday, in their words, is in effect condemning your wife to a cruel death by starvation.

I'd like you to address that charge from them.

SCHIAVO: That's one of their soapboxes they've been on for a long time.

Terry will not be starved to death. Her nutrition and hydration will be taken away. This happens across this country every day.

Death through removing somebody's nutrition is very painless. That has been brought to the courts many of times. Doctors have come in and testified. It is a very painless procedure.

Terry can't -- she has no cortex left. She doesn't feel pain. She doesn't feel hunger.

So what's going to happen is slowly -- her potassium and her electrolytes will slowly diminish and she will drift off to a nice little sleep and eventually pass on to be with God.

BURY: Michael, as you know, her parents have said they are willing to take on the burden of caring for her. And we want to tackle that question when we come back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BURY: Back now with Michael Schiavo with his lawyer, George Felos.

Michael, you're very well aware of Terri's parents' contention that, to some very limited degree, she is responsive and aware of her surroundings.

So now, I want to play, for just a second, what her father, Bob Schindler, said on this program to Ted Koppel in October of 2003.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHINDLER: We have yea votes that would outnumber the nay votes by at least three to one.

Essentially we have close to 15 doctors that are on record with the courts stating Terry is not in a consistent vegetative state.

So we're not just out there on a lark.

We have bona fide information from a professional neurologist that Terry can recover.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURY: Michael, you heard from her father that they believe she can recover. We've also heard that she responds to her mother and responds to objects with her eyes.

What have you seen in the last 15 years?

SCHIAVO: Terry does not respond to anybody. She makes noises. She moans. She's been doing the same things for the past 15 years.

And they talk about their bona fide doctors. They have a list of doctors that signed affidavits from looking at a picture of Terry. That's where they get their information from, by looking at a picture.

And then they sign an affidavit swearing that she's not in a vegetative stage.

I'll tell you. That's a doctor you really want; they can look at a picture and make a diagnosis.

BURY: The parents also argue that you have moved on with your life, that you now have children that you're with, another woman, and that you could, essentially, divorce Terri and relinquish guardianship to them. Why don't you do that?

SCHIAVO: If I moved on with my life -- and I moved on with a portion of it -- but I still have a big commitment to Terri. I made her a promise.

And another reason why I won't give Terri back is that Mr. Schindler testified in court, at the 2000 trial, that he would -- to keep Terri alive he would cut her arms and legs off and put her on a ventilator just to keep her alive.

So why would I give her to a man that would do that to you?

BURY: As I understand it, some people have actually offered rewards. In fact, just in the last week or so, I read that someone was willing to pay you $1 million to give up your guardianship to the parents.

SCHIAVO: Yes, there was an offer. And there was an offer two weeks before that by an attorney in Boca Raton that offered me $10 million.

It's not about the money. This is about Terri. It's not about the Schindlers, it's not about the legislators, it's not about me, it's about what Terri Schiavo wanted.

BURY: I understand that that's your feeling about what your wife wanted, but knowing that you believe she is in a vegetative state and knowing that her mother and father have said they're willing to pick up the burden and carry on the cost, what is the harm to you if you agree to their wishes and relinquish guardianship to them?

SCHIAVO: Basically what I just said. Her father stated in court he would cut her arms and legs off. I'm not going to turn over Terri to a person that would do that to you.

FELOS: Chris, the fact is that Terri Schiavo is not a piece of property, not a suitcase that one person can give to another. She's an individual that has constitutional rights that have been adjudicated.

It's a constitutional right to say, "I don't want medical treatment" and the state can't force you to have it.

She may be in a vegetative state, but her dignity requires that we honor her rights and that's what this case is about now. Everyone's constitutional rights are at stake.

Jeb Bush in Florida is determined to become the George Wallace of his generation, standing on the courthouse steps saying, "We're not going to obey a court order that carries out a patient's constitutional rights."

And the thing is is that, if Mrs. Schiavo's rights are frustrated here, if the court order giving her the right to refuse medical treatment is frustrated and overturned by the governor or the legislature or the Congress, it could happen to you. It could happen in any case.

If any judicial decision is unpopular, it can be subject to being overturned by popular clamor. That's not what this country is about. That's not what individual liberty is about.

BURY: I understand fully the legal question here, Michael.

But let ask you in simply human terms. Can you understand the parents' contention, the bond that they have with their daughter, and their reluctance to let her go? Do you understand that?

SCHIAVO: You know, I have children and, you know, I couldn't even fathom what it would be like to lose a child. But you know, it's been 15 years.

They know the condition Terri is in. They were there in the beginning. They heard the doctors. They know that Terri's in a persistent vegetative state. They testified to that at the original trial.

Fifteen years -- you've got to come to grips with it sometime.

BURY: In that 15 years, what has been the most difficult aspect for you, personally?

SCHIAVO: In the 15 years? This happening to my wife.

Just because it's happened to Terri doesn't mean I don't still love her. She was a part of my life. She'll always be a part of my life.

And to sit here and be called a murderer and an adulterer by people that don't know me, and a governor stepping into my personal, private life, who doesn't know me either? And using his personal gain to win votes, just like the legislators are doing right now, pandering to the religious right, to the people up there, the anti-abortion people, standing outside of Tallahassee.

What kind of government is this? This is a human being. This is not right, and I'm telling everybody you better call your congressman, because they're going to run your life.

And I just want to say one more thing: Out of all these lawmakers, be it the Florida Senate, Florida House, the U.S. Congress, Governor Bush, President Bush -- I want to know who will come down and take Terri's place. Who wants to do that?

BURY: Michael, I can imagine many people watching this tonight and looking at you and struggling with your dilemma and wondering, if they were in a similar position, what they might do.

Based on your own experience over this past 15 years, what advice do you give to families who might have to cope with this situation one day?

SCHIAVO: Make a living will. Talk about it. Death is going to happen to everybody. Write it down.

Even if you write it on a piece of paper at home and have your family witness it, you need to write it down.

BURY: Michael Schiavo, George Felos, thank you very much for joining us tonight.

And I'll be back in a moment.

Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures

I did here in the media that he was offered money to turn over guardianship. I think his reasons for not turning over guardianship are far from convincing (cutting off the legs and arms by her father is the main reason?). The bottom line appears to me to be that Terri's parents haven't made a convincing arguement that Michael is somehow an unfit guardian and that she should not be declared in a permanent vegatative state.

[Trainwreck]

What I want to know is, who is paying to keep her alive, 15 years of BILLS is a hell of a long time, and that's a long time to be trapped like she obviously is...

A female I discussed this with made me almost puke:

'Don't forget, she IS still having periods.' She probably has tubes in this and that, and someone has to do it....

Not a pretty picture.

&gt;TW&lt;

[MMMMMM]

Well gee, Elwood...you are saying you have no reason but conjecture to doubt Michael Schiavo. Isn't the point of benefit of the doubt in instances like this to protect people who have the most to lose and are most powerless--like Terri Schiavo? I think the benefit of the doubt should work in her favor FIRST and for Michael Schiavo SECOND.

Michael Schiavo isn't on trial here, yet you are according him full benefit of the doubt. Terri's life hangs in the balance, yet you are NOT according her the benefit of the doubt.

Something's screwed up here. I think you may just be too used to going by what courts say and are not really thinking all this through yourself. I probably don't know more about the case than you do, but I can see that Terri is not getting a fair shake in this matter. And after all, it is HER life at stake--not Michael Schiavo's or anyone else's.

[elwoodblues]

Absent a writing (i.e. a living will), what other evidence would you want? He remembered conversations on the topic. Other relatives heard her express the same view. The whole reason we appoint guardians in cases like this is because we don't have a writing to fall back on. The only evidence that I know of where she expressed her wishes support the husband's position. The husband is most likely to know her wishes --- much more likely than a parent.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Absent a writing (i.e. a living will), what other evidence would you want? He remembered conversations on the topic. Other relatives heard her express the same view. The whole reason we appoint guardians in cases like this is because we don't have a writing to fall back on. The only evidence that I know of where she expressed her wishes support the husband's position. The husband is most likely to know her wishes --- much more likely than a parent.

[/ QUOTE ]

The default value should be life.

Michael Schiavo obviously may have strong conflicts of interest, thus his testimony should not outweigh the parents' in this matter. Therefore it all should revert to the default value.

The law as written may not make allowance for such things but it should.

I recall reading of prior spousal abuse of Terri, too. True? I don't know.

If the evidence was strong that Terri had told others the same thing (what Michael claims), then I would change my mind. Where is the actual testimony or sworn affidavits of these others? Maybe it is out there; as I sad I haven't kept up on or researched the case. But if his own testimony may be tainted soi may his description of what others may or may not have heard from Terri.

[elwoodblues]

Michael, his brother and sister-in-law all testified about a conversation in which Terri Schiavo expressed that she would not want to be kept alive by artificial means.

Maybe Michael is a scum and has some alterior motive.

What would that motives of the brother and sister-in-law be?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Michael, his brother and sister-in-law all testified about a conversation in which Terri Schiavo expressed that she would not want to be kept alive by artificial means.

Maybe Michael is a scum and has some alterior motive.

What would that motives of the brother and sister-in-law be?


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know but they're his relatives.

So you have 3 non-blood relatives saying one thing, and at least one of them could have major motive. You have two blood relatives saying the opposite. Who do you believe? I would say you can't be sure at all. And if you can't be pretty sure, it is wrong to end her life.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You should suspect a possible conflict of interest (even subconsciously motivated; he ... might not realize that).

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this preposterous, not to mention highly dangerous. We must remain suspicious of courts passing judgement on the basis of intentions (see the thread about Hate Crimes, for example), yet here you are advocating the consideration of ...subconscious intentions! Wow.

[ QUOTE ]
What if he had gotten a divorce? The main difference between that and the current situation is merely a scrap of paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

A scrap of paper means so little? Your cavalier and sweeping dismissal of laws and rules is astonishing. I cannot seriously consider you to be a libertarian on the basis of such disregard for basic social contracts. I'd say an anarchist -- to be kind. (A nihilist, otherwise.)

[ QUOTE ]
The default value should be life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm firmly on the side of Hippocrates, as well. But, surely, this does not mean that no one is allowed to pass away ever. We can't have thousands of comatose people on life support for decades! This would not be Medicine, it would be Embalming. We should, at some point, pull the plug. Who decides about pulling the plug? The patient's guardians, of course. Or the courts.

So once again: If not the courts, then who?

A plebiscite? A duel in the sun? Flipping a coin? What are you suggesting? That only our parents get to decide about us, for ever and ever ? Yes, I saw your other preposterous claim that only the parents, and not the spouse, can know their offsping well enough, even when the offsrping is an adult - or words to that effect.

[MMMMMM]

Wow Cyrus you are beyond belief: Just take Michael Schiavo at his word---incredible.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't know but they're his relatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

And...

If your contention is that he is motivated by some self interest, what is their motivation? Are you suggesting that all three are just making it up --- one because of some unknown gain and the other two to support the first? That seems silly to me (and I'm guessing that's part of the reason the trial court - who, unlike you and me, actually heard all of the evidence - ruled the way it did.)

[ QUOTE ]
So you have 3 non-blood relatives saying one thing, and at least one of them could have major motive. You have two blood relatives saying the opposite

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You have 3 people, 1 of whom is in the most intimate of human relationships, saying that she EXPRESSED her desires, and 2 who say that they BELIEVE that she would have wanted to live.

[MMMMMM]

Since when does a witness have to be proven a liar before his testimony is considered as possibly slanted or biased or influenced by ulterior motives? Michael is not on trial and he doesn't have be proven biased; it is fine to acknowledge that he very well might be biased, so his testimony is not taken at full face value.

As for the parents: my impression might be wrong, if they said merely that Terri would want to live. At any rate, the blind faith which the courts (and you, and Cyrus) seem to be placing in Michael Schiavo is rather astounding.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow Cyrus you are beyond belief: Just take Michael Schiavo at his word---incredible.

[/ QUOTE ]

You pretend not to understand.

I do NOT take Michael Schiavo at his word. I do NOT judge his potential motives or the possible "conflict of interest", as you put it. I do NOT care for the bias shown by her parents -- it's absolutely understandable (I might have done more, in their place). I do NOT care for Schiavo's interviews or his lawyer's press conferences or the opinions of TV talking heads. And I do NOT base my opinion on whatever "Terri has said".

But I know this : At some point in time, the doctors came forward and pronounced his wife's condition as hopeless. The doctors -- not the husband! At that time, as her husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo (with whatever motive) could have legally given his consent to the doctors to remove her from the tubes. Instead (for whatever reason), Michael Schiavo (who could be a saint or a scumbag, irrelevant) chose to let the courts decide that. All that is a matter of RECORD.

The issue then went to the courts for 15 years. That's 2+2 and then 2+2 and once again 2+2 and then 3 years. 15 whole years. And the courts have examined the case and decided, time and again, to have the poor human being put out of its misery.

It really all comes down to that.

You say the courts' deicisions are "a dime a dozen". OK, nice bit of bravado there, but (for the umpteenth time), if not the courts, then who?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
But I know this : At some point in time, the doctors came forward and pronounced his wife's condition as hopeless.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus, many doctors also pronounced the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

And get this: her chief doctor, chosen by Michael, is a euthanasia activist.

"STARVATION: DAY 6
Schiavo doctor a right-to-death activist
Neurologist chosen by husband addressed Hemlock Society
Posted: March 23, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


Dr. Ronald Cranford

The neurologist chosen by Michael Schiavo to examine his estranged wife, Terri, is a right-to-die activist who has been a featured speaker for the pro-euthanasia Hemlock Society.

Dr. Ronald Cranford testified in the court cases before county court Judge George Greer that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

"I've seen her," he told CNN. "There's no doubt in my mind, whatsoever, she's in a permanent vegetative state. Her CAT scan shows extremely severe atrophy to the brain. And her EEG is flat. It doesn't show any electrical activity at all."

His diagnosis has been disputed by Dr. William Hammesfahr, who said, "I spent about 10 hours across about three months and the woman is very aware of her surroundings. She's very aware. She's alert. She's not in a coma. She's not in PVS."

Hammesfahr added, "With proper therapy, she will have a tremendous improvement. I think, personally, that she'll be able to walk, eventually, and she will be able to use at least one of her arms."

"There's no way," responded Cranford. "That's totally bogus."

Cranford is a member of the board of directors of the Choice in Dying Society, which promotes doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

He was also a featured speaker at the 1992 national conference of the Hemlock Society. The group recently changed its name to End of Life Choices.

In 1997, Cranford wrote an opinion piece in the Minneapolis Star Tribune titled: "When a feeding tube borders on barbaric."

"Just a few decades ago cases of brain death, vegetative state, and locked-in syndrome were rare," he wrote. "These days, medicine's 'therapeutic triumphs' have made these neurologic conditions rather frequent. For all its power to restore life and health, we now realize, modern medicine also has great potential for prolonging a dehumanizing existence for the patient."

He explained that while landmark legal cases like those of Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan demonstrated it was "sensible to stop treatment in patients lingering in permanent vegetative states," it was now time to look beyond those cases.

"The United States has thousands or tens of thousands of patients in vegetative states; nobody knows for sure exactly how many," he wrote. "But before long, this country will have several million patients with Alzheimer's dementia. The challenges and costs of maintaining vegetative state patients will pale in comparison to the problems presented by Alzheimer's disease."

The answer, he suggested, was physician-assisted suicide.

"So much in medicine today is driving the public towards physician-assisted suicide," he wrote. "Many onlookers are dismayed by doctors' fear of giving families responsibility in these cases; our failure to appreciate that families suffer a great deal too in making decisions; our archaic responses to pain and suffering; our failure to accept death as a reality and an inevitable outcome of life; our inability to be realistic and humane in treating irreversibly ill people. All of this has shaken the public's confidence in the medical profession."

He blamed "right-to-lifers" and "disability groups" for discouraging families from making the choice for euthanasia. He applauded European values that embrace euthanasia.

"But here in the United States, many caregivers wouldn't consider not placing a feeding tube in the same patients," he wrote. "It's hard to understand why. If we want our loved ones to live and die in dignity, we ought to think twice before suspending them in the last stage of irreversible dementia. At it is, it seems that we're not thinking at all."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43447

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily has been reporting on the Terri Schiavo story since 2002 – far longer than any other national news organization – and exposing the many troubling, scandalous, and possibly criminal, aspects of the case that to this day rarely surface in news reports. Read WorldNetDaily's unparalleled, in-depth coverage of the life-and-death fight over Terri Schiavo, including over 150 original stories and columns.

Recent stories:

Nurse: Michael tried to kill Terri

Judge denies request to reinsert feeding tube

Bush signs bill to save Terri

Terri's death wish or Michael's?

Democrats block vote in Terri case

House, Senate reach compromise on Terri

Attorney: Terri cried at news

Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed

White House sides with Terri

Florida Senate rejects Terri bill

Lawmakers ready to save Schiavo

Michael Schiavo rejects $1 million

Man offers $1 million to save Terri Schiavo

Federal bill introduced to save Terri Schiavo

Judge to hear abuse claims in Schiavo case

Judge's error to save Terri Schiavo?

Terri Schiavo backers hopeful

Judge Greer orders Terri's starvation

Terri Schiavo's life in balance again

Stay extended in Schiavo case

Clock running out for Terri Schiavo

U.S. Supreme Court refuses Schiavo case

Terri Schiavo saved again

Judge spares Terri Schiavo – for now

'Terri's Law' struck down

Florida high court hears 'Terri's Law' "

[elwoodblues]

At some point, someone has to make a determination. The things they tend to factor are into the equation are:
What the witness says
What the witnesses biases are
Whether those biases tend to discount what the witness said
Whether there is any corroborating evidence of what the witness says

Here, M. Schiavo says that his wife expressed a desire. That expression was corroborated by 2 witnesses. There MIGHT be a bias of Schiavo (but the courts have expressely rejected that bias as well as the potential bias of the parents.) An "independent" (appointed by Jeb Bush) guardian assessed the facts and again corroborated the husband's position.

Just because someone has a potential bias doesn't mean they aren't telling the truth, nor does it mean that the bias is actually coming in to play.


MMMMMMMMMMMMM, how would you want the law to be written in cases like this? Here is an outline of what I believe to be the relevant law:

If a person has a living will/health care directive that will be followed.

If a person does not have a living will/health care directive, then a guardian will speak for the wishes of the patient.

For married person, the guardian shall be the spouse (as they are most likely to know the patient's wishes.)

Absent a writing, courts will consider the oral representations of the wishes of the ward

The wishes of the ward (as stated by the guardian and as found by the court after listening to all of the evidence on the subject) should be followed.

The decision of the trial court can be appealed through the state court system.

Because there is no federal question, the US Congress should make a law specific for each case so that the federal courts can hear the issue.

The federal courts will follow existing law and precedent when determining whether a temporary injunction shall be issued.



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

Where is the disagreement?

[MMMMMM]

I'll review and answer this tomorrow (probably(, Elwood, as I've been up a long time and now must sleep. I do appreciate your outline; thanks.

[tolbiny]

"Since her parents claim she responds to them I find it hard to believe she is a complete vegetable"

*discalimer* Most of this is second hand knowledge- i am not in the medical profession.

my understanding of her "vegitative" state is that her upper brain functions- ones that control movement, speech and cognitive thinking, have been destroyed- and that the doctors feel they will never be recoverd. Her cerebral cortex is still intact, which allows her heart and lungs to still work on their own. These basic functions also include other actions such as the dialation of pupils in response to changes in lighting-and can in some cases have muscular responses to physical pressure. It can be very easy for a person to interpret these motions as being responded to, especially for a berieved parent who wants nothing more than their daughter to get better.

It is a tough case, and this is why we have the court system- one with multiple appeals, passing judgement, and not an emotionally charged legislature.

[masse75]

How about just posting a link to the transcript rather than jamming up the thread?

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]


Michael Schiavo obviously may have strong conflicts of interest, thus his testimony should not outweigh the parents' in this matter. Therefore it all should revert to the default value.

The law as written may not make allowance for such things but it should.

I recall reading of prior spousal abuse of Terri, too. True? I don't know.

If the evidence was strong that Terri had told others the same thing (what Michael claims), then I would change my mind. Where is the actual testimony or sworn affidavits of these others? Maybe it is out there; as I sad I haven't kept up on or researched the case. But if his own testimony may be tainted soi may his description of what others may or may not have heard from Terri.

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic example of everything that is wrong with this case. People go on 'what they've heard,' or what 'may have happened.' The abuse allegation has repeatedly come up and been found to be untrue. Emotions running high on both sides, and people will grab at the remotest rumor to argue their case. What a [censored] circus.

[Cyrus]

A lot of issues, a lot of issues. (As Worm said disgustedly in Rounders, "Lotsa action, lotsa action"!)

We have medical ethics. Medicine has made tremendous strides in the 20th century. We are able to keep people alive (or "alive") as long as we want. But, this poses a new set of dilemmas for Medicine -- and society at large. The questions are obvious to all. Are we all on the same boat about how the answers should be provided? IMO, we should deal, as a society, with those (important) questions the same way we are dealing with other social/moral issues: Without religion meddling in, with logic, with morality, with social responsibility -- and through the same avenues of governance we have for all our other problems, i.e. the three branches of power (legislative, executive and judiciary) in their respective roles.

There is the issue of morality. Like you, I side "by default" (as you put it) with Life. I'm sorta Life-affirmative! But I recognize the importance of conscience as well. What do we do with an organism without conscience? And how do we define whether an organism has conscience or not? By examining brain waves? By eliciting neurological responses of some level? I have no idea because I'm not a doctor.

I have seen Terri Schiavo on TV a few times. She is like any other brain-damaged person I've seen. I have no idea if she is conscious of anything that goes around her. If I were her parent, I would certainly not want her to die (or "die").

Which is where I part with Michael Schiavo's position! If her parents demand to keep her alive (or "alive") at their expense, premises and burden, why not? Well, one possible answer about the husband's motives now--if we dismiss the allegations of his "bad intentions"-- is that he carries a heavy psychological load which he wants to unload, combined with satisfying his spouse's wish. As she had confided it in him or as he understands it would be in any case.

I'm saying "now", because Michael Schiavo had every right 15 years ago to terminate his wife's life by unilaterally giving her doctors his consent to pull the plug. He did not --but, rather, chose to let the courts decide. If you take everything else away from the man (and he may be a royal creep otherwise), that action annuls most of the accusations levelled against him (eg wife abuser, etc). I judge most of those accusations to be highly emotional. The people who accuse Schiavo of being "heartless" do not try to see things from his POV. FWIW, I happen to have been close to a couple of such tragedies and, believe me, folks, you have no idea at all what it means to live with a brain-damaged or comatose person for all your life.

There is the issue of the courts. Yes, the courts have examined the case -- this has been going through the courts for 15 goddamn years! Yes, some of the expert witnesses might have been biased, for lack of better term, like that doctor you mentioned, the "euthanasia activist" (although, I’m sure you'd agree with a lot of his pronouncements and warnings, stated in the article you linked (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43447) to). Nonetheless, the courts, after hearing expert testimony, from both sides, have decided, time and again, to remove the feeding tubes.

Finally, civil rights -- and here the conservative faction has lost the plot completely! We have a blatant interference by both Congress and the President in what amounts to a matter between individuals. This interference creates a seriously dangerous precedent. The United States government (backed by a toothless and ideologically bent Congress) is willing to overstep its authority in order to promote a religious fundamentalist agenda, that places abstract Christian values (such as "the sanctity of the temple of the soul") above individual choice. This is why, according to the neo-conservative mind, Man sins when he abuses his body in any way or commits suicide (!).

--Cyrus

[MMMMMM]

That's part of the point here, I think, Aheravi.

You don't need to KNOW that a witness has conflicting interests or is biased; only that he might be, in order to take his testimony as something less than gospel truth. The appearance of Michael Schiavo is of one who might not have Terri's best interests at heart, both anecdotally (which may be unwarranted) and merely by virtue of the fact that his position is such that conflict of interest is natural. Therefore it only makes sense to view him and his testimony with less than 100% blind acceptance.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
That's part of the point here, I think, Aheravi.

You don't need to KNOW that a witness has conflicting interests or is biased; only that he might be, in order to take his testimony as something less than gospel truth. The appearance of Michael Schiavo is of one who might not have Terri's best interests at heart, both anecdotally (which may be unwarranted) and merely by virtue of the fact that his position is such that conflict of interest is natural. Therefore it only makes sense to view him and his testimony with less than 100% blind acceptance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The court did not view his testimony with 100% blind acceptance. The parents had their chance to impeach his credibility, and the court took that into account.