Terri Schiavo

DHB - Here's more on the Delay situation, and a link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7309887/

IMO, this is hardly a left vs. right issue. The two political parites will try to get some traction on this issue. But in the case of the Democrats, all they have to do is give the Republicans enough rope and they will hang themselves with this issue.

On the issue of the Constitution, keep in mind that there is, at least in theory, a strict separation of powers. What is the point of having a court system to interpret the law if congress can just change the law to suit it's own purposes anyway? This is exactly what Madison feared would happen. Even before he attended the Convention in 1787 he was thinking ahead to the issue of seperation of powers. And this issue proves that he was right to worry. I will try to locate for you which Federalist essay Madison wrote on this issue.

 

Some interesting pieces:

From: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/28/05810.shtml

Criminal allegations surrounding the Schiavo case:

From: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43509

Someone is quoting:

On this page: http://www.theanchoress.blogspot.com/

From a different source:

This about the officials involved and corruption allegations:

Elections, blocked investigations and election donations:

More about the politics surrounding the omission of parents in the process:

About the appellate judge:

There is much, much more about the illegality of many decisions involved and even illegality of certain officials acquiring their positions here: http://www.theempirejournal.com/53209_schiavo_case_tangled_web_o.htm

I'm not posting any further quotes from there only because it would take too much time and space. Just go read that.

Misdiagnosis:

From: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/313/7048/13

Here's an article about the Schiavo doctor being a "right to death" activist:

From: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_60schiavodoctor.html

"Right to die" as a forced fate, by a practicing lawyer:

From: http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/robertsangels/ForcedFate.htm

(more here: http://www.worldrtd.net/news/world/?id=469)

WorldNET Daily on Terri's case: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43509

Now Michael's lawyer's financial involvement with the judge Greer:

From: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43493

Doctor's opinion on the "brain death":

From: http://www.thrownback.blogspot.com/

Petition online to impeach Judge Greer:

http://www.petitiononline.com/ijg520/

Psychiatric profile of Michael comes into play, here:

Testimony of Doctor Lieberman about how Michael fits the profile of a wife abuser:

From Hyscience, here: http://hyscience.typepad.com/hyscience/2005/02/_2004_psychiatr.html

A nurse claims she reported Michael to the police for trying to kill his wife with an injection:

Here: http://hyscience.typepad.com/hyscience/2005/03/video_of_carla_.html

Well, we already have evidence how he wanted Terri to be cremated, right? Wonder why...

Guardian at Litem's report to Jeb Bush:

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Jeb Bush vs Michael Schiavo:

http://www.wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/transcript/04-925.htm

More on BBC, with links: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/U835305?s_fromedit=1

About Michael and refusing to allow rehab expenses after getting the money:

From: http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2822&PHPSESSID=8d41176b37c973daa1d83ca29dfea0cd

[ March 29, 2005, 14:51: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Federalist Paper #48. This is Madison's essay on the separation of Constitutional powers and the danger of legislative abuses.

Sorry, it's a rather long quote. But Madison takes his time to show this point, which was still an issue for him, even after the Convention had finished its work.

The law which congress passed last week asked the Federal courts to, in effect, over-ride and reconsider the state court's ruling on the Shaivo case. Without surprise, the Federal Courts refused to do so. And in the opinion of many it was an encroachment of legislative power, and a violation of the separation of powers. Here's a link to the complete essay:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa48.htm

 

@ Chev - do you have a link to what the priest said? What about a link to support that he is siphoning off money from the 700k? Thanks.

I went to the newsmax front page. It is titled - "starvation day 12" and above it it states "Is liberalism really a mental disorder." The best link though is the bmj medical journal link. All you link is a synopsis of a journal that says it takes considerable skill and a period of time. Looks like since more than 15 years have passed, the article supports the diagnoses. Or does it, I mean, it's only a link to a synopsis. That certainly doesn't tell us anything. The life issues site you link has a front page about how doctors fertilizing folks is evil.

I really think that when the best support for abuse allegations comes from these types of sites ("is liberalism a brain disorder") then the factual allegations of your contentions are brought into question.

I agree with the person who said it is interesting how quickly you can jump to conclusions of abuse and attempted murder when you're willing to go so far to deny evidence of rape.

 

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with . Chev, you're grasping at straws, using all possible negative articles to sway the masses. Can you really believe a judge in the national limelight is going to be bought for, what, $1500? Not a chance. The abuse stuff? That would have come out YEARS ago and would have been used in court if valid. There are arguements in even the loving relationships.

The articles you quoted and linked are using the same arguements we've been hearing for several YEARS now -- those arguements are obviously not convincing enough for the legal system (note -- it's been MORE than one judge here).

There really doesn't seem to be many doctors that are willing to say Terri is NOT in a persistent vegetative state. You can always find a few that will take one side of almost any issue, but the 'right-to-die' side appeared to have the more convincing experts. And Micheal was diligent in getting Terri help from good doctors early on -- none helped.

The constant portrail of Micheal as a heartless, cold-blooded bastard is just callous. There have been claims that because he didn't follow his wifes wishes immediately he must be a money grubber or worse. Assume for a moment he truly loved his wife and had a hard time letting go. That after years of being told by experts the woman he knew was gone and only a shell remained, he finally agreed that she was beyond help -- DAMN! How tough would that decision be (I would rather be in the hospital bed than make that decision for my wife). It was at that point he decided to let the courts take over and continue his own life. At that point he did truly believe his wife was gone, you can see that in how his life changed. And yet he still came in and took care of Terri.

Edit: I also will never fault her parents for 'pulling out all the stops' in trying to save her life. All the accusations about abuse that have resurfaced, involving the press, and all the legal manipulation is valid for them -- they do not believe their daughter is gone. I would fight just as strong for my daughter.

I've said it before, this is truly tragic for both families.

Edit 2: It seems Micheal is requesting an autopsy for his wife after she passes. He certainly doesn't act like he has something to hide (i.e., abuse).

[ March 29, 2005, 17:54: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

I don't know what the point of the autopsy is, to tell the truth. They are saying taht it will prove she was in a persistent vegetative state, but I don't see how. One thing that is certain is that by the time the autopsy is performed she will be COMPLETELY brain dead.

Is it possible to determine via autopsy when someone became brain dead when it is clear that they actually are now brian dead? That doesn't make complete sense to me. It's like performing an autopsy to see if someone's heart is still beating - with the obvious answer being "no".

 

to DMC: A living will is not enough any more. You and your wife need a power of medical proxy (I think that is the proper term) and a DNR. Also, with the new HIPPEE laws, there are special forms and permissions needed for that too. What I am not sure, but currently even your spouse would not be allowed access to your records if something should happen to you.

 

Perhaps you might eventually convince me that money is not a motive, although I highly doubt it. However, you won't convince me that he is acting on altruistic motives. What is altruistic in wanting someone dead? He won't even give her up to people who still care, but he wants her dead even if this means starving her. It's clear to me that he wants her out of his life and there's no noble motive possible for this.

I am also surprised by the way the courts disregard the law, the Constitution and the natural law, natural order of things and right reason.

Terri wasn't denied artificial support such as life support or respirators. She breathes on her own and could even be taught to swallow - after all, she doesn't choke on her own saliva. She is being denied food and drink and every single human being would die if condemned to the same fate. Therefore, she is not being let die. She is being killed. In the name of some interest of Michael's and, according to some people, even her own wish, but she is being killed. Courts have no power to exempt anyone in advance from laws prohibiting homicide. No human authority can decide that someone is unworthy of life and take his life (even capital penalty convicts are not considered unworthy to live). The courts go not only against the Constitution but against the natural law, the natural order of things and the right reason. I doubt Founding Fathers would be OK with this. Accordance with the natural law and right reason is the base of the whole American system and the very principle on each it ever originated as opposed to continued obedience to the colonial British positive law.

Also, certain rights are inalienable. This means that they cannot be alienated. Consequently, no one has the power to allow another in advance to violate these rights of his. Neither can he successfully dispose of the command of these rights. The right to life is the most important and the most eminent of these rights, from which the others originate.

The Congress has the right to alter the jurisdiction of the courts of law and the executive, under certain circumstances, has the power to halt the execution of court rulings. Therefore, the only abuse has been on the part of the judicial authority.

As for the $300K, I wasn't really speaking about the $300K he was given to spend as he would. However, as it was awarded for malpractice of which Terri was the object, what husband would buy a new house and car for himself for that, instead of spending it on the needy wife? You know, I couldn't live in such a house nor drive such a car. See my quotes for more light on Michael's dealings with the money.

@Chandos: The problem with the Constitution is that it doesn't include anything close to the "right to death". However, suicide is not a punishable crime, although not really a perfectly normal, legal thing to do - attempts are prevented. However, assisting in suicide, let alone killing someone on a presumed wish of the victim, is the crime of homicide or even murder, the latter with certain additional conditions met - and the Constitution doesn't in any place preclude this. Courts are supposed to uphold the law, not to create exceptions from it or turn a blind eye.

@Laches: First thing, I don't have links. I only heard what the priest said.

Second thing, there is an analogy between what I'm saying now and what I said about rape. However, in this case, it's Michael who is the prosecutor and Terri who is wanted dead.

Michael's case rests on his own words without anything close to a will on Terri's part - not like you could validly make a will requesting to be put to death by starvation. As it relies on his words and it's word vs word with her parents, credibility plays a role, so character and mental profile counts.

As for his mental records, his psychiatrist has offered testimony as you have seen - fitting the wife abuser profile. The nurse says she called the police when he was trying to hasten her death injecting something. Then, the parents claim he abused her and they were in the outs before the accident took place. Next, he benefits from her being out of the picture and there is no benefit for her from her surviving (the good old cui bono rule). It's clear that his words lack the credibility to stand as proof, let alone to put someone to death. This is analogous to an accuser claiming to be victimised by someone and wanting the person jailed or executed on mere word in a controversial case.

The reason why I'm playing the advocatus diaboli role is not that I believe with unwavering certainty that Michael is the devil. The reason is that I believe that Michael's character is far from irreproachable, his position is far from excluding conflict of interest and he has no proof for anything. That's why he shouldn't be given the credit to have his wish granted of pulling the plug on his wife. This is one.

Two is that this is no simple pulling the plug. As I have said at least three times by now, everyone needs food and water in some accessible form. Everyone will die from starvation or dehydration, not just a disabled Terri. This is something that would kill anyone. Therefore, this is clearly different from merely removing artificial heart stimulation or respirators.

As for Michael himself, it seems obvious to me that money and freedom is the case, judging by the facts as I perceive them. Perhaps things aren't what they seem or my logic is flawed. But you aren't telling me that his motives are ethical and altruistic - I won't buy that. At best he has collapsed under the burden and desired to be freed of it or convinced himself that Terri wouldn't like to live like this. But this is at best. Things aren't pointing in the at best direction. I don't want to touch on the at worst possibility, as I don't want to do Michael injustice if it isn't true. But it's already clear at this point that the parents' word should be given more credit and their wish therefore granted.

I am still surprised to the utmost by the extent to which people take Michael's version for granted. Even the sole insistence that she be put to death should be alarming without anything else and here nothing seems to be able to undermine some people's belief that everything is all right around here.

 

Chev, believe whatever you like about Michael Schiavo's actions, but you're really going too far when you say that the courts are disregarding the law and the Constitution. Over a period of at least seven years, no less than 22 separate courts have all come to the same conclusion. Do you really think that's indicative of some huge conspiracy against the Schindlers, or perhaps that LEGALLY (note that I'm only talking about the codified US federal and Florida state laws here, not so-called "natural law" [got a link where I can read that, please?]) they have a case that's weak to the point of non-existent? The Schindlers have been given huge amounts of credit thus far, to the point of special action on the part of the US Congress and President. What more do you want?

On second thought, don't bother answering. As usual I disagree with so many of your fundamental assumptions and re-definitions of what's right and wrong that there's no way we'll be able to have any sort of meaningful discussion.

Let's just say I'm very, very glad that you, the future attorney, will not be able to impact the laws governing where I live.

 

The thing is, Terri isn't being withheld food because Michael doesn't want her to be fed - she's not being fed because the courts have decided that not feeding her is in accordance with Terri's wishes. This matter went to court, and the courts decided that there was sufficient evidence - testimony from friends and family - heck even Terri's sister - that Terri wouldn't want to be kept alive in this state. Even if Michael would do a complete reversal of his testimony at this point, the feeding tube would not be re-inserted. Michael did not make the decision to remove the tube, and does not have the authority to re-insert the tube.

I can understand how Michael's testimony can and should be viewed with some skepticism. He has something to gain out of Terri's death. Beyond possible life insurance policies he may hold, he has children with another woman, claims he loves that woman, and probably wishes to marry that woman, but cannot while still married to Terri. It is because of the testimony I hear from others who have little or nothing to gain from Terri's death that I give more credence to. Let's face it, unless Terri's sister or one of the friends happens to be the same woman who Michael has had two children with, then these people have nothing to gain by Terri's death. Since I think that would have been mentioned somewhere along the line, I have to assume that these people are not one in the same.

I'm sorry Chev, but this made me laugh, simply because it states nothing. If someone didn't know what "inalienable" meant, it stands to reason that they still wouldn't know what it meant if you told them it means "cannot be alienated". Chances are the "in" was not what was causing the confusion. You wouldn't explain to someone who didn't know what "incapable" was by saying "not capable" or explaining "invariable" as "not variable".

I think the problem here is that you are viewing it as an either/or proposition (you did say "instead"). The award was $300K for damages and $750K for Terri's care. So he didn't have to decide either to buy a house or a car or care for Terri - he could do both. ALso, I think that he was awarded that money in 1992. Given that the average cost of a car was around $10K in 1992, and that the average cost of a home was about $100K in 1992, and that most people need a new car every few years, and buy at least one or two homes in the course of their life, I don't think these were needless purchases. While it can be argued that it may have been possible for Michael to remain living at the same place he was at the time of Terri accident, I don't think it's reasonable to say he could still be driving the same car - I don't know of too many 1990 models still on the road today. Heck, I alone have purchased three cars in the last 12 years, and I was a poor college student for one of those purchases.

Well, I agree that suicide isn't normal but I think it is completely legal. At least I've never heard of someone being tried for attempted murder after failing to kill themselves.

It's like I said above - this was decided upon by a court. Not just one, but several in fact. People view judges as pretty level-headed, logical, fact-oriented people. If all of them judged that removing the feeding tube is in accordance with Terri's wishes, most people (about 70% of the people in the U.S.) feel that there was no error in judgement.

 

What's really still nagging at me about this whole situation is that the parents have lost any control over the fate of their child. They are willing to take on the task of providing care for Terri, and there are many others who are willing to help. It must be a horrid feeling for a parent to have their rights of parenthood overwhelmed by the courts and the legal system.

As Rally has pointed out, there have been a lot of courts which have ruled that Terri should be allowed to die. But what is legal is not necessarily the most moral in this instance.

As I stated in an earlier post, I don't believe that Michael is doing this for any personal gain. Nevertheless, what of the parents rights in this instance? If Michael demands closure, than he should walk away from this situation, and continue on with the new life that he has chosen for himself. He will be able to do this regardless of the outcome. But what of the parents? Can they just walk away from their child? As a parent I have to say, I think not. Anyone else who is a parent will understand what I am saying here.

If Terri is as bad off as they say she is, then it's not like she knows that her wishes not to be kept alive in this manner are being honored. She doesn't know any of this. But her family knows, and they are willing to go through with whatever it takes to keep her alive for as long as there is still breath in her body. So why take this away from them? As I see it, this not about politics, or the law at all, but about something else...

 

One question:
How is it that if chev or I provide numerous articles and news reports, they are not proof enough, and we have to back it with something more substantial, and if you provide but one scrape of news or third party report of a personal account, it is automatically assumed true and adamant proof?

 

One answer:

I haven't seen a credible source posted by either one of you. Both sides of this issue are only posting "spin" for their side. However, from what I see of the majority of the posters here they have actually been reading the court documents and findings. Since the multiple courts and judges have no reason to be biased I have more faith in their decisions. The classic is the "Mickey Mouse" baloon video. In the judge's summation he mentions the video. He also mentions that he has seen the entire video and not just the "piece" some people want you to see. He also mentions that they tried to get her to do it again and she couldn't.

The only wishes that matter in this case are Terri's. The parent's might want her kept alive, but if Terri didnt' want to be they should have accepted it.

I highly recommend reading the court decisions instead of the propaganda.

 

One answer: do you have a basic understanding of the concept of credibility?

 

Nah, I'm questionning his impartiality rather than saying that he definitely is in for money. More like generally understood convenience - money and freedom. Consciously or unconciously and telling himself it's different. At any rate, impartiality is extremely doubtful and credibility is shot down. It's amazing how people drink from his mouth and take his word on whatever he says regardless of any surrounding circumstances.

As for the money, it doesn't really make all so much difference if it exists. It's just a sum added or removed from the virtual amount on the account. Be it getting more cash or be it avoiding having to pay it back, whatever. Mike would be in trouble about the money if he simply divorced Terri.

Judge Greer who received money on his election campaign from Mike's lawyer has no reason to be biased?

I believe some judges in the US are making their own politics under the guise of the law, bold as this may sound to you.

I believe I have a complex one and that's why I'm questionning the faith people put in Michael's words without any tangible backing whatsoever, while dismissing whatever the parents summon up in the case.

[ March 30, 2005, 22:01: Message edited by: chevalier ]