Civil Disobedience and Terry Schaivo

[SmarterThanYou]

They've done it...........Tubes pulled..!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/ap/20050318/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman

Let the slow, agonizing murder of Terry begin.

and the award goes to............

 

[ReillyT]

I agree wholeheartedly... err on the side of life, because if the judge's orders are carried out, and they are wrong, there is no recompense. If the judge's orders are disobeyed, and she is later proven to be unrehabilitatable, then at least we know that everything possible has been done. But there are dozens of neurologists (ReillyT) whose expert opinion is that Terry is rehabilitatable, and the effort has not been made.

The courts have weighed the issue, after considering expert testimony, and have found that she cannot be rehabilitated. There are always going to be doctors somewhere that can be found to say the opposite. Perhaps they are motivated by ethical beliefs about their values concerning life, or maybe they just disagree with other experts on the medical facts. I don't think the standard should be whether a doctor (or doctors) can be found that say otherwise. The courts have to weigh the evidence and make a decision. That is what they have done. If you don't like the idea of pulling the plug for persons in a vegetative state unless there is a 100 percent knowledge that rehabilitation will never be possible at the present or in the future, then change the laws. The people of Florida, through their representatives, have not adopted such a strict standard. The judges have heard the evidence, considered the law on the subject and made their determination. Good enough for me.

 

[Merlin1047]

This is without a doubt one of the most difficult and certainly heart breaking issues anyone can confront. But the facts of the case have been somewhat obscured by the hype and the propoganda.

At first, I was extremely suspicious of the husband's motivation. But he has twice turned down the offer of a million dollars or more if he would simply wash his hands of the entire matter and walk away. That pretty much convinces me that he is not acting out of greed because he could have profitted substantially by simply divorcing his wife and walking away. So I am forced to believe that his motives are based on his wife's expressed wishes.

I was extremely sympathetic to the parents and their desire to keep Terri alive and accepted their assertion that she responded in some way. But after I saw results of a CT scan of Terri's brain, I would estimate that her brain is at least eighty percent gone. I see no way that anyone can conclude that she retains any cognitive function. After I listened to a doctor's analysis of cases similar to her's, I believe that her parents are in denial and their judgement is skewed because of their love for their daughter and wishful thinking. There is no probability that any kind of rehabilitative therapy will improve her condition. There is simply nothing left which can be rehabilitated.

But all that is really not the main issue. The main issue is, and must continue to be - Terri's wishes in this matter. That is what must be honored. Everything else is merely a sideshow. I hope that the actions taken today do in fact reflect Terri's wishes in this matter and I pray that her end will be as swift and painless as possible.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

But all that is really not the main issue. The main issue is, and must continue to be - Terri's wishes in this matter. That is what must be honored. Everything else is merely a sideshow. I hope that the actions taken today do in fact reflect Terri's wishes in this matter and I pray that her end will be as swift and painless as possible.

agreed, and i'm right there with ya merlin.

 

[Bullypulpit]

How many of you who want to see Mrs. Schiavo's suffering to continue have actually attended the death of a family member, friend or loved one who has been in such a state? How many have even been present when someone has died?

Mrs. Schiavo will not suffer. She will be given comfort care, and if the hospice she is in is on the ball, she will have continuous care which will see that she is comfortable throughout the process. She will recieve pain medication if she evidences signs of pain...she will recieve oral care to ensure that her mouth does not become dry and cracked...she will quietly and peacefully shuffle off this mortal coil. Which she would have done years ago were it not for medical science and the obstinacy of family members unwilling to accept the truth.

Legal precedent gives her husband the authority to make the decisions regarding Mrs. Schiavo's medical treatment. Were she not married, then the power to make her medical decisions would fall to the nearest living blood-kin. Mr. Schiavo has the right to make the decision regarding the decision to withdraw, or not, medical treament for his wife. Not her parents...not the Florida legislature...and most certainly not Congress.

This three ring circus has gone on for far too long, and it has become a cause celebre for meddlesome right wing-nut politicians to display their moral rectitude when all that they are really doing is showing how far their heads are up their rectums. They bitch about "activist judges" who usurp legislative authority and the "will of the people". Well just what the hell are they doing except becoming "activist legislators" usurping the authority of the courts? What utter hypocrisy. Were anyone to do to a dog what has been done to Mrs. Schiavo in the name of "saving" her life, they would be brought up on charges of felony animal cruelty

 

[5stringJeff]

I don't think the standard should be whether a doctor (or doctors) can be found that say otherwise. The courts have to weigh the evidence and make a decision. That is what they have done. If you don't like the idea of pulling the plug for persons in a vegetative state unless there is a 100 percent knowledge that rehabilitation will never be possible at the present or in the future, then change the laws. The people of Florida, through their representatives, have not adopted such a strict standard. The judges have heard the evidence, considered the law on the subject and made their determination. Good enough for me.

First, I think it is 100% wrong for a court to decide what doctors should be deciding. A judge is not trained enough to make medical decisions.

Second, the people/representatives of Florida did pass a law to keep Terri alive. The FL supremes voted it down.

Again, since plausible doubt exists as to the ability to rehabilitate Terri, we should err on the side of life.

 

[5stringJeff]

I disagree. This stands completely in the way of spousal responsibility.

I have grave reservations that her husband has her best interests in mind, especially given that he's already living with (and has two kids with) another woman.

 

[5stringJeff]

Mrs. Schiavo will not suffer. She will be given comfort care, and if the hospice she is in is on the ball, she will have continuous care which will see that she is comfortable throughout the process. She will recieve pain medication if she evidences signs of pain...she will recieve oral care to ensure that her mouth does not become dry and cracked...she will quietly and peacefully shuffle off this mortal coil. Which she would have done years ago were it not for medical science and the obstinacy of family members unwilling to accept the truth.

Bully, I know you do this for a living, and I'm sure this is how you treat your patients. However, doctors have testified that this routine care has been routinely denied to Terri.

This three ring circus has gone on for far too long, and it has become a cause celebre for meddlesome right wing-nut politicians to display their moral rectitude when all that they are really doing is showing how far their heads are up their rectums. They bitch about "activist judges" who usurp legislative authority and the "will of the people". Well just what the hell are they doing except becoming "activist legislators" usurping the authority of the courts? What utter hypocrisy. Were anyone to do to a dog what has been done to Mrs. Schiavo in the name of "saving" her life, they would be brought up on charges of felony animal cruelty

(emphasis mine)

The legislature, not the courts, make the laws. The courts themselves are subject to the restraint of the legislative branch - and if you don't believe me, check out Article III of the Constitution. The legislature, which should have the final say in the matter, has been blocked by a rogue judge.

Which brings me back to my original question: would someone (Terri's parents, or others closely involved) be justified in undertaking civil disobedience and keeping Terri alive - or even attempting to rehabilitate her - against the will of the judge?

 

[ReillyT]

First, I think it is 100% wrong for a court to decide what doctors should be deciding. A judge is not trained enough to make medical decisions.

Second, the people/representatives of Florida did pass a law to keep Terri alive. The FL supremes voted it down.

Again, since plausible doubt exists as to the ability to rehabilitate Terri, we should err on the side of life.

So you think that Terri's doctor can remove the feeding tube if the husband wants with no judicial oversight? What if Terri has 5 doctors, one of whom disagrees with the decision? Is it which doctor is willing to stand next to the bed until she dies? Is it majority rules among doctors? Perhaps it would then depend on which doctor is big enough to beat the others up. Of course not.

The courts make decisions based on what the doctors tell them. That is the what expert testimony is all about. Jurors do the same thing in medical malpractice cases.

The Florida law that was passed was passed directly with the Schiavo case in mind, and was directed only at Terri Schiavo. That is clearly unconstitutional. The government is not allowed to make laws only to apply to certain individuals based on its whims. Laws must be general in application. That is a basic constitutional protection. If Florida wanted to make a law requiring the continuation of extraordinary measures (and could define extraordinary any way that they saw fit) in all cases, it could try. It might be unconstitutional (not sure), but whether it is constitutional or not is moot because Florida has never attempted to pass such a law.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I have grave reservations that her husband has her best interests in mind, especially given that he's already living with (and has two kids with) another woman.

I can see your point with that, however, it was over 7 years after Terri first collapsed before schiavo started seeing someone else. It seems that for that first 7 years he did indeed try to be the good husband. Trying new therapies and such, taking care of her in the house. Now, could/should someone be able to last forever without any human affection? maybe, maybe not. Others have gone a lot less.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The legislature, not the courts, make the laws. The courts themselves are subject to the restraint of the legislative branch - and if you don't believe me, check out Article III of the Constitution. The legislature, which should have the final say in the matter, has been blocked by a rogue judge.

Which brings me back to my original question: would someone (Terri's parents, or others closely involved) be justified in undertaking civil disobedience and keeping Terri alive - or even attempting to rehabilitate her - against the will of the judge?

As I understand it, the lower courts(state and such) are checked by the state legislatures as well as the federal courts. The US house can make federal laws affecting the nation, have that law ruled unconstitutional by the USSC, then amend the constitution. Is that not how checks and balances work?

 

[Gem]

I do not think that the fact that the man moved on with his life has any bearing on this case whatsoever.

If you are willing to put yourself in Terri's place and imagine that she doesn't want to die...be willing to put yourself in her place and image that she does...imagine how hellish this whole ordeal has been if she really just wanted to let everyone she knew and loved (herself included) be able to peacefully pass into the next stage of their lives.

Imagine if you knew for a fact that your spouse wouldn't want to live like this, yet her loving, but obsessed parents were ignoring their own child's wishes in order to sustain their own desire to keep her alive...imagine how hellish that would be for you as a devoted spouse.

 

[ReillyT]

The legislature, not the courts, make the laws. The courts themselves are subject to the restraint of the legislative branch - and if you don't believe me, check out Article III of the Constitution. The legislature, which should have the final say in the matter, has been blocked by a rogue judge.

Article III only applies to the Federal government and its courts, not the courts of the State of Florida. The restraint that the legislature has over the courts is the ability to change a law that they think is being applied in a manner they don't like. Short of impeachment of federal judges, that is all the restraint the legislature has over the federal judiciary.

The Florida state court judge in this case is applying Florida law. He is not a rogue judge. He is applying the law of the state of Florida, which is his job. The doctrine of Federalism should prevent the federal legislature from interfering in this case.

 

[musicman]

Article III only applies to the Federal government and its courts, not the courts of the State of Florida. The restraint that the legislature has over the courts is the ability to change a law that they think is being applied in a manner they don't like. Short of impeachment of federal judges, that is all the restraint the legislature has over the federal judiciary.

The Florida state court judge in this case is applying Florida law. He is not a rogue judge. He is applying the law of the state of Florida, which is his job. The doctrine of Federalism should prevent the federal legislature from interfering in this case.

Aren't YOU the states-rights advocate all of a sudden!

Luckily for them, they're not trying to erect a manger scene or something - you'd be all over them!

 

[ReillyT]

Which brings me back to my original question: would someone (Terri's parents, or others closely involved) be justified in undertaking civil disobedience and keeping Terri alive - or even attempting to rehabilitate her - against the will of the judge?

No. This matter has been dealt with in the manner intended. All sides have had their chance to advocate their position. A decision has been made that complies with the laws of Florida and the United States. I don't see any basis for civil disobedience.

 

[ReillyT]

Aren't YOU the states-rights advocate all of a sudden!

Luckily for them, they're not trying to erect a manger scene or something - you'd be all over them!

I am for state rights when state rights that don't conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the Supremacy clause. That, in my opinion, is the only time there are state rights under our system of gov't. Here, no conflict between what the judge is doing in Florida and the U.S. Constitution. In the Ten Commandment case, I think there is a conflict between what the state is doing and the U.S. Constitution, but that is a topic for another thread.

 

[ReillyT]

Aren't YOU the states-rights advocate all of a sudden!

Luckily for them, they're not trying to erect a manger scene or something - you'd be all over them!

Quippy though. I like the way you drew the connection.

 

[musicman]

I am for state rights when state rights that don't conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the Supremacy clause. That, in my opinion, is the only time there are state rights under our system of gov't. Here, no conflict between what the judge is doing in Florida and the U.S. Constitution. In the Ten Commandment case, I think there is a conflict between what the state is doing and the U.S. Constitution, but that is a topic for another thread.

That it is, Reilly - that it is. I just found the whole thing humorously ironic, in view of some of our past discussions.

 

[5stringJeff]

As I understand it, the lower courts(state and such) are checked by the state legislatures as well as the federal courts. The US house can make federal laws affecting the nation, have that law ruled unconstitutional by the USSC, then amend the constitution. Is that not how checks and balances work?

Congress has authority to "ordain and establish" inferior Courts. That gives Congress the authority to establish the jurisdiction of those courts, and what cases may or may not be tried. Congress does this on a somewhat regular basis already.

 

[ReillyT]

Congress has authority to "ordain and establish" inferior Courts. That gives Congress the authority to establish the jurisdiction of those courts, and what cases may or may not be tried. Congress does this on a somewhat regular basis already.

"ordain and establish" inferior Federal Courts. You probably already knew that. I just wanted to make it clear. You are right though, setting limits of jurisdiction is another restraint that Congress has over the courts. I forgot that one.