Courts in Florida knock down "Terry's Law"..

[dilloduck]

I believe that the ACLU puts the right to life last on the list which is the crux of thier hypocrisy. Without being alive, a person has NO ability to exercise any of the rest of the rights GUARANTEED us by the Constitution. It's a very simple point yet the ACLU can't understand the logic. They are merely interested in thier "legal" revolution against any majority.

 

[William Joyce]

William,it's just that your comment was incredibly harsh. She did nothing to ask for this. And maybe,just maybe,God did intend for her to live a better,longer life until her husband said no to any rehabilitation. I don't beleive this woman is a vegetable. She isn't in comma,she isn't brain dead. Even the doctors are deadlocked on that. Because of that-it wouldn't be humane to stop feeding her. How could someone live with theirselves knowing she may be having thoughts? To call her a "fucker" was just plain mean.

I was talking about "fuckers" in general, not this woman. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Merlin1047]

Fascinating, I disagree with an opinion of yours and you label me in a demeaning way. Very interesting. Because it has relevance to this conversation I happen to be a moderate conservative, registered republican...which is why I think that what Jeb Bush did is wrong.

Oh please - give me a break here. I call you a liberal and you want to get huffy about it. Well, if you truly are a conservative, I guess I can see your point. If my perception of your liberal leaning was in error, I'll apologize - but not just yet.

Seperation of Powers is a very crucial issue to keeping the Government OUT of the most personal aspects of our lives. I do NOT want President Bush, his brother, his mother, or his third cousin making personal decisions about my life. It was not what the men who wrote our Constitution had in mind for our nation...Gov't stepping in to issues that had already been decided by the courts...and it sets a dangerous precedent.

Didn't Terry Schaivo's parents request assistance from the Governor's office? I don't believe that he insinuated himself into this situation just to have something to do on a slow day. So that rather blows your "Separation" argument out of the water. The governor is a representative of the people, same as any elected official. He is obliged to consider their requests.

And as far as your statement "Gov't stepping in to issues that had already been decided by the courts...and it sets a dangerous precedent." You HAVE to be kidding. Courts have taken too much powers on themselves over the last fifty years. It is time for the legislative branch to pull the reins in on judges. We, the people are the only ones who have a right to create and to change laws. Judges merely interpret them as these laws apply to specific situations. My suspicions of your liberalism is not diminished by this statement.

I am willing to concede that Jeb Bush got involved in this issue because of his big ol' heart (although one might wonder why his big ol' heart was only touched when the cameras were turned on...and not years earlier since the case had been decided months earlier...he only seemed to note on the issue when the media picked up on the case...but hey, I'm sure he knew about it all along and was just busy till then....right??? )

Bottom line here is that you don't know what Gov Bush's motivation was. Simply admit that this is your unsupported opinion - you're entitled to it. Just don't expect me to nod my head in agreement like some bobble-head. If you have some EVIDENCE regarding Bush's motivations, I'd certainly be interested in reading it.

And now you're inconsistent with your positions. In your previous paragraph you complained that the governor's actions degraded the separation of powers between the legislative and judiciary. But now you complain that if he was going to act, he should have done so months earlier. Well it seems to me that had the governor acted before the final decision was reached to kill Terry Schaivo, then he would have been guilty of doing exactly that which you criticized previously.

Yes, I agree with everyone here...it is truly a statement on how important a living will is. But therein you hit upon a problem.

Imagine, all of you who are screaming about a man trying to kill his wife for money (a man, so desperate for money that he stayed involved with this woman for years and years and years with nothing...doesn't exactly seem like the most brilliant scheme ever, huh?)...imagine that Terry Schiavo desperately felt that living in a vegetative or semi-vegetative state would be the worst kind of hell. That being a burden in that way to her family would be the most awful thing she could do. Imagine that she told her husband this, thinking, as many Americans do, that that would be enough, since he has power of attorney, the right to "turn off machines," that she had done enough...now imagine that this poor woman who DIDN'T want to live this way is now forced to...becase people are refusing to allow her choice to be heard.

I agree, we do not have a living will to fall back on. But while we are imagining her husband as a money-grubbing evil bastard, I think we should also imagine the absolute horror of having to live like this if you had specifically stated that it was the very thing you had stated you did not want.

Yes, we can certainly do a lot of IMAGINING. But I won't agree that is a valid basis for terminating a human life. To end the life of a human being, we have to KNOW to a complete degree of certainty that this is the wish of the person who cannot speak for himself or herself. We only have the word of her husband - and given the mysterious nature of the origin of Terry Schaivo's condition, makes his motivations and his veracity extremely suspect in my view.

 

[Mr. P]

I have to agree with Bully here..in addition the Medical folks seem to confirm and believe she is in a persistent vegetative state.

Much more info. in the link...

What is a persistent vegetative state? According to the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke people in PVS "have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns. Even though those in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher brain functions, other key functions such as breathing and circulation remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur, and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may even occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh. Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands." People suffering from PVS can generally be distinguished from afflicted but cognitively intact patients who suffer from "locked-in syndrome" by the fact that "locked in" patients can track visual stimuli and use eye blinks for communication.

http://www.reason.com/links/links102303.shtml

 

[Merlin1047]

Why WOULD her husband care? He can drop Terry into the custody of her parents and skip off scot free to live with his new wife...but he hasn't...he has accrued legal fees (which will overshadow and "profit" he might have made as some have falsely claimed here), and the time, pain, and sufferring he has gone through during this lengthy process far outweigh any potential gains....you rightly assert that, Bonnie, way to go...

Then you lose it...He isn't doing it for money...he could just "scrape her off" and move on...but he doesn't...why not??!??

Since you posed the question, I can think of numerous reasons why he has not relinquished his interest in this case.

One reason may be that he truly loves his wife, was a devoted husband and is now attempting to honor her wishes.

Another is that he is responsible for her injuries and wants her dead because he fears that she may recover sufficiently to incriminate him.

Can you tell me which applies? Because until that question is answered, there is no credible evidence that Terry Schaivo ever uttered a request to have her life ended.

 

[Merlin1047]

I have to agree with Bully here..in addition the Medical folks seem to confirm and believe she is in a persistent vegetative state.

Much more info. in the link...
http://www.reason.com/links/links102303.shtml

Thanks for the info, P. But definitions are the easy part. Deciding whether they apply is a bit more difficult.

The whole thing is a mess. If Terry Schaivo's condition was not brought about under suspicious circumstance and if she had left a living will and if her current condition could be quantified absolutely to meet the definition you provided, then the only complaint I would have about this whole case would be the manner in which she would finally die. But if that was indeed her wish, then even that should be honored.

The fact is that there are simply too many unknowns in this case for anyone to make an absolute judgement. And as long as that is the case, we should err in the direction that preserves life.

 

[Gem]

Merlin,

You are living in a la-la land where Jeb Bush (who didn't do squat about this case until the parent of Terry Shiavo showed up at his door with a camera crew from the national news) should be able to change laws at his whim and women in persistent vegetative states suddenly "wake up" in order to name their husbands responsible for their condition, thanking God for the concerned media and public...

One of us is acting like a liberal Merlin....but it sure aint me, lol.

I'm the one over here...asking for seperation of powers, government out of the private decisions of individuals, the respect of people's personal medical decisions...asking for the media to stop hyping stories...actually knowing some FACTS about the topic at hand, rather than just jumping in with my "feelings"...you should try it over here on this side of things sometimes...its kind of nice.

 

[Merlin1047]

Merlin,

You are living in a la-la land where Jeb Bush (who didn't do squat about this case until the parent of Terry Shiavo showed up at his door with a camera crew from the national news) should be able to change laws at his whim and women in persistent vegetative states suddenly "wake up" in order to name their husbands responsible for their condition, thanking God for the concerned media and public...

Apparently you are (1) incapable of reading, or (2) lacking in comprehensive skills or (3) a narrow-minded leftist seeking simply to bash a Republican governor. Your diatribe against Bush is simply a specious construct of your prejudice against the man. Your continuing unwillingness to deal objectively with the points I have raised is evidence of either faulty reasoning capabilities or narrow-minded ideology. Bush responded to a parent's plea to preserve the life of a daughter. The fact that you would denigrate that and attempt to paint it as cheap political theater proves your bias against the man. The fact that you would discount the life of this woman in consideration of the faulty reasoning you present for separation of powers is proof that you have lost any sense of perspective, assuming that you ever had any to begin with.

One of us is acting like a liberal Merlin....but it sure aint me, lol.

That is certainly a matter of opinion and I'm giving your's less credibility with every post.

I'm the one over here...asking for seperation of powers, government out of the private decisions of individuals, the respect of people's personal medical decisions...asking for the media to stop hyping stories...actually knowing some FACTS about the topic at hand, rather than just jumping in with my "feelings"...you should try it over here on this side of things sometimes...its kind of nice.

Your assertion regarding "separation" is, again, specious and ill-considered. The courts are NOT the last word in everything. You may prostrate yourself in front of judges if you choose, but judges do not - or should not - make laws. It is the right of the people to make, amend, and repeal laws. Your argument is pointless and without rational basis. You simply seek to construct a framework for an inane assertion that cannot be supported by any rational analysis of the facts, the constitution or the law.

And I have wasted sufficient keystrokes discussing this with you as I dislike going around in circles with someone who substitutes a blind devotion to ideology for rational or analytical thought.

 

[Mr. P]

Thanks for the info, P. But definitions are the easy part. Deciding whether they apply is a bit more difficult.

Your welcome, Merlin. I disagree that definitions are the easy part, however. It has taken the medical
profession years an who knows how many studies/cases to come to these conclusions. I do agree that deciding if they apply is difficult. It should be difficult. That, for the most part anyway, should be left to professionals and the legal guardian, not layman, nor the public at large.

The whole thing is a mess. If Terry Schaivo's condition was not brought about under suspicious circumstance and if she had left a living will and if her current condition could be quantified absolutely to meet the definition you provided, then the only complaint I would have about this whole case would be the manner in which she would finally die. But if that was indeed her wish, then even that should be honored.

I agree it's a mess, but the circumstance of the onset of her condition really has nothing to do with the current situation nor its resolution. Yes, a living will would have been the answer to this situation. That's why Bullys' suggestion we all have one is something I agree with totally.

The fact is that there are simply too many unknowns in this case for anyone to make an absolute judgement. And as long as that is the case, we should err in the direction that preserves life.

What life? Surely you don't consider laying in a bed in this state for 14 years a life? How large a error are you willing to make on behave of a total stranger whom you really know nothing about?

 

[Gem]

Merlin,

You really are making this too fun. You have completely misunderstood the definition or purpose of Seperation of Powers...it is not a "by the people" issue but rather the Constitutional safeguard against precisely what Bush did...but I have a feeling that you are one of those people who makes up their mind and there is no changing it...so I will drop that and simply ask you do look at some of the facts of the case.

This is from civillibertyabout.com...

Terry Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 following a heart attack. The brain damage left her unable to care for herself so for the last 13 years she’s had a feeding tube in her mouth for nutrients and fluids.

You and others are obviously, correct...Terry is in the state she is in now because of her husband...

Terry was awarded a substantial malpractice settlement for the improperly diagnosed potassium deficiency that led to the heart attack and collapse which damaged her brain. The settlement was for continuation of her care and rehabilitation, among other things.

That would explain why she was awarded money in a malpractice suit against someone other than her husband....oh...wait, no it doesn't...it proves MY POINT that her husband had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!! Darn...sucks for you.

Many forms of rehabilitation were attempted in the first years of Terry's condition, but she did not respond or recover. It is reported that nearly all of the settlement has now been spent on rehabilitation attempts, and continuing care.

Whew...lucky for you the prove shows that there is lots of money left for her husband to make off with if he can kill her, since he didn't go through with any of the rehab....WAIT A MINUTE!!! That ISN'T what happened....hmm...wrong again, Merlin...too bad.

Terry is now in a hospice. Several doctors, including those appointed by the courts, have pronounced her to be in a "persistent vegetative state". However Terry parents have hired doctors that claim that Terry has a consciousness.

Now, if you were willing to actually view both sides of this argument...I would ask you to note on the fact that the doctors who feel that she has consciousness were all HIRED BY THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO REMOVE THE FEEDING TUBE! That, to some people, would appear to be a convinient coincidence....but to you...its just facts to be overlooked.

Also interesting to not, the people who are profitting off of Terry being alive...the doctors at the hospice, and the supposedly impartial doctors hired by the courts...all feel that she is in a persistent vegitative state...but I guess we'll just ignore them.


Merlin, everyone has seen the video of Terry "making eye contact" with people, and "smiling" at people she knows. It can be very emotional... Have you seen the other 4 hours of the video...where she does the exact same thing to no one at all...when she "smiles" at a wall...makes "eye contact" with the air...no, of course not...because then it would look like what the majority of doctors say it is...random motor reflexes that are not an indicator of a conscious state.


Now, I understand where you are coming from...I really do. But 19 judges in 6 courts studied the case at length and they disagreed with you. We are not talking about one or two activist judges, spreading secular euthanasia laws without thinking...

 

[Bullypulpit]

I don't really disagree with your point, but the problem is that it does not apply to the case under discussion. The "vegetative state" you describe is a comatose condition in which there are essentially no motor functions and no discernable cognitive abilities. If that were Terry Schaivo's condition, I would agree with your view completely. But in this case it appears that severe retardation is more likely a good descriptor.

Schaivo's parents have demanded that she be kept alive and they have agreed to bear the expense. I think that the husband's motives are extremely suspect and he should have no say in her disposition.

Sorry, but she is in what is defined as a persistent vegetative state. She has no cognitive functions beyond the level of reflex. Wishing the situation were otherwise does not make it so.

Does her husbands desire to fulfill his wife's stated desires render his motives suspect? I think not. Were the same thing happen to my wife, I would honor her stated wishes not to be kept alive in such a state, contrary to whatever her family might say. But we don't have to worry about that as we have advance directives in place.

 

[Merlin1047]

Sorry, but she is in what is defined as a persistent vegetative state. She has no cognitive functions beyond the level of reflex. Wishing the situation were otherwise does not make it so.

Does her husbands desire to fulfill his wife's stated desires render his motives suspect? I think not. Were the same thing happen to my wife, I would honor her stated wishes not to be kept alive in such a state, contrary to whatever her family might say. But we don't have to worry about that as we have advance directives in place.

But my point is that we have only her husband's word for that and his integrity is highly suspect.

 

[Bonnie]

I wonder, does it matter to any of the starve-her-to-death advocates here that the only reason removing her feeding tube will result in her death is because the husband has, over the course of the last several years, deliberately prevented the requisite rehabilative and evaluative procedures that may have allowed her to be fed in another fashion?



http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/PetitiontoRemoveGuardian111502.htm


I find it absolutely appalling anyone could in good conscience advocate deliberately starving someone to death. How completely inhuman.

But it does provide a clear example of the subject of the Dennis Prager article Bonnie posted awhile back, that being too many ideological liberals prefer doing what is legal over doing what is right.

Zhukov, Thanks for that Im glad at least you see the idiocy in elitist crap....... Yes by all means lets show how smart and legal we are lets starve a woman to death, that really shows guts!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bonnie]

If this is true, Bonnie....than neither do you. This is a discussion site...hence my DISCUSSING the issue...if you feel that people should not be allowed to discuss things when they disagree with you, perhaps you need to find another message board. I here www.iamanazi.com is recruiting posters.




Maybe she ISN'T happy, Bonnie. Maybe she is living in her own personal hell. Maybe the last thing on earth she could possibly imagine was living the way she is "living" now. Maybe she said to her husband, as he claims she did, "Do NOT let me exist that way. I DO NOT WANT TO LIVE LIKE THAT."

You do not know the truth of this matter any more than I do...hence why our country has courts...courts who have been given the duty by the Constitution to determine what is to happen in situations where two sides can not reach agreement.

To state that we should simply ignore the court system (as long as it is operating legally) when its decisions do not suit us is to basically say that the Constituation is crap and we should simply pick and choose what we like and don't like. (Very dangerous on the day when the people in charge decide that the "don't like" freedom of speech and due process....think about it...the rules are there for a reason, Bonnie)



We should end this discussion right here. EXACTLY, BONNIE, EXACTLY!!! IT WAS WRONG...would you be here talking about how Bush did wrong but it was actually right if he did something you DISAGREED WITH??!? Because he felt it was morally wrong? This is why we have SEPERATION OF POWER, Bonnie...you can't simply dismiss it when it doesn't suit you.



Please forgive me if my typing isn't as clear in this section, but I'm simply laughing too damn hard.

Bonnie, what kind of idiotic assertion is the one you have just made here. You ask, answer, and dismiss the question in one swoop...

Why WOULD her husband care? He can drop Terry into the custody of her parents and skip off scot free to live with his new wife...but he hasn't...he has accrued legal fees (which will overshadow and "profit" he might have made as some have falsely claimed here), and the time, pain, and sufferring he has gone through during this lengthy process far outweigh any potential gains....you rightly assert that, Bonnie, way to go...

Then you lose it...He isn't doing it for money...he could just "scrape her off" and move on...but he doesn't...why not??!??

Well, by your own deduction, Bonnie...he's either sticking around because his wife asked him to do something for her and he is trying to abide by her wishes...or hes a psycho who is getting his jollies from destroying his life for several years in order to slowly starve a woman.

Hmm...one of these is probable...likely, logical...and one of them is crap. You believe the one that is crap, Bonnie.




WOW...way to piss all over the laws and Constitution of the United States of America, Bonnie....thank God that not everyone in this nation shares your "hey, I'll do whatever I want just so long as I FEEL the end justifies the means..."




Ummm....Abortion, Capital Punishment, Living Wills, Implied Consent, Do Not Rescuciate.....I can go on...


Bonnie, I understand where you are coming from...I really do. If I was this man I would be very tempted to say to Terry's parents that they can take care of her...that is, unless...my husband had said to me, "I DO NOT want to live that way." If he said that, it would be my duty to help him...

Completely seperate from this case, is your shocking willingness to ignore the laws of the nation, and the Constitutional perimeters of seperation of powers. They are there for a reason, Bonnie...and I would be positively fascinated to see how willing you would be to accept someone changing them in a way that you DIDN'T agree with...considering how ecstatic you are to change them to suit you.

Well Gem If you really want to talk about how Liberals change the constitution.......Let so go there shall we? How about how the Pro Death movement in conjunction with the courts have interpreted that everyone is entitled to LIFE liberty and the persuit of happiness to mean everyone except the helpless unborn, and those that drool from their mouths when they eat.

It's astounding how you want the courts to stay out of the womb, but it's perfectly okay to step in because a womans's husband says that one night during pillow talk his wife said kill me if I'm not 100% . Sorry, but if you want to get technical regarding the law then let her husband produce an authentic document that serves to speak for Terry herself.

And while you are pondering what kind of hell Terry may be in, ponder the hell her parents are going through at the thought of the courts telling them to stand by and watch their daughter being starved to death! I mean since on the one hand we are supposed to stick to the law no matter what, but on the other hand you suggest we should put ourselves in Terry's shoes........So which is it????
No I do not advocate trampling all over the law and the Constitution, but not all laws are good or right, and there are rare occasions when they should be overstepped or challenged, like this one, because once again your are talking about a human life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Discussing this matter is fine with me, but refrain from implying that I don't know the importance of seperation of powers and the importance of civil obediance to the law. If you are not an elitist you certainly come across as one.

And by the way The Nazi's if I recall were experts at killing those they thought were not usefull to society, perhaps YOU.would fit in better at that board.................

 

[theim]

I think its kind of funny how the lefties are all for killing unborn babies and people in "vegatative states" but blanch at the prospect of killing murderers and terrorists.

Oh wait. Nevermind. Its just sad and pathetic.

 

[musicman]

I think its kind of funny how the lefties are all for killing unborn babies and people in "vegatative states" but blanch at the prospect of killing murderers and terrorists.

And snail darters and spotted owls - don't forget them!

 

[Gem]

Well Gem If you really want to talk about how Liberals change the constitution.......Let so go there shall we? How about how the Pro Death movement in conjunction with the courts have interpreted that everyone is entitled to LIFE liberty and the persuit of happiness to mean everyone except the helpless unborn, and those that drool from their mouths when they eat.

This might have been a valid argument if you had bothered to clarify my position on abortion or the liberal judges decisions on things such as gay marriage, partial birth abortion, or the appointment of Bush's judge nominees...however, since you decided to make a smarmy presumption rather than simply asking...you have proven yourself a self-righteous and prejudiced person who stereotypes people who disagree with you. Don't worry you have company...Merlin is right there with you.

 

[Bullypulpit]

But my point is that we have only her husband's word for that and his integrity is highly suspect.

The courts have found sufficient evidence of Ms. Schiavo's wishes to adjudicate in favor of Ms. Schiavo's husband, and have found nothing suspect as regards his integrity. Such contentions are nothing more than a canard.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I think its kind of funny how the lefties are all for killing unborn babies and people in "vegatative states" but blanch at the prospect of killing murderers and terrorists.

Oh wait. Nevermind. Its just sad and pathetic.

Withdrawing life-support from individuals who have stated they donnot wish to be maintianed in such a state is not "killing" them...It is honoring their wishes.

And, if you wish to see pathetic, I suggest you take a look in your mirror every morning.

 

[Bullypulpit]

And snail darters and spotted owls - don't forget them!

This isn't about environmental issues. If you can't rationally address the subject, don't try to change it.