I don’t feel the the government has the right to get involved with what is going on in one’s life. They are here to run the country with its problems. I maintain that this situation is a personal one – one that many people disagree with but given their situation would they do the same thing or stand guard over a body that breathes with the help of a machine. That isn’t any quality of life.

First and foremost is the doctor’s creed to “Do No Harm,” something many get confused over as they assume a god-complex through their egos.

Second, the assumption cannot be made that Terri wants to die simply because the husband says so. Any assumption otherwise, without due investigation of his motives and intent is not due diligence in enforcing the law. There is not written agreement stating Terri’s wishes. Like Adrian said earlier, in this absence, you must continue to allow her to live.

Third, death by dehydration is a horrific and tortuous way to pass away. She will wither away, and while she won’t be able to communicate, there will exist in her a wondering of what is happening to her, who is doing it, and why it is happening. We possess an innate desire to LIVE, and our natural inclination is to fight for that right. We cannot assume that she will not fight nor desire to live further.

Finally, the judge is dismissing this because of convenience, not because a final ruling on all matters has been made. His actions are reprehensible and reminds us that there are pernicious and evil people entrusted to be our “leaders.” Woe are we whose justices, those charged with upholding the rule of law, are more concerned with expedience than doing what is right and/or just. This is the trend of liberally elected and appointed judges. Expedience is not a part of justice. Justice is too great a value and ideal to be circumvented and spit upon simply because the judge has grown weary. He needs to read some Isiah 40 and gather his breath.

Thansk LB for continuing to keep this one on the front burner.

It will hurt and it will hurt for days. Death-row criminals die more painlessly.

I responded to this question below, under “Breaking News: Terri Schiavo, etc.”

No one here is espousing a maximalism that would mandate aggressive treatment to prolong any and every life whatever the cost.

No one here is denying the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary means of treatment.

(As I understand the distinction, it has nothing to do with the technical complexity or costliness of the contemplated treatment, and everything to do with whether or not it is merely staving off an imminent death that would happen anyway for other reasons.)

What we’re saying is that, given the facts, the Schiavo case is NOT analogous to the ones you cite, so that the remnoval of Terri’s feeding tube is tantamount to murder.

Now, we may have gotten our facts wrong. But, even so, this wouldn’t change for an instant the principle that is at stake here, which is twofold:

(1) There is a distinction between legitimate refusal of treatment and suicide/murder;

(2) Deciding which one a particular case falls under is NOT simply a matter of determining the wish of the suffering person.

If that were all that was needed, then there would be no need to make any distinction between legitimate refusal of treatment and suicide/murder.

Adrian

I agree that suicide or “self murder” is morally wrong, not a victimless crime, etc but what I don’t think suicide or murder is the issue here. I think the issue is rather that we have the medical capacity to support life where, in the absence of such technology and skill, it would have ceased. This is a powerful gift we have been given, but it is not without cost. I am not refering to financial burden here but rather the moral/spiritual cost of sustaining life. If, as some have posited, the cessation of extraordinary medical intervention in this case is murder and therefore, both morally repugnant and illegal, where do they stand on cancer patients who chose not to have chemotherapy. Are they committing suicide and should therefore have decisional capacity taken away? Or, the dialysis patient who choses to stop dialysis, is he commiting suicide? Or, perhaps the person with severe emphysema who chooses not to intubated though this intervention will save his life, though it may sentence him to the remainder of his life attached to a ventilator. In each case, the person is choosing to forgo a life-sustaining treatment. Is this suicide? Or, is the decision by a physician to not attempt to restart the heart of an elderly, infirm, cancer riddled patient when it stops murder? Aggressive cardiopulmonary resuscitation has the potential to save that person’s life. Or, if the patient with severe heart failure does not take his medicines knowing that ceasing such intervention will slowly cause his legs to swell and lungs to fill with fluid, suicide? Or if a daughter decides not to replace the feeding tube in her mother, who is suffering from dementia, after her mother has pulled it out, not understanding what that means, murder? If, in each of the above cases, the person making decisions is wrong, should I tie the patient down to give chemo or dialyze them, arrest the person who doesn’t take their medications, intubate the patient so he can breath against his will and shock the cancer patient until his heart restarts, or put the feeding tube back in and physically or pharmacologically restrain the patient? Furthermore, if it is an absolute moral imperative in each case to pursue to life-sustaining treatment and the decision no longer rests with the individual or their loved ones who know them best, why continue the charade of informed consent and patient choice? Let’s have a great big bureaucracy, (church, state, physicians, nurses, I don’t care who) that determines what is right and just do it all whether the patient want’s it or not and irregardless of its benefit to the person as a whole. People die, it is the end result of living. But I caution anyone to snatch life from the jaws of death without first thinking what the life saved gets in return. Is it selfish to accept death when it comes? Or rather is it selfish to force someone to stay when it is their time to go?

I agree that suicide or “self murder” is morally wrong, not a victimless crime, etc but what I don’t think suicide or murder is the issue here. I think the issue is rather that we have the medical capacity to support life where, in the absence of such technology and skill, it would have ceased. This is a powerful gift we have been given, but it is not without cost. I am not refering to financial burden here but rather the moral/spiritual cost of sustaining life. If, as some have posited, the cessation of extraordinary medical intervention in this case is murder and therefore, both morally repugnant and illegal, where do they stand on cancer patients who chose not to have chemotherapy. Are they committing suicide and should therefore have decisional capacity taken away? Or, the dialysis patient who choses to stop dialysis, is he commiting suicide? Or, perhaps the person with severe emphysema who chooses not to intubated though this intervention will save his life, though it may sentence him to the remainder of his life attached to a ventilator. In each case, the person is choosing to forgo a life-sustaining treatment. Is this suicide? Or, is the decision by a physician to not attempt to restart the heart of an elderly, infirm, cancer riddled patient when it stops murder? Aggressive cardiopulmonary resuscitation has the potential to save that person’s life. Or, if the patient with severe heart failure does not take his medicines knowing that ceasing such intervention will slowly cause his legs to swell and lungs to fill with fluid, suicide? Or if a daughter decides not to replace the feeding tube in her mother, who is suffering from dementia, after her mother has pulled it out, not understanding what that means, murder? If, in each of the above cases, the person making decisions is wrong, should I tie the patient down to give chemo or dialyze them, arrest the person who doesn’t take their medications, intubate the patient so he can breath against his will and shock the cancer patient until his heart restarts, or put the feeding tube back in and physically or pharmacologically restrain the patient? Furthermore, if it is an absolute moral imperative in each case to pursue to life-sustaining treatment and the decision no longer rests with the individual or their loved ones who know them best, why continue the charade of informed consent and patient choice? Let’s have a great big bureaucracy, (church, state, physicians, nurses, I don’t care who) that determines what is right and just do it all whether the patient want’s it or not and irregardless of its benefit to the person as a whole. People die, it is the end result of living. But I caution anyone to snatch life from the jaws of death without first thinking what the life saved gets in return. Is it selfish to accept death when it comes? Or rather is it selfish to force someone to stay when it is their time to go?

Since Terri can breathe on her own without a respirator, the only way to ensure her demise is to remove her feeding tube. This means death by dehydration.

Dr. William Burke, a neurologist in St. Louis describ…

I’ve given it my “best shot,” in which I did one better than our state’s Governor (God bless him) –Whilst he lost 7-0 inout state’s high court, my loss (and it hurt!!) -was merely 4-3 a split decision, and the chief justice (Barbara Pariente) voted for my intervention. (She recently had cancer, and perhaps was fearful of a “bad” hospital system, unchecked by the judiciary!?)

Here’s the release with links:

For Immediate Release:
Florida Supreme Court splits 4-3 on surprise last-minute filing in Terri Schiavo Case

http://prweb.com/releases/2005/2/prweb212613.htm

with mirrors at:

http://hometown.aol.com/gww1210/myhomepage/PressRelease02-25-2005.html

and:

http://www.geocities.com/Gordon_Watts32313/PressRelease02-25-2005.html

While many parties have become involved in the Terri Schiavo case, there has been much activity under the radar, not reported by the mainstream press.

LAKELAND, FL (The Register) Friday, 25 February 2005 – Terri Schiavo supporters have been bolstered by a surprise, last-minute filing from an unexpected source. Lakeland, Florida resident, Gordon Watts, who filed a petition for writ of Habeas Corpus with Florida’s high court on behalf of Schiavo in late November of 2003, shortly after Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed and re-inserted, has struggled against powerful interests who have attempted to discredit and dismiss his involvement in this high-profile case. Watts also has experience in the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to hear his racial profiling case today, and can be found at the court’s official website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-8132.htm regarding a situation in which he was asked to leave an establishment based allegedly on his minority ethnic background.

In spite of much opposition and ridicule from mainstream media and other parties, however, Watts’ case has remained alive in Florida’s Supreme Court for over a year until this past Wednesday.

Watts, who learned of the Schiavo case in 2003 from news reports, immediately moved to file as “next friend” to challenge Schiavo’s alleged illegal detention in hospices, which, according to State Law, are only allowed to admit terminal patients, which are expected to die within six or fewer months. Watts’ filings bear many similarities to filings made by the immediate family, but have additional elements, such as the direct challenge to the placement of Schiavo in a hospice facility and the use of the writ of habeas corpus. Watts has said that the immediate family would be more appropriate to file, but seeing no one else make these legal arguments, petitioned the court, noting that he need not be “closest friend” to satisfy legal Due Process requirements for the handicapped woman, who has been denied legal representation for much of her ordeal.

Mr. Watts also took issue with the fact that court orders only spoke to the feeding tube, but that parties removed both the feeding tube and also denied natural food, the latter a felony under chapter 825 state laws.

Due to the recent developments, many parties have asked Watts to request that the high court issue a stay on the probate court proceedings while the Supreme Court justices have a chance to review his petitions on an expedited basis. This past Tuesday, Watts requested the court review his legal arguments, and late Thursday, it was learned that the court had quickly moved the previous day to issue a decision. Justices voted 4-3 to uphold a previous tentative decision to dismiss the filing based on technical errors.

Voting to dismiss, without a written opinion, were Justices Kenneth Bell, Raoul Cantero, Peggy Quince, and Charles Wells. Voting to allow Watts to continue to file on behalf of Schiavo were Justices Harry Lee Anstead, R. Fred Lewis, and Chief Justice Barbara Pariente. The terse ruling can be found on the official website at: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2005/2/03-2420reh.pdf and is expected to be posted soon on Watts’ online newspaper.

Responding to claims that he does not have legal right to challenge Schiavo’s detention in the hospice network, Watts declares that “non-lawyers” may intervene in rare instances and quotes “The Operation and Jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court” by Gerald Kogan and Robert Craig Waters, the court’s current spokesperson (18 Nova L. Rev. 1151, at 624., Fla. 1994), which states that “Even detention imposed on someone by a private individual potentially can be tested by habeas corpus. The most common use is where one parent alleges that the other parent has taken custody of a child wrongfully.” Mr. Watts also cites other landmark cases to support his claim that he may intervene: State ex rel. Deeb v. Fabisinski, 111 Fla. 454; and, the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, which held that that to be a ‘next friend,’ one need only “provide an adequate explanation–such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability–why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf.”

Some in the news media have made issue with the fact that Watts has filed other cases and labeled him as a “frivolous lawsuit” filer. Watts responds: “When, in the court of public opinion, a news writer wants to write multiple articles and deny me any coverage, I do not call him a ‘frivolous news article’ writer, and likewise, when I find several injustices, I would like to have my right to get a fair day in court to have our freedoms protected in this country of declining morals. Therefore, with everyone distracted by ‘Terri’s Law’, I think it right for me to try to help Theresa Schiavo, the person.”

Watts, a Biology and Chemical Science honor student and alumni from The Florida State University, hopes that the combined efforts of many people can prevent the danger of placement in medical facilities in which they are prohibited by law.

After being narrowly denied at Florida’s High Court, Watts plans to appeal to the United State Supreme Court and ask the nation’s highest court for permission to directly intervene on behalf of Terri Schiavo.

For further information, one may visit Watts web paper at: http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210 or http://www.geocities.com/Gordon_Watts32313 or contact him at Gww1210@aol.com or 863-688-9880.

His personal website is: http://GordonWatts.com
# # #

Keywords:
Government Government: National Government: State Home and Family Legal / Law Medical: Managed Care / HMO Medical: Nursing Politics Religion Science and Research TERRI, SCHIAVO, TERRI SCHIAVO, SCHINDLER, THERESA, ABUSE, DISABLED, ELDERLY, GORDON WATTS, GORDON W. WATTS, GORDON WAYNE WATTS, TERRIS LAW, TERRI’S LAW, TERRIES LAW, TERRIE’S LAW, TERRYS LAW, TERRY’S LAW, JEB, BUSH, GOVERNOR BUSH, JEB BUSH, GOVERNOR JEB BUSH, FLORIDA, LAWMAKERS, FLORIDA LAWMAKERS, LAW, LAWS, SCHIVO, TERRI SCHIVO, TERRI SCHIAVO, TERRI SHCHIVO, TERRY SCHIAVO, TERRI SCHINDLER SCHIAVO, TERRY SCHINDLER SCHIAVO, SUIT, LAWSUIT, GOVERNOR, FLORIDA GOVERNOR, MICHAREL SCHIAVOM EUTHANASIA, MERCY KILLING, SCHINDLER-SCHIAVO, SCHINDLER, ASSISTED SUICIDE, RULE OF LAW, JOHN ELLIS BUSH, GOVERNOR JOHN ELLIS BUSH, PRESIDENT, PRESIDENTS, GEORGE, GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT BUSH, PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, US PRESIDENT, U.S. PRESIDENT, FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, FLA SUPREME COURT, US SUPREME COURT, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, U.S. SUPREME COURT, LAWSUIT, LAWSUITS, SUIT, SUITS, NURSING, MANAGED CARE

Gordon Wayne Watts http://GordonWatts.com
BS, The Florida State University, Biological and Chemical Sciences
AS, United Electronics Institute

ALWAYS FAITHFUL – To God
And God bless my friends who made me this picture.
821 Alicia Road, Lakeland, FLA, USA 33801-2113 http://HomeTown.AOL.com/Gww1210 or http://www.GeoCities.com/Gordon_Watts32313
Home: (863) 688-9880 Work: (863) 686-3411 Voice&FAX: (863) 687-6141
Gww1210@aol.com ; Gww12102002@Yahoo.com
Truth is the strongest, most stable force in the Universe.
TRUTH doesn’t bend to the will of tyrants.
Gordon Wayne Watts
Get Truth.

“First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me.” (Martin Niemoller, given credit for a quotation in The Harper Religious and Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret Pepper (New York: Harper &Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17, of Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier, Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and Family Publications.

(Actually, they may not have come for the Jews first, as it’s far more likely they came for the prisoners, mentally handicapped, and other so-called “inferiors” first -as historians tell us -so they could get “practiced up;” But, they did come for them -due to the silence of their neighbors -and due, in part, to their own silence. So the general idea is correct: “Speak up now, or forever hold your peace.” –Gordon)
*
*