Terri Schiavo’s Life is Spared Temporarily

It was appalling to watch as Pro-Death Democrats rallied on Capitol Hill to protect our Constitutional right to kill the inconvenient. While they rail against the slaughter of war they prefer a much more personal form of killing through abortion and euthanasia. You know what they say about true colors…

Well, of course…A previously productive member of society who is now capacitated can’t pay taxes. Why would the DIMocrats want that?

However, someone who kills another person in cold blood just has a mental problem that can be worked out and solved…they can work again…and VOILA! TAX MONEY!

If you can’t give Liberals anything to take from you, they don’t want you. This goes from people like Terri Schiavo down to unborn children.

Ain’t Dim’s grand?

When will people wake up and smell the coffee?

YEAH !! for the power of blogs and talk radio in
making this a national issue. Thanks for your part.
Aaron

You’re right, DS, the same way campaign finance reform is causing waves already. But desperate circumstances call for desperate measures.

La Shawn,

Can you please put this URL with DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS, above:

http://christnu.org/2005/03/index.php#0321050704

Somehow, your link above to us isn’t really a link.

Thanks,

Steve Bragg
DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS

“Federal avenues for appeal have ALWAYS been available to those convicted of crimes.”

Of state crimes, only if there is a federal question, such as a constitutional violation.

I’ve been following the Schiavo case, but not writing sbout it, simply becaue the whole affair literally makes me sick to my stomach! The idea that this man, who took a vow to be with this woman through sickness and health, is trying to murder her so he can marry his girlfriend that he has two illegitmate children with is disgusting.

I watched the debate last night on C-span, it was almost surreal to see the Democrats arguing passionately for her starvation. As an African American, even worse was seeing black democrats arguing against saving her life and throwing veiled racist inuendos around that all this effort by Republicans is for one (white) person, while blacks are suffering from inadequate healthcare. One Black female member from Indiana even mentioned the cost($5 million dollars) of having this special session of Congress. How can you put a price tag on human life?

What has our society become when men murder their preganant wives on Christmas Eve, chilfren are abducted and murdered, and a United States Congressman mentions cost on the floor of the House when debating life and death?

LaShawn:

That is a very valid question. I would like to answer your question with another, where in the Constitution is the power that Congress in asserting specifically enumerated? Also, where in the Constitution does it state that Congress (not the Supreme Court)can subvert the rule of a state supreme court because it (Congress) didn’t like the outcome?

I submit that power does not exist. That is why this round-a-bout subpoena of a person that there is not even an expectation of testimony was issued. Look, I would like to see Mrs. Schiavo live as mouch as anyone, but this issue has already been argued in the courts and I have no idea what her and her spouse may have dicussed on this subject.

One last question, if you and your husband (I don’t know if you are married or not) decided what to do in a situation like this, and in the carrying out of your spouse’s wishes, would you like for Congress to jump in and “We don’t like your (you and your husband’s) decision, so we are going to make it for you.”

Congress has trampled on state’s rights and the rule of law. Sometimes we may not agree with the law but, we must accept it. We are a noation of laws, right? What about this situation has changed the fact the next of kin (in this case the husband) is responsible for making these types of decisions?

“Also, where in the Constitution does it state that Congress (not the Supreme Court)can subvert the rule of a state supreme court because it (Congress) didn’t like the outcome?”

That would probably be the supremacy clause. But there is also very wide power in the commerce clause. Lately the court has scaled back this power, led by the thomas/scalia/rehnquist wing of the court.

Christopher,
the answer to your question of “what has our society become…………” is “Godless”.

Actus:

That may be true, but isn’t the supremacy clause only in affect when a state law is in direct conflict with a federal law? That is not the case here. There was no federal law, so what Congress did was say, “Hold on we are going to use a backdoor (subpoena) to buy time, then try and pass a law that does not exist, then make you follow it.” This is dangerous…

Actus:

But, that law is probably unconstitutional and the supremacy clause can only be used when Congress “legislates constitutionally.” I think that it is dangerous when Congress passes laws without regard to the constitutionality of the law. The Supreme Court already saw no basis to review the case, this is a subversion of government checks and balances. They all take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution above all.

This is just the opposite of “legislating from the bench”, it is law interpretation from Congress. Both are wrong.

I see everyone is “REAL” concerned about Michael Schiavo rights. This is the Left-sided view, of course.

They want, I mean really want to kill a young girl for no other reason except to further their agenda, which is socialism., just like the Netherlands where Euthenaisa is readily accepted. The Death-o-crats are really disappointed they couldn’t kill this woman.

They say well her husband said this, ‘She didn’t want to live like this’.. according to what I have been reading .. He did not come up with this statement until after he won the malpractice suit . How convenient, there are good suspicions about the husband, and in spirt of good democrat thought if there is the least bit of evidence of this there should be an investigation.

What is so wrong in erring on the side of Life, They can always murder her in the future, something for the socialist left to look forward to, is that so bad. As far as I am concerned the husband should not have any say in the matter, he abandoned his wife years ago and started a new life, but convienently this is never reported.

This wonderful husband has never allowed any therapy in a hope that Terri may/might improve, again this is never brought up.

The bottom line is this if she were on Death row these leftist-morons would be stumbleling all over themselves trying to save JUST ONE LIFE.,

These people are the most self-rightous, self-serving hypocrites ever.

“I think that it is dangerous when Congress passes laws without regard to the constitutionality of the law.”

In terms of the supremacy clause this is fine. And the Supreme court’s lack of review doesn’t forestall the congressional creation of a new cause of action.

Why wasn’t this case given the same treatment as Terri’s. Hopefully I can find the Law which backed up the moves of the hospital.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43311

This article in NRO is good: http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200503210909.asp

As are these posts, among others, on The Corner: http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_03_20_corner-archive.asp#058825 and http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_03_20_corner-archive.asp#058816

All I can do is pray.

Mark,

What specifically in article 3 gives the Congress the right to intervene in the judiciary and rein them in?

I read an article that she was bullemic and/or anorexic, which led to the breakdown of her body and her collapse. So in a way, it’s ironic that they wanted to remove the tube because she was trying to kill herself via eating disorders.

I’m surprised that the “take responsibility for your own actions” conservatives aren’t pointing out her selfishness: she refused to eat normally for several years, she didn’t create a living will in spite of her psychological and physical dysfunctions, and is now leaving her family and the nation to fight for her.

It is not true that Terri’s care is paid for by the proceeds of Michael’s lawsuit on ‘her behalf.’ Once he won that lawsuit, he slapped a DNR order on her charts and then spent large portions of her money for lawyers to attempt to kill her, placing Terri in hospice (contrary to state law in her case) and put her on Medicaid (also without properly following legal requirements).
As her guardian he has not followed state law for reporting guardianship plans, either, but Judge Greer continues to give him a pass on that, too.

We dn’t know exactly what he’s done with all the money because there’s been no thorough reporting, but we do know over 400,000 dollars went to the Hemlock society, euthanasia supporting lawyers.

I have been following this, it is a shame that it has come to this point where the US congress and the President have to intervene in what should be an open – close common sense decision. js

To All:

Sorry: As a pro-life Republican physician, I have followed the Schiavo case. And until last week, I was somewhat supportive of the Schindlers.

It’s not the liberal Democrats who have been so evasive about the truth in the Schiavo case. It’s the “pro life” Republicans who have not fully disclosed the facts about Terri.

19 judges have examined the Schiavo case, yet only last week was the truth made crystal clear – that Terri has “no cortical function” – tested by CT scan that shows atrophy of the cortex (thinking part of the brain) an flat brain waves – further proof of this.

Terri does not see and talk and laugh and follow baloons with her eyes – indeed, the one video is deceptive – her eyem movements followed the baloon once, but this couldn’t be repeated; most likely coincidence.

Terri’s mother said she “telked to Terri” – convenient for the “pro-life” politicos, but simply untrue. People with “no cortical function” don’t see, talk, feel pain, think, or suffer.

Indeed, the “pro-life” Republicans still have not told the truth to the world – Terri is not going to get better, or suffer if she is not fed.

This is just a medical fact of life.

Part of the problem in this debate are that many people are ignorant about Terri’s mental status and prognosis. Pictures of her provided by her family show a woman who is slack-jawed with severe contractures in her extremities that are misunderstood as smiles. Her moans and vocalizations are not speech. She has existed in this state for many years with no improvement and her condition is hopeless by accounts of all responsible physicians who have examined her at the request of the court and who don’t have some political or social agenda.

Her husband has been vilified because he isn’t out to defend himself against a well organized media campaign. I find his quiet resolve dignified. If it were my spouse I hope they’d have the same strength to continue the fight to let me die with dignity. I also applaud that he isn’t taking videotapes and handing them out to the media to bolster his case in the court of public opinion as the family who are more concerned with their own needs are than doing the right thing by their daughter.

People – take some time to think and stop your knee jerk response. Terri is NOT mentally retarded, in a coma, a criminal or an unborn child. She is a severely brain damaged woman who has been living this way for over a decade.

Finally – easy to criticize her husband for having a family when you aren’t in this circumstance. And as far as I’m concerned he should be compensated with money from the malpractice award for his loss just as much as any other party.

Mark,
Give it a rest, man! Congratulations for having read a book on constitutional law, but what does any of this have to do with Terri?! You are talking moonbat conspiracy nonsense. Judge Greer was FOLLOWING THE LAW OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA when he made his decision regarding Terri. No one — not even the Republicans in Congress — is suggesting Judge Greer did anything illegal or unconstitutional, even though they are illogically calling him a renegade and activist. He was FOLLOWING THE LAW OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. Don’t believe the hype, Mark. You’re just toeing the party line.

Enough from the legal sideline quarterbacks. This is the problem with being able to buy a J.D. from the local Home Depot. Please stop.

“. Instead I will say that according to your logic my son does not deserve to live. And I take that as a personal offense!”

Terri is in a persistent state. Your son’s state is not persistent.

If everyone in America knew all the details of the night Terri supposedly had a heart attack they would side with congress and Terri’s parents.If you keep food and water from an animal in your care you can spend one year in jail and be made to pay a five thousand dollar fine.Are humans below animals in the U.S. ????When I visit my daughters school there are many children there attached to feeding tubes.If their parents decide they have other children and don’t want them anymore they can just remove the feeding tube and murder them ???Terri’s so called husband makes me sick saying he loves Terri.He would have stood beside her and not have comitted adultry !!!!!!!!

Christine,
Your anger prevents you from understanding what really is at issue here. The decision to withdraw the feeding tube was Terri’s, not Michael’s.

A comment for the physicians. Have you read the report from Dr. William Hammesfahr after he examined Terri and her medical records on 12 September 2002? Did you know that examination, which was conducted over a period of hours, was video-taped. I also expect you would be aware that it is standard to have an MRI or PET before confirming a diagnosis of PVS. Neither of those have been done for Terri Schiavo. Read this from his report:
The patient is not in coma.
She is alert and responsive to her environment. She responds to specific people best. She tries to please others by doing activities for which she gets verbal praise. She responds negatively to poor tone of voice. She responds to music.
She differentiates sounds from voices.
She differentiates specific people’s voices from others.
She differentiates music from stray sound.
She attempts to verbalize.
She has voluntary control over multiple extremities
She can swallow.
She is partially blind
She is probably aphasic and has a degree of receptive aphasia.
She can feel pain.

And this:

On September 3, I spent from approximately 11AM until 4PM with Ms. Schiavo, returning the next day to also observe Dr. Maxfield and complete my portion of the exam (which duplicated that of Dr. Maxfield, so I observed without myself specifically repeating that part of the exam that same day). The exam was videotaped at my request. The exam started with the setting up of the video camera by the videographers, with Mr. Michael Schiavo present.

…Her mother then entered the room, coming toward her and speaking her name. The daughter immediately showed awareness of the presence of her mother, looking for her, then finding her visually when the mother was approximately 8 inches from her face. She then smiled and made sounds. Her father also entered the room with further apparent recognition by the daughter. The first part of this exam included observing her interactions with her mother and her father. Here she clearly was aware of them and attempted to interact with them: the sounds, facial expressions, and searching out and tracking them.
…I asked the mother to bring a tape of piano music. Two separate pieces were listened to. The first she appeared aware of the sound, but would not sing or interact significantly. The second she did interact making sounds with the music. She stopped making these sounds, when the music stopped.
…Alertness: The patient was alert throughout essentially the entire exam.
Responsiveness: The patient would immediately respond to sound, tone of voice and to touch and pain. With respect to responding to those around her, she had limited responsiveness to me personally until approximately 45 minutes into the exam. She started to look at me, against her traditional right gaze preference, about the same time that we started getting significant relaxation in her contracted left arm (the arm that had been contracted for several years.) She appeared to identify the sound of my voice, with the relaxation of the arm. From that point, she would generally look toward the sound of my voice when heard, attempt to find me visually, then track the sound of my voice in its movements, or track me if I was within approximately one foot of her eyes. Prior to that time, she did not track me, or try to locate me visually. When playing music, she had a clear preference to the specific sound track played, and would listen to piano music, but change levels of listening depending on the track played. Her attention to the music would not wander during the track she preferred. She would pick out her mother’s voice or her father’s voice separate from the music or other voices or sounds in the room, and re-fix her gaze to those people. She would tend not to blink when watching those people.

She ignored her husband’s loud foot-tapping that went on for approximately five minutes at one point. She also ignored his voice and did not try to seek him out visually when he would at times interject comments during the exam or immediately afterwards.

The link to the whole report is on my blog. And consider this summary taken from her earlier records:

Ms Schiavo was in her usual state of good health until 2/25/90, when her husband reported that he was awakened from sleep approximately 6 AM by her falling. He reports that she was unresponsive. Paramedics were called, and aggressive resuscitation was performed with 7 defibrillations en route. In the Emergency Room, a possible diagnosis of heart attack was briefly entertained, but then dismissed after blood chemistries and serial EKG’s did not show evidence of a heart attack. Similarly, a pulmonary or lung cause of the disorder was ruled out in the Emergency Room after normal blood gases and Chest X-Rays were obtained. The possibility of toxic shock syndrome was also entertained. The diagnosis of the cause of her condition was unknown. Her admission laboratory studies showed low potassium level, markedly elevated glucose level, and a normal toxic screen without evidence of diet pills or amphetamines. The abnormal potassium level and sugar level were found on admission to the Emergency Room and were successfully corrected by the hospital staff over the next several days. The patient had a difficult hospital course with the development of poorly controlled seizures and prolonged coma state requiring, for a time, ventilator support. However, the staff noted improvement, and it was recommended by several physicians that she be discharged to an intensive rehabilitation center. She was eventually transferred to Mediplex in Bradenton for intensive rehabilitation. She was poorly responsive. However, after a brain stimulator was placed in 11/90, the staff started to report greater interactions of the patient with her environment, including intermittently apparently following commands, turning her head to voice, tracking visually, etc. This pattern continued even after discharge to a nursing home, although her course from that time on included multiple medical problems including recurrent urinary tract infections and hospitalizations, at times with severely low episodes of blood pressure due to a lack of treatment of urinary tract infections ordered by the husband and subsequent urinary sepsis requiring hospitalization. During 1998, she was evaluated by Dr. James Barnhill, neurologist, who testified that he examined her for ten minutes and determined that she had no chance for recovery, and was in a persistent vegetative state.

Make a note – she was examined for ten minutes and declared to be PVS in 1998. Dr. Hammesfahr examined her for 5 hours in 2002 and concluded she is not PVS.

Read it. Read it again.

Michael did not ever mention Terri’s so-called wishes until after he won the malpractice suit (which was supposed to be for money for her care). he didn’t spend the money on her care. He immediately slapped a DNR on her chart and spent money for Hemlock society lawyers and doctors. Then he mentioned, for the first time ever, that Terri had supposedly told him that she didn’t want to live like this. But his girlfriend at the time said that he had told her that he had no idea what Terri’s wishes were, they’d never discussed it. The only other witnesses to this wish of Terri’s are Michael’s sibling and the sibling’s spouse.
Michal has refused to permit normal therapy- the kind that would be done for anybody in Terri’s condition, like putting something under her hands to help prevent muscle contractions, like toothbrushing, like an antibiotic and painkillers.

Smithers:

So if I am following the party line what are you following, the DEAD line, so if a person has outlived their usefulness kill ‘em that is what you are saying. In keeping with your party line.

What I can’t understand here is what is the hurry to kill this young woman ? You people on the left get some sort of perverted thrill out of this, I remember you when Clinton had Elian Gonzalez arrested and sent back to the tropical gulag called Cuba. You people had no problem with the government interferring in that case, nor had any problem when Clinton in the guise of Captain Reno
burning down the Branch Davidians compound.

you can’t have it both ways.

Mark:
I’m a registered Independent who voted for Bush the last two elections.
The name calling is just silly. Democrats don’t get a thrill out of killing. That’s an absurd comment, and I think responsible people on both sides of the aisle would agree that its an absurd comment. Demonizing Democrats doesn’t help anything, just like demonizing Republicans doesn’t help anything.
And I didn’t say anything about usefulness. I only suggested that we should respect Terri’s wishes.
Don’t believe the hype, Mark — the rhetoric and the issues don’t match.

Deputy HeadMistress:
That’s a lot information to fact check, and I can’t just dismiss it out of hand, but I don’t quite buy it all.
However, your last paragraph is indicative of one of the major problems with how this story has been covered: somehow, because many people themselves would not have chosen what Terri chose, they think that her choice shouldn’t honored.
I am very sympathetic to your child’s disabilities and I am sure you have her best interests at heart all the time. Nonetheless, there is a large difference between a parent exercising judgment for her child and a grown woman who indicated with her own judgment how she wanted her life to be handled in an unfortunate situation of her own. I feel confident that Terri had her own interests at heart when she asked not to be kept alive if ever in a state like the one she is currently in. Futhermore, I have faith in the justice system of this country that her wishes were properly carried out. Your analogy, while certainly poigniant, misses some fo the key aspects of Terri’s case.

Donna,
Well I certainly think that’s the most thoughtful criticism yet on the pro-intervention (not to be flip about it) side. Doctors definitely make mistakes — my fully-functioning reattached thumb is proof of that. But if they are generally right, which I think we can agree on, shouldn’t we have the right to make decisions based on their diagnoses?
As for Michael not being credible, I agree that credibility is a decision each woman makes for herself. But in light of the fact that neither you nor I has ever spoken a word to the man, should we be so quick to discount Judge Greer’s opinion? So many of us love to say “renegade” or “activist” when we disagree with a judicial opinion, and while that may be true in some cases, I just don’t see that as being the case here.

Joy,
Great points, but just to clarify: a bill of attainder must be labeled to specific person and meant to punish. This is a general law, and presumably no one is punished by it.

Smithers, the bill is labeled to a specific person, with Congress taking pains to say it only applies to Terri Schiavo and not the public in general (an attempt to avoid a dangerous precedent). And I think this ruling does punish someone: Terri Schiavo, by ignoring her wishes as expressed to her husband and litigated inumerable times for more than seven years…

smithers, the point of my post was that people in comas may hear and understand more than even highly trained physicians give them credit for. That being the case, don’t you think Terri may not be suffering a “painless” death at all, but death by slow torture? You’d go to jail for treating a dog like this.

Joy Reid: The problem is that Michael seems to want it both ways. I don’t blame him for finding someone else and having kids – but why didn’t he divorce Terri then and begin his life anew? Why stay married? He isn’t living as Terri’s spouse, and yet he has retained the final say so on whether she lives or dies.

As a conservative, I’m highly uncomfortable with the state decreeing, in the absence of personal directives, that someone else’s life is “worthless.” That opens a Pandora’s box I’d rather see stay closed.

Mark,
Could we try to keep this argument limited to the case at hand? I’m not going to start critiquing the NYTimes or human rights activists in order to make my points. Please, take it easy.
Michael has been without a responsive, reciprocating wife for over a decade. Many people who lose their spouses in tragic accidents find new spouses within a decade. Don’t be so quick to judge. There is no per se reason why Michael should be condemned for trying to lead a fulfilling relationship with another woman after Terri’s tragic collapse. I think it is a testament to Michael’s character that he has continued to fight for Terri’s wishes even when he could presumably have gotten a divorce long ago. Since he has promised to donate any left over money to charity, he has nothing to gain from Terri’s death, although I think he should be entitled to any insurance money the way he would have been had Terri passed away when she collapsed.
Your comparisons to terrorists just sounds like political flame bait to me. Terrorists, while being very bad people in need of life-long imprisonment, are not vegetative. Terri is vegetative. Witholding food from a nonvegetative person is different from witholding food from a non-vegetative person. Furthermore, you’re still overlooking the fact that it was Terri’s wish not to be left in a state like the one she is currently in.
You may disagree with Judge Greer’s decision, but eighteen other judges have ruled the same way in this case, and it is still within his jurisdiction to make such a decision, even if you disagree.
Terri did have representation. She was represented by Judge Greer ad litem.
The NYTimes didn’t say starvation was painless, doctors said that. And they put it in the context of patients ill like Terri.
As for justice for Terri, if by that you mean that her wishes (not her parents’, not Michael’s, not your, and not Congress’) are obeyed, then I think there has been justice in this case.
I know I sound like a school-marm, Mark, but this case isn’t about al quiada or the ACLU or the NYTimes, it’s about Terri Schiavo and how we best respect her wishes.

Renee,
You post all over the place on this website, and you rarely manage to chime in with anything more than a religion-based character attack. Why is it wrong for Michael to have tried to make a relationship with another woman?

So in your compassionate opinion, a man should foreswear female company for the rest of his life when his wife falls into a coma?

That’s the craziest thing I ever heard.