Update IV (3/26 @ 12:22 p.m.) Judge Greer rejects emergency appeal.
————————————————————————————————-
I’ve learned from FOX News that the Schindler’s have made an emergency appeal to Judge Greer (trial judge) tonight to order reinsertion of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. I can’t find a link to the story, though. Greta Van Susteren is standing by for Judge Greer’s ruling, which may come tonight. Check Yahoo! full coverage for updates.
A man has been arrested for making threats against Michael Schiavo via the Internet. In that case, he shouldn’t be the only one. How many people have said or written such things about Schiavo in the past week out of emotion? Should they all be arrested?
Greta’s interviewing a nurse who claims Michael Schiavo told her (and cried) that he didn’t know what to do about Terri. “We never talked about it,” she claims he said.
Update: From CNN: “In a separate, emergency motion, on which a Florida state judge is expected to rule by noon Saturday, the Schindlers contend that their daughter has expressed the wish to live.”
They say Terri was trying to say, “I want to live.” I’m doubtful about this.
It’s 10:47 p.m., and I’m going to bed. We’ll see what tomorrow brings.
Update II (3/26): FOX finally updated its site. Also see LifeNews.
Update III (12:05 p.m.): Still awaiting Judge Greer’s response to their emergency motion, the Schindler’s say they won’t seek additional appeals.
{ 7 trackbacks }
{ 42 comments }
You know, although Terri most likely did not verbally express her will to live, she has done a phenomenal job expressing her will to live by remaining alive for 7 days while being starved to death.
La Shawn:
Have you considered the alternative?
Perhaps Michael is the compassionate one – tryng for seven years to release Terri’s soul?
Perhaps the Schindlers are the self-indulgent ones, putting Terri through all this misery when there is no hope she will get better.
As a medical doctor, I am embarassed by those “experts” who can deny reality – Terri does not talk, feel, respond except at a brainstem lecel. CTs than show liquified brain and EEGs that are flat simply don’t lie.
Most of my friends at LSU are pro-life conservative Christians. Almost all of us believe that the time is long past to “let go” of Terro/
Have you seen on WorldNetDaily that “Judge” Greer accepted bribery money from Michael Schiavo? And did you know that that very action is illegal in Deuteronomy? (I forget which verse.)
Do anyone of us HONESTLY believe that after ruling in favor a Terri’s murder time after time after time “Judge”Greer is all of a sudden going to give the Schindlers a break?
We already know what the answer will be-and all the while an innocent woman is dying a death so agonizing that such treatment is considered too barbaric for a death-row inmate.
What a country.
WSJ accused Michael Schivo’s doctors of “Playing God”.
Which side is “playing God”?
Majority of doctors have said Terri will not recover, feel pain or emotion, talk, etc..- based on objective evidence. This is not rocket science.
In contrast, Schindlers, unable to think of Terri, but only of their own wishes to avoid the pain of “letting go”, have “bought” doctors who make wild claims about “rehabilitating Terri” (i.e. they can work miracles). These guys would be more honest if they simply said they would pray for a miracle.
As an honest doctor, I am embarassed by these “doctors” who make such wild claims.
And for those who say “Terri has not had due process” – 19 judges and courts say she has.
I am always skeptical of those who say they are right and everyone else is wrong. Sometimes this is true, but it can only be proven with evidence – Schindlers haven’t produced much.
“Wishing things were different” is quite Leftist – and there is an awful lot of this among “conservatives”.
PS – As a pro-life conservative Catholic, I am ashamed of those writers and “preachers” who have compared Terri to Jesus, Jeb Bush to Pontious Pilate, Mary Schiavo to the Blessed mother, Judge Greer to King Herod, etc.. This is mocking Jesus’s suffering by making Terri the focus instead of Jesus on Easter weekend. Shameful.
Which side is “playing God”
Frank, I don’t like the Jesus comparisons, either.
If I were a betting man, I’d bet that all statements attributed to Mrs. Schiavo are not true. That includes the statements atttributed by Mr. Schiavo.
What is fustrating, is that Judge George Greer has chosen to give so much weight to Mr. Schiavo’s hearsay evidence but totally ignore counterdicting similiar evidence, also hearsay. Not only does Greer give weight to Mr. Schiavo’s hearsay evidence, the judge ignores Mr. Schiavo’s inconsistent statments, such as what he told Larry King.
Ok Frank, as an MD let’s assume for a moment “your” position is the one that is correct. Then why the inhuman torturing of Terri to death through starvation? Why not “letting her go” humanely? Even dogs and death row murderers (in that order) are accorded that. Does one way over the other somehow exonerate guilt on society?
I think Judge Greer is prolonging his decision hoping Terri will die before he rules against her parents. This is not the first case that he has ordered death. As for all these doctors claiming to be prolife and conservative but think Terri should be starved to death, maybe we can get a law passed so they will be forced to identify themselves. That way people who don’t want to be starved to death, can find a doctor who believes life should trump everything.
Great recommendation Sue. Hopefully that is really Frank’s name so I know where not to go regarding my family’s health care.
Mr. MD
If “tests don’t lie” and doctors know so much, why do about 40% of people diagnosed as being in a “persistent vegetative state” come out of it? Why are the words “persistent” and “permanent” in PVS used interchangeably? Who came up with the very pejorative
“vegetative” part of term when no vegetable that I know of has a brain? Why are so many people anxious to see Terri dead?
Has anyone noticed? The judges in this case are doing the exact opposite of Solomon in the Bible. The one who wants to see Terri dead is the one who is granted custody–even though in a divorce proceeding, with a shack-up honey and two children–he would be declared “estranged.” If this is what Terri really wanted, why did he “abuse” [his lawyer's term for what her family wants to do] her for all these years and go against her wishes with treatment? Why does a person in a criminal case have more rights than Terri?
Thirty-five years ago I was diagnosed as having psychomotor seizures. Thirty years ago my neurologist’s practice bought a CAT scanner and [to help pay for it] gave me a CAT scan. When I came back for the results, he was sitting in his office looking as though he had been kicked in the stomach. His tone of voice and body language struck me more than anything. He told me that the scan showed that half of my brain was shriveled up and that if he had just seen the CAT scan and hadn’t known me, he would think I was a 75-year-old, senile woman. He went on to tell me that I actually might be senile in a few years.
I started crying as soon as I was on the street and called my best friend who was president of a group of which I was secretary. She told me to go home and make myself a cup of tea. She called me that evening after reading the many confirming letters I had written for our speaker’s bureau and told me that after reading those letter, she was sure there was nothing wrong with my mind and that I should tell my doctor to throw out his expensive machine and get himself a good coffee pot and he would do the world a lot more good.
I did have the CAT scan repeated before I entered graduate school just to make sure I wasn’t going downhill and spending money uselessly. There was no change and my neurologist told me that with the increase in CAT scans being done, they had discovered that my condition wasn’t that unusual after all and apparently didn’t affect intelligence.
That, I believe. I’ve been a member of MENSA, earned B’s in calculus, and do the NY Times crossword puzzle in ink. Who knows what caused the shrinking on one side of my brain?
The same neurologist worried constantly that lab tests showed the Dilantin level in my blood to be low. He put me on Valium every morning to add to the effect of the Dilantin. I immediately began to notice that about three in the afternoon I would feel very angry for no reason and wanted to hit someone. I took a week off from work [after working three weeks straight through] to figure out what was going on. I decided I was having Valium withdrawal every afternoon and quit taking it. When I went back to my neurologist, he kept fussing about my Dilantin levels even though I was seizure free. I now go to a neurologist who treats the patient–me–rather than the lab tests.
Because of my many medical problems, I have met a lot of doctors–many very good ones and some very arrogant. These past few weeks was my first chance to get a good look at the arrogance of judges. It’s disappointing.
Couple of Questions I have about the Schiavo Case…
First, this case has boiled down to Michael Schiavo’s testimony that it was Terri Schiavo’s wish not to be put on life-prolonging technologies, including feeding tubes. Her feeding tube was inserted on February 25, 1990 (http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm). Michael Schiavo petitioned the courts in May of 1998 (http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm) to have the tube removed.
Wouldn’t that mean he was actually acting counter to her wishes for over 8 years?
In fact, it wasn’t until the settlement money from the original lawsuit was paid, that Michael Schiavo had a DNR placed in Terri’s medical chart. But if is contention is that this was her pre-injury wishes… why did he not object to the initial insertion of the tubes shortly after the injury?
Second, despite the fact that courts have ordered the feeding tubes removed pursuant to the questionable wishes as relayed by Michael, why does that include surrounding the Hospice with armed guards and prevention of the parents from taking in their own food and water to supply to their daughter?
Even if the court is acting in a manner so as to follow her alleged wishes not to have life-prolonging technology, how on earth does this include preventing regular food and water from being given to her (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/feeds/0325_schiavo_latest.html)?
Did anyone see where a rancher in Florida has been arrested … he is accused of STARVING his cattle..
Is it just me or is this all too typical of the lefts hyprocrisy ?
I want to respond to Dr. Zavica’s comments above about it being time to “let go” for Terri.
Dr. Zavisca, when you went to medical school you took an oath that promises to do no harm.
Why do you consider giving water to a patient to be putting her through misery?
I still wish either the President or his helpless, wimpish brother would have just gone in and taken custody of her. What could anyone have done? Had them arrested?
On the other hand, folks like Hannity are despicable and ignorant. He is now accusing the local police, lawyers and of course the judges for this great tragedy over the course of 15 yrs. If it is true, the answer is that our nation needs to revolt against all of them, beings that all are corrupt and incompetent. This needs to begin in Florida and I would suggest that a coup take place there immediately. If the cops wouldn’t act on all this “evidence”, (he’s now implying that she was strangled or that she suffered a massive number of broken bones or that she was injected with insulin or all 3). The governor says he can’t do anything more. In addition, Terri’s and the Schindler’s lawyers must also be totally incompetent if they haven’t been able to ferret out all this info that Hannity has found in the last two weeks and make a passionate, cogent case in court. If this is the serious crisis Hannity says it is, then talk is cheap…do something about it. Take over the state and right its ship!
One of the saddest results of this tragedy is the injection of the despicable Randall Terry into the picture, especially by Hannity. He is using the Schiavos to resurrect his career after having been brought down by scandal after scandal. He was removed from the fellowship of the church which had nurtured and supported him for years. Operation Save America, which replaced Operation Rescue, firmly disassociated themselves from him. He used to be my hero. But I went to hear him speak some years ago in San Diego, wanting to learn how to be more active in the pro-life movement. What I saw was a self-promoter on the downward slide to egomania. Not long after he ran into all kinds of trouble. His radio show on Christian stations preceded most other flame-throwers. He made Michael Weiner (aka “Savage”) sound like a fuzzy bear. He and a significant number of others have a hidden agenda. They are known by terms like “reconstructionists.” This means that they are determined to establish the law of God as seen in the Old Testament as a prelude to Christ’s return. This would include the execution of homosexuals and the stoning of rebellious children. Adulters, like Terry, get leniency I guess although their fate as determined by the OT is the same as homosexuals. Some don’t even believe Christ will return, although they claim to be believers. The aborted babies and folks like Terri and her parents are being used to promote this agenda. Mr. Terry has establish a new organization in Florida and is using Terri to get more publicity for his new group. As a born-again, pro-life evangelical Christian I want you to know that he DOES NOT represent most Christians and I completely disassociate myself from him and his ilk. I know all of this as a result of personal research and face-to-face discussions with individuals like him. I had to disassociate myself from some of them when it became apparent that the innocent babies weren’t they’re primary concern.
Frank Z.
If Terri’s wishes were known, I for one would not have a problem now.
But it is *hearsay* evidence that is responsible for her food and water being removed. An accused killer must be convicted with evidence that is “beyond reasonable doubt” and that a jury must unanimously agree.
It is a plain matter of fact that the law required a lower standard of evidence in order to “determine” Terri’s wishes.
There will be a cloud of suspicion over Michael Schiavo for his entire life. It would be ironic in the extreme if he were an honest man. But we’ll never know.
Bostonian,
Michael Schiavo’s testimony is legally regarded as first-person testimony, not hearsay. No one else can recall her saying that she definitely wanted to live in this situation and even if they did, the fact that he is her spouse trumps their testimony. It’s just the way the law seems to work. There is not enough evidence being given to what Florida’s law says…I know I don’t know. We can offer opinions and accusations and theories all we want but there seems to be something in Florida law that is being consistently followed. Hopefully, when this quiets down Florida legislators will re-examine their laws and make whatever adjustments necessary. The rest of the states need to do the same. I don’t think that any of us want Congress to try to come up with national legislation on such a sensitive, complicated issue. I know I don’t. All the polls show a massive majority of Americans didn’t want the President and Congress to butt in. They’re sending a very clear signal. Maybe if the President or his brother would have acted, it would have forced the issue and the legislation itself would have been the issue, not the personalities in the case. But they are standing by wringing their hands…where’s Rosa Parks when we need her?
There is no way I’m going to blame either President Bush or Governor Bush for Terri’s fate as have some more unstable types. It is her husband and the judges who have sealed her fate. I can just imagine the “loose cannon, cowboy” charges that would fly if either Bush did try. The Schindler’s and the Bush brothers have worked within the system. It is the system that needs fixing. Those polls were taken after loaded information was given out.
Terri is being denied last rites by her husband. That tells me that there is something more going on than what is on the surface.
Evon,
I heard that too. This would be a long shot, but isn’t that a violation of her first amendment rights to freedom of religion? Couldn’t Governor Bush intervene on that note? Like I said, long shot.
I’ve been hearing a lot about living wills and how we should all get them. Not a bad idea, but with this case we might want to go a step further, especially since Michael Schiavo wants an immediate cremation after she dies. Maybe we should include an autopsy on our bodies after we die and before burial or cremation. Maybe it’s a morbid or sick suggestion, but take a look at what the Culture of Death advocates are doing.
Steve,
I’m going to do more than that. I’m going to have my doctor draw up a letter about my health and what doctors will see if they do a brain scan and always carry it with me and give copies to my designated decision-maker. That way, hopefully, some over-zealous Kevorkian-type doctor will have at least one roadblock before he or she can end my life.
It almost seems as though Michael Schiavo and his lawyer are not only trying to have him look guilty but also trying to provoke rash actions. Perhaps Michael is hoping for grounds to sue someone. He has hit the jackpot once with a law suit, maybe he is hoping for at least one more chance at big money. Some people who purport to be supporters of Terri almost seem as though they are trying to help this along.
Someone wrote, “or his helpless, wimpish brother”
name calling again….
Someone wrote, “are despicable and ignorant”
is this adding to the debate?…
Someone wrote, “He is using the Schiavos to resurrect his career after having been brought down by scandal after scandal.”
Judgmental and erroeneous at the same time…
That Same someone then wrote, “As a born-again, pro-life evangelical Christian”
Whew! I think Renee said it best when she advised that someone to read the scriptures again.
To add value to your comments it would make sense to speak about what you believe and not try to tear so many others down. It doesn’t add to the debate.
Evon,
I know the phrase “slippery slope” is being used to death regarding all this (mostly because there is one going on). But it seems to me we’re descending down another one where we will constantly have to spend time worrying about what constitutes life according to the courts. According to those who believe in a “living” Constitution (as opposed to those who believe in a “structural” Constitution, like Justice Scalia), standards are going to change such that we will have to continuously reevaluate our own positions in order to have our wishes meted out. Wills, living wills and other documents (the ones you mention) written today may not conform to a new standard created five minutes from now and can be contested by family, doctors, lawyers, and the courts. Then we have to start all over again. The America I grew up in celebrates life and opportunity, not this. I’m getting married in a couple of months and I told my fiancee about getting a living will, and now I’m even questioning that (the living will, not the marriage).
This is kind of OT, but related in a way. I’m in computer security and one of our biggest challenges is Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX). I won’t go into details if you don’t know about it, but it was definitely written by lawyers. It essentially forces CEOs to force their employees to go through hoops to prove financial statements are correct. Considering the amount of spending and work to be done for SOX, all other business pretty much has to come to a standstill, even though the true nature of business is to make a profit. And since SOX standards aren’t set in stone by the law, new standards could (and probably will) force constant re-evaluation.
Sorry about that, had to get it out. To your last point, Evon, did you see that George Felos? I cringe every time I listen to this comtemptible figure. If this were “Macbeth” with Michael Schiavo as Macbeth, Felos is the Lady Macbeth of this tragedy, goading everyone at every turn.
Steve,
). The fact is, our Constitution was not written to govern a people who are grossly seperated from God. We find this fact in many of the notes, letters, speeches, etc., of our founding fathers (I would surmise they would know since they are the one’s that wrote it and made it pretty clear what was guiding them). Many of them warned in various ways, that it would become an inadequate and almost useless document seperate from the laws and gudelines of the scripture. History has shown us that man, seperate from God, can not govern other men. (Again this does not account for those who profess to know God, but their fruits say otherwise, hence why one should be familiar with the scriptures and prepared to give an answer). Just a fact and one we seem to want to replicate.
You grazed the head of the nail (sort of
Romans 1:22 (NIV)
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (How many “so called” wise experts have we seen professing their great knowledge throughout this entire situation?)
We can argue it all we want, try and try to disprove it all we want, but the facts and the outcome will always be the same.
Sometimes man can be TOO smart for his own good.
Renee,
As an added argument supporting your point, I’ve recently read a book called “Federalism, the Supreme Court and the Seventeenth Amendment: The Irony of Constitutional Democracy”. It states that the Constitution is designed to not rely on the apparent “goodness” of an individual when legislating. This is supported by Justice Scalia’s argument of a structural Constitution, not a living one. Yet judicial review has been misused, as it has done with Terri Schiavo, time and again to allow the courts to legislate instead of Congress, as it is supposed to in the Constitution.
The de novo trial law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush required a new trial to be litigated. The intent was that a new trial would take longer than two weeks and that the feeding tube should be restored until a verdict was reached. Judicial review allowed activist judges to deny the trial from occurring and denied the feeding tube to be restored.
As you said Renee, “man can be TOO smart for his own good.”
Renee
“Sometimes a man can be too smart for his own good.”
or in other words
The bigger the belfry the more room for bats.
I think “bats” is absolutely correct Evon.
Renee,
You have analyzed the situation exactly correctly as you did a week or so when you mentioned that Madison (if I remember you correctly) mentioned that our Constitution was meant for godly, Christian people. The problem is that the Founding Fathers were products of the Enlightenment more than they were of Biblical Christianity. This caused them to reason that most people were inherently good, which is the opposite of Scripture such as Rom. 1, which you pointed out. Rom. 3 is another. I’ve been shocked to learn that so many Christians think that the Constitution contains God’s moral law and other Biblical principles. It does not. It is a secular, amoral document that left all the moral laws to the states. It does not mention God. It says it is written to secure the blessings of “liberty”, not God. The oath that the president swears does not mention God. It is in a sense a “godless” document that tells Congress to stay out of religion and leave it to the states. The problems arise when moral issues arise because the Constitution is deadly silent. What about abortion? Nothing. What about preserving Christianity because it was our original religion? Nothing. What about homosexuality? Nothing. Homosexual marriage? Nothing. Heterosexual marriage? Nothing. So the field of play is wide open. Science says that homosexuals are born that way. In our country, science rules. Science says that homosexual sex is the means that they express their love for each other. Hence, the repeal of sodomy laws. Science says that unborn babies are fetuses. Science rules. Terri Shaivo’s case and other cases when a dispute over when to end life or allow it to end? Nothing. Christian values and traditions fall one by one in the face of this onslaught because the Founding Fathers created a morally neutral document. We are in mortal danger because the Founding Fathers did not put basic moral rules into the Constitution.
I saw Chris Matthews interviewing some little Representative named McHenry the other night. The other guest was Barney Frank. McHenry said that the Constitution gave Congress the right to oversee and govern the courts so that our rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” would be guaranteed. Neither Matthews or Frank challenged him on it. It is the Declaration that mentions “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, NOT the Constitution. And nowhere in the Constitution do you read that Congress has authority over the courts to make them do anything. They legislate and the president appoint judges, who interpret. That’s it. Even in the widest, most liberal reading…Article iii doesn’t say this. With ignorant folks like this being the people’s representatives and folks like Matthews and Frank not even noticing it, no wonder we’re in trouble.
Renee, I salute you for putting your finger exactly on the heart of our dilemma.
Thanks stan,
The one thing I am praying for in this whole thing is that while Terri still has a breath in her body, that whoever is with her (her parents, her siblings, the priest), they are talking to her about Jesus (if she has never received him) and that she recieves him before she draws her last breath. That is my onley prayer.
stan,
I agree and disagree with your arguments (at the same time), based on my limited knowledge of the Constitution as I see it. Bear with me, I want to be as thoughtful in my dissent as you were in presenting your case.
In the former, you state that James Madison did not put morality into the Constitution, and you would be right. Why would he? And whose morality would he put in there; Washington’s, Adams’, Jefferson’s, his own? He and the others knew this (especially Hamilton) and did not attempt to. What they did was put in place a framework, a structure, of how to create the laws of the states and of the Federal government. Since Madison and the other Founding Fathers were Christians, he assumed that Christian ethics and morals would create laws that followed in the tradition of the Ten Commandments. In this he was clear, but not clear enough. Marbury v. Madison, in 1803, allowed the courts to overrule unconstitutional law, establishing judicial review. But judicial review has been misused by the courts, according to the Constitution, thus creating today’s judicial activism. This is the conundrum we face today.
This is where I disagree with you. Again, you mention that the Constitution mentions nothing of Christian morals. But you assume it protects all speech and behavior, and it does no such thing. What it does do is protect speech that doesn’t advocate the violent overthrow of the government. Where you find this kind of speech as protected by the First Amendment, you will see judicial activism interpreting the Constitution as a judge sees fit, not the people. After all, what people would actively seek an overthrow of their own government, especially this government? We’ve seen legislative idiocy that violates the Constitution (Dred Scot, Plessy v. Ferguson). But laws are eventually corrected as outlined by the Constitution, especially those involved with civil rights.
You are correct when you mention that the Constitution is silent on issues as abortion, the definition of marriage, and right to die issues. What you seem to not understand is that it is designed to do that. The Constitution tells us how to create laws that support these positions, not that it will. This is the democracy part of America. We elect representatives that support our positions, they create legislation that creates laws defending our position, they convince the executive (the President) to make our position law. If there is a question of the constitutionality of our position as law, the Supreme court gets involved. This is true within the state governments.
However, as is sadly the case of Terri Schiavo, judges seek to legislate what is to be law, not as how the Constitution allows laws to be legislated. The Constitution states that the President cannot legislate. What he can do is help, but not dictate, the legistative agenda.
What the courts have done is far more insidious and illegal; they’ve taken their right to judicial review to override legislation to create their own laws, instead of letting states and the Congress do this, according to the Constitution. Too many judges in the Terri Schiavo case have used judicial review to ignore Congress’s wishes in the Terri Schiavo case.
Hope this helps.
“CTs that show liquified brain”
This needs to be cleared up. The CT scan available online (one slice only) does not show liquefied brain. It shows atrophy and distension of the ventricular space. There is cerebral cortex present. A radiologist who has analysed over 10,000 CT scans, and who recently submitted an affidavit, has stated that it is no worse than that of an elderly person. In fact he has seen worse CT scans from people not PVS. Notably, he has seen more than one slice, which one would expect from a medical professional before they make a conclusion.
Re: comparisons to Jesus. Agreed the comparisons can be overdone, i.e. substituting people connected with the case for the key players in Jesus passion. However Jesus also said that whatever is done to the least is done to him. I think some comparisons can be made.
Steve,
In my recent studies and research on historical documents and other writings, I have been seeing exactly what you described above. Matter of fact, not only do many of these writings mention God, they even go so far as to do the unthinkable today, mention Jesus Christ and Christianity (can you imagine,the founding fathers would be in jail today). We tend to forget that the Bible was actually used to teach children (and adults) how to read and write. Many of our schools and oldest institutes of higher education were seminaries and churches. Another interesting fact I found in some of the documents, it was actually a requirement to profess one’s faith in Christ before becoming a legislator or judge in many states. It is pretty clear what the intent was.
I’ve been out of town for some time, dwelling in an “internet desert”, so forgive me for a tardy posting…I’ve been aching to add my voice to the mix on Terri Schiavo.
On 26 Mar 05 Stan said
“…No one else can recall her saying that she definitely wanted to live in this situation and even if they did, the fact that he is her spouse trumps their testimony.”
Hopefully I’m not rending Stan’s context, but the logical outcome of law based on such a premise is that it’s my responsibility to daily affirm to all I meet that I want to live, and that my failure to do so is sufficient grounds for disconnecting me from any kind of life support. In other words, in these situations, the legal default would be Death, not Life.
Stan also says her “husband’s” testimony isn’t considered hearsay, but first-person. I’m not a lawyer…I’ll accept that. However, I will speak of what I do know. I’ve spent my entire adult life in the military, and have had to understand the implications of a “conflict of interest” (COI) in order to discharge my duties. Allowing Michael Schiavo, who has fathered two children with his common law wife (with whom he is still living) and who will apparently receive an insurance settlement upon her death, is an obvious COI. The federal government states that individuals in a position to benefit financially from a contract award are specifically excluded from the award process. In other words, if you stand to make a buck if the contract goes to a specific client, then you’re not allowed to help determine who gets the contract. Sounds a lot like what I’m seeing in Florida today…Michael Schiavo stands to benefit financially from Terri Schiavo’s death. How a judge can conclude he has no COI and allow his testimony to be a key determinant in her life or death is beyond me.
Second point. Do any of you not think this won’t breath life into the euthanasia movement? Any laws established by this precedent will, if drawn according to the criteria whereby Terri Schiavo was put to death, will conclude that a deaf, mute, blind quadriplegic who lacks a living will should likewise be put to death. After all, he/she can’t speak, hear, see, or move…the same argument used to put Terri Schiavo to death. We are indeed on a steep, slippery slope.
Last thought…I wonder how many people were robbed, mugged, assaulted, or murdered in Pinellas, Florida, while most of it’s police force was handcuffing pastors and children, and strip-searching elderly parents at the local hospice? If I were such a person, victimized because of misaligned police priorities, I’d preparing my lawsuit against the city.
HEKTOR
Great response Hektor. I absolutely shudder at some of the words used when describing Terri’s mental and or physical state. My son was born deaf and as you pointed out, it is not a far leap to start picking and choosing what man feels is “productive” candidates for survival (life). One need only look back 60 to 70 years in history and see where that thought process took a certain nation.
Thank you, Renee. I’ve enjoyed reading your posts, too. My son likewise had significant problems when he was born, and only heroic measures saved his life. He’s healthy, married, and a new father today, thanks to those “heroic” measures. Today, may would question the cost-benefit analysis that prompted physicians to try to save him.
Pursuing the euthanasia theme, one wonders at the lack of outcry from the Jewish and senior citizen communities. The Jewish point is self-evident: the Holocaust. Thousands of concentration camp victims were so emaciated that feeding them was dangerous—we still did, because the alternative was to not attempt to save them. I’d think Jewish citizens would be outraged at anybody being slowly starved to death at government direction. After all, the German government sanctioned a similar approach to Jewish citizens 1939-45.
With respect to senior citizens, I’m equally flabbergasted at their silence. With all press Social Security’s looming bankruptcy is getting these days, I’d think the elderly would draw some uncomfortable conclusions from the State’s willingness to terminate Terri Schiavo. Social Security is endangered because of the number of people drawing it, compared to the number contributing to it. An easy way to help keep it solvent is to reduce the number of people on it. Tens of thousands of elderly are in nursing homes today, in circumstances similar to Terri Schiavo. It’s not a big intuitive leap to decide that an 80-year old Alzheimer’s patient no more “quality of life” than Terri Schiavo.
HEKTOR
Hektor…
here is one article (or POV) that proves your point exactly:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1363122/posts
Steve,
Thanks for such a clear response. I think you make my point in that Madison “assumed” that the states and locals, etc. would make laws based on God’s laws and religion would, for the most part, insure that most people lived a more or less “godly” life. Because the Constitution is silent on moral issues, it provides no solace nor relief for those interested in upholding moral values. I think that Madison’s assumption was fatally flawed. My main point was that many, many Christians DO believe that the Constitution makes moral laws and statements. They are holding out the hope that it will be their ally in areas of abortion and homosexual marriage, etc. They don’t seem to realize that each of these areas and others, past and present, have and will require specific amendments to make clear statements of law.
As to the free speech issue, I don’t think I said that the Constitution protects everything. But it is silent, even in the area of speech, which promotes the overthrow of the government. In fact, the Declaration quite clearly states that peoples have the right and duty to throw off the government that is abusing and oppressing them. Fortunately, the Declaration doesn’t have the force of law.
Hektor,
I wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing with the Schiavo case. I just said that it appears that Florida law puts full faith and value in the spouse’s statements, not in the statements or opinions of other parties of interest. We have to be careful before we make broad, sweeping generalizations of all the implications of this case. It appears to be a result of some flaws in the Florida law. I haven’t seen any real specific quotes from the Florida constitution that clarify anything one way or the other. Maybe we need to try and get Florida’s constituion online and take a look for ourselves. And I personally wanted the courts to take a new look at this. I’m just trying to understand why her parents appeals have been denied for all these years. I hope Florida will clarify and tighten their law in situations like this so it doesn’t happen again.
Thanks for the clarification Stan. I took your point; I wanted to make the point that, if this becomes a new legal precedent, then the US judicial system is headed for cannibalistic bankruptcy. If the Schiavo case established a new legal presumption for death rather than life, in the absence of clear, compelling evidence to the contrary (i.e., life), then the new legal default becomes “Disconnect unless told otherwise” rather than the traditional “Opt for life” position. Once that decision is made it’s a very small step indeed to thinking jurists should review the “quality of life” considerations of people on life support, regardless of their wishes.
The bottomline issue here is whether or not human life is really sacred. Stan is spot on with his earlier observation that the ideas of the Enlightenment (a la John Locke) are the fundamental assumptions upon which the Constitution was developed. However, those ideas had a firm Christian basis, and it would never have entered the Founding Fathers’ minds that the nation would abandon those ideals.
The Bible clearly describes this generation:
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Rom 1.22) and
“…but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing theselves among themselves, are not wise.” (II Cor 10.12).
Lastly [one of my favorites for these times],
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron…” (I Tim 4.1,2).
The things I see these days, of which the Schiavo case is but one more instance, reminds me of Mark 6.34, when Jesus fed five thousand and “…was moved with compassion…because they were as sheep not having a shepherd…” Can you think of any more compelling description of these times? We’ve cast aside the principles upon which our nation was founded, and are now trying to make ourselves understood to people who perceive things through a totally different lens.
Asking those who scoff at Christianity to behave in a Christian fashion is pointless. You can’t change peoples’ hearts with legislation and court rulings. The only thing that’ll make a permanent difference is for revival to come to America.
HEKTOR
Renee: I followed the link you sent…it’s sad to be right. Did you see the spot on FoxNews last week about the woman who was trying to get her mother’s wishes overruled so she can disconnect her Alzheimer’s suffering father’s feeding tube? Apparently he’s “unconscious” (no further info). Looks like some are ready to dive headlong down the slippery slope.
Cheers//HEKTOR
Hektor,
Great work and great Scriptures. I always wrestle with how much Christians should involve themselves with politics because in one sense you’re absolutely right, only the Lord can change hearts. I remember going to a meeting of some “Christ-like Black Panthers” in 1972. I had been invited by a friend of my sister, who now heads a major International Relief Agency. I listened intently and said nothing because I was a guest. It was clear that they were all sincere and really had the interests of black folks in their hearts. But I also saw that they weren’t really centered in Christ, so even though I was so sympathetic to the civil rights movement and their efforts (they really had nothing in common with the Oakland-based Panthers), I blurted out as we all left that only Christ could change hearts and without Him all their efforts were in vain. I have no regrets…it was the right thing to say at the time.
I have learned since that Christians have responsibilities as citizens, too, and that statements like your second to the last line have to be discreetly used. This statement was used by white southerners and other conservatives, including Billy Graham during the days of the civil rights movement. It almost became a mantra. It was used, not necessarily by Mr. Graham, disingenuously to avoid the issue of the day, which was that blacks were being denied some of the rights expressed in the Constitution. So, I apologize if it pushes a button in me but the phrase has a two-sided history, one which reflects a Biblical truth and one which reflects a desire to justify unjust policies and hide behind a “Christian” facade.
And I would still say that the reason that all these things didn’t enter the Founding Fathers’ minds was that they didn’t agree with the Scripture’s analysis of the human condition because of the Enlightenment thought, as you said so well.
Stan: Great words…thanks!
Point taken on the “You can’t change peoples’ hearts with legislation and court rulings.” That’s why I used the word “permanent” in the last sentence. Legislation and judicial rulings can only affect behavior, and that only as long as the majority of people believe in the enforcement power of the State. Once the majority (or even a sizeable minority) of citizens refuses to obey a law, the State must either discard the law, or simply look the other way. No amount of police power (at least in a democracy) can force people to obey a law, once they decide not to. There simply aren’t enough enforcers.
I agree totally with you that Christians have duties as citizens; in fact, our commitment to those duties should be greater than anyone else’s, since we know what is the alternative to Christ-centered leadership. I wasn’t saying we shouldn’t make our voices heard in the public arena, since only a changed heart will effect a permanent change in behavior. Nor did I mean to imply that we should tolerate injustice. What I was trying to say (poorly) is that only a changed heart produces a self-enforcing, self-monitored commitment to Christian principles and behaviors. Externally enforcing such behaviors works only as long as you’re prepared to enforce them, and only until a sufficiently large number of people begin to ignore them.
So, while I think Christians need to stand for the right, even if we stand alone, my greater desire is for that which will pull the crowd to my side of the line. That can only come through accepting Christ…not through any arguments I can proffer.
Early in the 20th century, Walter Reed showed that Yellow Fever (a deadly disease) was spread by the female Anopheles mosquito. The US Army needed to eliminate the disease, else the Panama Canal couldn’t be built. Instead of fighting the mosquitoes, they opted to drain the swamps that were the mosquitoes’ habitat. Rather than seeking victory one mosquito at a time, they did it one swamp at a time. The rest is history.
We need to do everything possible to drain the cultural swamps here in the US…after that, the mosquitoes simply vanish.
Great talking with you, Stan. BTW…how did your friends react to your statement back in 1972? If I take your context accurately, I’d say it didn’t come off too well. It’d be interesting to see what their reactions would be to the same discussion today.
Cheers//HEKTOR
Hektor,
Great to read your comments…I guess their reaction could be best described as quizzical…I wasn’t invited back but they were not unkind…I think that most of them probably weren’t Christians but they were making a very honest, good-hearted effort to help black folks and probably felt that they were following Christ by helping the poor and oppressed. I had never uttered a statement like that to anyone in my life and actually couldn’t believe the words that were coming out of my mouth because I was just coming out of 3-4 years of Socialist and Communist political philosophy myself.
Ironically, within a year my family and I moved to Phoenix and settled into a predominately black and very poor and dangerous neighborhood. Discovered quickly that almost all of the kids we worked with couldn’t read at much above the first grade level. Wish Chris Roberts could have been there to help us! (Seriously)
Comments on this entry are closed.