The latest twist in the Schiavo case.......

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Is there a considerable agreement that she is suffering right now?

[Guest MikeSC]

Is there a considerable agreement that she is suffering right now?

Yes.

 

Just because somebody is suffering does not mean they want to die or that we should kill them.

-=Mike

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Mike, personal feelings do not matter in a court of law. You've got to accept that.

 

Mike, you have no proof she wanted to live.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, personal feelings do not matter in a court of law. You've got to accept that.

 

Mike, you have no proof she wanted to live.

Stephen, it's not anybody's job to prove she wanted to live.

 

It's Michael's job to prove she wanted to die.

 

And he has not begun to do so.

 

A statement she allegedly made once while watching TV does not begin to do the trick.

-=Mike

[Lord of The Curry 0]

I hate her mother. I do not for one second buy any of this bullshit grief that she displays in front of the cameras. A mother knows when something is best for her daughter and to have her daughter continue on in a vegetative state isn't the best option.

[Guest MikeSC]

I hate her mother.

Wow, pretty extreme feelings for a woman you don't the first thing about.

I do not for one second buy any of this bullshit grief that she displays in front of the cameras.

But a "husband" who has been in a relationship with another woman for years and who waited SEVEN YEARS before, apparently, remembering that his wife "wanted" to die --- THAT you believe?

 

Yeah, I can see that.

A mother knows when something is best for her daughter and to have her daughter continue on in a vegetative state isn't the best option.

Well, now that we have YOU to play the role of God, are there any other pronouncements you wish to make for people you have never met in your life?

-=Mike

[CanadianChris 0]

Is there a considerable agreement that she is suffering right now?

Yes.

 

Just because somebody is suffering does not mean they want to die or that we should kill them.

-=Mike

She's not suffering. You have to be living to know suffering. Terri merely exists.

 

No one is putting her out of her misery, because she doesn't know misery. Comparing her to Christopher Reeve, or anyone else in a similar situation, is pointless because their situations aren't comparable.

[Vyce 0]

Nice picture but it doesn't work.

 

Nice to see all those "Save my son and daughter in Iraq" protests didn't do anything but a vegetable with a selfish mother will get the attention of the entire country.

Their sons and daughters openly volunteered for the military.

 

There is considerable disagreement that Terri wanted to die.

-=Mike

[King Cucaracha 0]

As much as starving her isn't 'torture' technically, because of her vegative state, it still doesn't seem right somehow.

 

I don't know why, because the more I look at it, the more it seems like they're just letting nature take it's course. But still...something bothers me about the thought of actively letting any living person starve to death, even if they can't feel the effects.

 

Other than that...I don't know. As much as I feel she shouldn't be allowed to die despite lack of evidence that those were her wishes, I also don't see the actual merits of prolonging her life.

 

What bothers me atm though, is that her estranged husband is the one to make the choice. I understand the laws of marraige and so on. But it seems suspect that the husband is the one who can make the choice simply because he put a ring on her finger a few years ago...and despite the fact that he's been seperated from her for years, he has more power than the person who gave birth to Terri. Seems ass backwards to me.

[Guest MikeSC]

Is there a considerable agreement that she is suffering right now?

Yes.

 

Just because somebody is suffering does not mean they want to die or that we should kill them.

-=Mike

She's not suffering. You have to be living to know suffering. Terri merely exists.

 

No one is putting her out of her misery, because she doesn't know misery. Comparing her to Christopher Reeve, or anyone else in a similar situation, is pointless because their situations aren't comparable.

Reeves couldn't breathe on his own. Couldn't eat on his own. Didn't feel much of anything.

 

They're different...how?

-=Mike

[Dr. Tom 0]

Reeve was conscious and alert. He could speak. He could interact. He could memorize lines and still be an actor.

 

Terri Schiavo simply exists.

[Guest MikeSC]

But, using the logic of many, what kind of life was Reeves' living? He was paralyzed. He couldn't do anything himself. In many ways, Reeves was in WORSE shape than Schiavo (she can breathe on her own --- well, for the next few days, until she is finally starved to death).

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

EDIT: nevermind.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

He was paralyzed. He couldn't do anything himself. In many ways, Reeves was in WORSE shape than Schiavo

 

Reeves would have NOTICED someone pulling the plug though. I think that's the key difference here.

[Boon 0]

ATLANTA Mar 23, 2005 — For the second time in less than a day, a federal appeals court Wednesday rejected a bid by Terri Schiavo's parents to have her feeding tube re-inserted. The Florida Senate also turned back another last-ditch effort to prolong her life.

 

The Senate bill would have prohibited patients like Schiavo from being denied food and water if they did not express their wishes in writing. The 21-18 vote came five days after her feeding tube was removed under court order. Similar efforts in the Legislature have failed in the past.

 

In a 10-2 decision earlier Wednesday, the Atlanta-based U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused Bob and Mary Schindler's request for an emergency rehearing by the full court. A three-judge panel from the same court ruled against the family earlier Wednesday.

 

The court did not give an explanation for its decision. Matt Davidson, a clerk for the court, said it normally does not make statements when it votes on whether to consider a request.

 

However, the dissenting judges did make statements. Judge Charles R. Wilson, who also dissented in the three-judge panel's ruling, said he still stood by his earlier rationale that Schiavo's "imminent" death would end the case before it could be fully considered. "I fail to see any harm in reinserting the feeding tube," he wrote in the earlier ruling.

 

The parents have vowed to take their fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has refused to get involved previously.

 

Supporters of the parents grew increasingly dismayed by the developments, and 10 protesters were arrested outside Schiavo's hospice for trying to bring her water. The severely brain-damaged woman's mother pleaded, again, that her daughter be kept alive.

 

"When I close my eyes at night, all I can see is Terri's face in front of me, dying, starving to death," Mary Schindler said outside the hospice. "Please, someone out there, stop this cruelty. Stop the insanity. Please let my daughter live."

 

Terri Schiavo has not received any nourishment since the tube was pulled Friday afternoon. By late Tuesday, Terri's eyes were sunken, her skin was parched and flaking and her lips and tongue were parched, said Barbara Weller, an attorney for the Schindlers.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=607930

 

The courts have once again determined that the tube should not be reinserted.

 

As for this whole Schiavo/Reeves comparison- Christopher Reeves could have said "I don't want to live like this." Schiavo cannot. I think it's apples and oranges, really.

 

EDIT:

Reeves would have NOTICED someone pulling the plug though. I think that's the key difference here.

That, too.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

L-to-the-O-to-the-L

 

 

Gabriel Keys (foreground) is arrested by police officers for trespassing in Pinellas Park, Florida, March 23, 2005. The young protester attempted to take a glass of water into the Woodside Hospice for the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Gov. Bush Seeks to Take Custody of Schiavo

 

23 minutes ago  Top Stories - AP

 

By JILL BARTON, Associated Press Writer

 

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - Terri Schiavo's parents saw their options vanish one by one Wednesday as a federal appeals court refused to re-insert her feeding tube and the Florida Legislature decided not to intervene in the epic struggle. Refusing to give up, Gov. Jeb Bush sought court permission to take custody of Schiavo.

 

The desperate flurry of activity came as President Bush (news - web sites) suggested that Congress and the White House had done all they could to keep the severely brain-damaged woman alive.

 

As of Wednesday afternoon, Schiavo had gone five full days without food or water; doctors have said she could survive one to two weeks.

 

Supporters of Schiavo's parents grew increasingly dismayed, and 10 protesters were arrested outside her hospice for trying to bring her water.

 

"When I close my eyes at night, all I can see is Terri's face in front of me, dying, starving to death," Mary Schindler said outside the Pinellas Park hospice. "Please, someone out there, stop this cruelty. Stop the insanity. Please let my daughter live."

 

The Schindlers have vowed to take their fight to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites), which refused to get involved previously.

 

Schiavo's tube was pulled Friday afternoon with a Florida judge's approval. By late Tuesday, her eyes were sunken and her skin, lips and tongue were parched, said Barbara Weller, an attorney for the Schindlers.

 

Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly from a chemical imbalance believed to have been brought on by an eating disorder. Court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

 

Her parents argue that she could get better and that she would never have wanted to be cut off from food and water. Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, has argued that his wife told him she would not want to be kept alive artificially, and a state judge has repeatedly ruled in his favor.

 

The battle played out on several fronts Wednesday.

 

A three-judge panel from the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) ruled against the family early Wednesday, and hours later the full court refused to reconsider in a 10-2 vote.

 

Gov. Jeb Bush and the state's social services agency filed a petition in state court to take custody of Schiavo and, presumably, reconnect her feeding tube. It cites new allegations of neglect and challenges Schiavo's diagnosis as being in a persistent vegetative state. The request is based on the opinion of a neurologist working for the state who observed Schiavo at her bedside but did not conduct an examination of her.

 

The Florida Legislature also jumped back into the fray, but senators rejected a bill that would have prohibited patients like Schiavo from being denied food and water if they did not express their wishes in writing. The measure was rejected 21-18.

 

The Legislature stepped in before, in 2003, and Schiavo's feeding tube was reinserted. But "Terri's Law" was later struck down by the state Supreme Court as an unconstitutional attempt to interfere in the courts.

 

The Senate vote Wendesday came after a bitter debate, with Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, watching from the gallery above the floor. He covered his eyes with his hands and lowered his head during the debate.

 

"I'm here pleading for mercy. Have mercy on Theresa Marie Schiavo," said bill sponsor Sen. Dan Webster, a Republican.

 

But Senate Democratic Leader Les Miller warned: "By the time the ink is dry on the governor's signature, it will be declared unconstitutional, just like it was before."

 

A lawyer for Michael Schiavo said he was pleased by what happened in the appeals court. But he was bothered that the governor was attempting to intervene again.

 

"They have no more power than you or I or a person walking down the street to say we have the right to take Terri Schiavo," attorney George Felos said.

 

Meanwhile, President Bush suggested that he and Congress had done their best to help the parents prolong Schiavo's life, and the White House said it had no further legal options.

 

"I believe that in a case such as this, the legislative branch, the executive branch, ought to err on the side of life, which we have," the president said. "Now we'll watch the courts make their decisions."

 

Federal courts were given jurisdiction to review Schiavo's case after Republicans in Congress pushed through unprecedented emergency legislation over the weekend aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life. But federal courts at two levels rebuffed the family.

 

"There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo," Judges Ed Carnes and Frank M. Hull said in the 2-1 decision by the 11th circuit panel. "We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children. However, we are called upon to make a collective, objective decision."

 

Dissenting Judge Charles R. Wilson said Schiavo's "imminent" death would end the case before it could be fully considered. "I fail to see any harm in reinserting the feeding tube," he wrote.

 

Well, now Jeb wants custody of her.

[Guest MikeSC]

I just find it ironic that the judges didn't even feel the need to issue a stay, reinserting the feeding tube while they re-consider the case --- you know, the exact same thing they'd do in a death penalty case.

 

Doesn't sound like they even remotely considered the case.

 

Which should make the Republicans doubly sure to win the fight over judicial nominees.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

The 11th curcuit was made up of Republican appointees, and 10 of those 12 judges voted against the Schindlers.

 

The two dissenters were a Ford and Clinton appointee.

 

IIRC, here's the breakdown of the court

 

In the majority

2 Reagan Judges

4 GHW Bush Judges

3 Clinton Judges

1 GW Bush Judge

 

I can see the argument now:

 

"We need more GW Bush judges, because the other Republican appointees are all Liberal activists"

 

And we're getting closer to having a commando mission into the hospice.

[NoCalMike 0]

If they want to give Mercy to Terry, why not call in Kevorkian, and just end it immediately, then there will be no cry of "starving to death"

[CanadianChris 0]

I just find it ironic that the judges didn't even feel the need to issue a stay, reinserting the feeding tube while they re-consider the case --- you know, the exact same thing they'd do in a death penalty case.

 

Doesn't sound like they even remotely considered the case.

 

Which should make the Republicans doubly sure to win the fight over judicial nominees.

-=Mike

The point is, they're refusing to consider it. Why would they issue an injunction on a case they have no intention of considering?

[Guest MikeSC]

I just find it ironic that the judges didn't even feel the need to issue a stay, reinserting the feeding tube while they re-consider the case --- you know, the exact same thing they'd do in a death penalty case.

 

Doesn't sound like they even remotely considered the case.

 

Which should make the Republicans doubly sure to win the fight over judicial nominees.

          -=Mike

The point is, they're refusing to consider it. Why would they issue an injunction on a case they have no intention of considering?

Then it's truly fascinating how desperate the courts are for Terri to die.

 

Well, the courts overstepping their bounds is the usual fare for them.

-=Mike

[Guest Ronixis]

Wow.

 

This whole thing is the greatest mess I ever seen in a long time.

 

14 Courts.

 

The Congress.

 

The Presdent...(where is the Executive Order?)

 

Back to the Courts.

 

Then the Florida Senate...

 

This is just NUTS.

 

And they could win the case if this was a Guardianship Issue- today.

 

But its the right to life thing that kills the case. We all know the the Fed Judges were Corrupt from DAY ONE (with this case in Florida and the Ninth District in Cali.) And yes, President Bush wanted Tort Reform and Strict Constructioniests(sp) BUT when you have KIDS getting sent to Jail just to give Terri water... its time to use the Excutitive Order and let the courts be damned until all of the evidence is shown.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I just find it ironic that the judges didn't even feel the need to issue a stay, reinserting the feeding tube while they re-consider the case --- you know, the exact same thing they'd do in a death penalty case.

 

Doesn't sound like they even remotely considered the case.

 

Which should make the Republicans doubly sure to win the fight over judicial nominees.

          -=Mike

The point is, they're refusing to consider it. Why would they issue an injunction on a case they have no intention of considering?

Then it's truly fascinating how desperate the courts are for Terri to die.

 

Well, the courts overstepping their bounds is the usual fare for them.

-=Mike

The courts are overstepping their bounds by REFUSING to hear a case?

[Vyce 0]

I think Mike is referring to the fact that the recently passed federal legislation called for the federal courts to take a "fresh look" at the facts of the case.

 

Then those federal courts, within days, ruled against hearing the case, with the reasoning that the state courts have already ruled on the issue.

 

Which is all good and proper, but it's going directly against the intent of the legislature. So, in other words, the federal courts are going directly against the very statute that allowed them to hear the case to begin with.

[CanadianChris 0]

I think Mike is referring to the fact that the recently passed federal legislation called for the federal courts to take a "fresh look" at the facts of the case.

 

Then those federal courts, within days, ruled against hearing the case, with the reasoning that the state courts have already ruled on the issue.

 

Which is all good and proper, but it's going directly against the intent of the legislature. So, in other words, the federal courts are going directly against the very statute that allowed them to hear the case to begin with.

The courts are not bound by any statute other than the Constitution, nor should they be. All the federal statute did was allow the case to go to the federal courts, where the judges could do as they saw fit. They were not compelled to hear the case.

[Guest Ronixis]

I just find it ironic that the judges didn't even feel the need to issue a stay, reinserting the feeding tube while they re-consider the case --- you know, the exact same thing they'd do in a death penalty case.

 

Doesn't sound like they even remotely considered the case.

 

Which should make the Republicans doubly sure to win the fight over judicial nominees.

-=Mike

Mike, I WISH that was the case.

 

But when its mostly GOP Judges that denied Terri's feeding appratius, I dont really think it matters. There just a fundmental problem with the system. They may be the weaker of the three parts of goverment, but I would be DAMNED if they keep trying to pull the same crap over and over again and NOT do anything about it if I was the Bush Brothers, or any other Gov/POTUS on any situation.

 

They might hire good judges, but in the end, they might screw up and have their own agenda.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

There is considerable disagreement that Terri wanted to die.

Terri effectively died seven years ago. There's nothing operating deep in her head.

 

Furthermore, she has said she didn't want to be on life support forever and ever. This evidence has appeared in court via testimony from people who are not her husband or her parents.

 

The worst part is the amount of people using the emotions of this case for political gain. You know that when the re-elections come around next year, someone's going to say "Senator ____ didn't vote for putting Terri's feeding tube back in," which will make them sound like some kind of heartless monster.

[Vyce 0]

I think Mike is referring to the fact that the recently passed federal legislation called for the federal courts to take a "fresh look" at the facts of the case.

 

Then those federal courts, within days, ruled against hearing the case, with the reasoning that the state courts have already ruled on the issue.

 

Which is all good and proper, but it's going directly against the intent of the legislature.  So, in other words, the federal courts are going directly against the very statute that allowed them to hear the case to begin with.

The courts are not bound by any statute other than the Constitution, nor should they be. All the federal statute did was allow the case to go to the federal courts, where the judges could do as they saw fit. They were not compelled to hear the case.

Just offering an explanation. I do think it's fair, though, to some extent, for Mike to argue that the Court is 'ignoring the law", based upon the reasoning that I already stated.

 

And we're getting closer to having a commando mission into the hospice.

 

 

Man, times like this I wish I had Photoshop, cause Terri's head would totally be on young Elian's body.

[Guest MikeSC]

There is considerable disagreement that Terri wanted to die.

Terri effectively died seven years ago. There's nothing operating deep in her head.

 

Furthermore, she has said she didn't want to be on life support forever and ever. This evidence has appeared in court via testimony from people who are not her husband or her parents.

 

The worst part is the amount of people using the emotions of this case for political gain. You know that when the re-elections come around next year, someone's going to say "Senator ____ didn't vote for putting Terri's feeding tube back in," which will make them sound like some kind of heartless monster.

You know, maybe they SHOULD be shamed.

-=Mike