Posted on 05/04/2005 6:19:42 PM PDT by CollegeRepublicanNU
I was recently posed with the topic of the media in the lives of private people. I am not sure what to think about that but I do not like the media and they have no right to invade anyone's life unless that person has made his/her life public for some reason. What do others think?
Are you logged in?
Who do you suppose brought the press in to the Schiavo situation, and why do you think they did it?
So you're doing a term paper or take-home final exam and came here for the content??
I think your 2nd sentence is a run-on.
I think you are dead wrong.
Course you'll get a lot of media coverage when the BATF comes to burn you out.
Its not a paper was just a topic in a forum held at my school. I don't know what to think about the Terri Schiavo case because I believe if the media did not get involved she would have been left alone and could have died naturally. I think that the media can help sometimes but I think most media such as the nightly news just looks for ratings.
To gain fame within the ranks of the media elites, aspiring journalists must seek out and destroy people, regardless of their innocence, guilt, or wish of anonimity. This gives them stature amongst their peers.
(Rush or somebody made a similar comment last week from which I draw)
Terri would not have died "naturally" for probably another 20-30 years. She was not terminal!
Bump! And on HEARSAY to boot! Despicable.
The media was just doing what they do. Covering a story. More important statement, the ~government~ has no right in the lives of people.
I think the media serves its purpose as they deliver news to the public. But when they take on a case like the Terri Schiavo case I think it just becomes a contest to see who can get the best most tear-jerking story out there.
Sorry about the run on. Do you have anything constructive to add?
just joking bud
And do you include the judiciary as part of the government or are they a "special" part of the government that has the right to invade a persons life.
The judiciary doesn't invade without invitation. The role of the judiciary is to settle disputes between people who bring their dispute before the court for a ruling according to the law. They don't create the cases, people do.
Once the judiciary is involved then the "Government" is involved, period. Once the judiciary is involved other government entities such as the legislature and the executive can play a role in any case. Unless that is of course you think the judiciary is outside the realm of government.
I think the legislature, governor, congress and the president have absolutely no business interfering in the ruling of a court. If the court decision is believed to have made mistakes in law, there is an appeal process to hear those arguments.
The judiciary should not make new law sitting on the bench. Their role is to rule what the law is, not how much they like the law.
Conversely, the legislature should not adjudicate cases simply because they don't like the ruling of a court. If they don't like the law, they can change the law.
The executive simply has a limited role to over rule court decisions, such as pardons and stays... but I'd be over my head to say there is law on the books for the executive to interfere otherwise. I'd guess there isn't, or Jeb Bush would have done so if he desired to.
That's how separation of powers works ;~D
I don't know if we want to change the law and separations or not, we'd want to be pretty careful about that, and IMHO, the actions of the congress in Terri's case were not a good example of an argument ~for~ intervention. Decisions like Terri's are best made in the family, but if that is not possible then they should be settled in the most local court possible.
First of all the legislature has the authority to make any law that it sees fit and such a law can be applied to any case. If a law was made that made it against the law to do something a court wants to do - well guess what - that is the law and the judge has to live with it. That is of course unless you are talking about the new concept of the judiciary being the supreme body where they simply declare a law unconstitutional. We saw that happen with Terri's law.
If a law is written by the legislative branch and a judge takes that law and misinterprets it , the legislative branch has an obligation to clarify that law, by enacting another law.
Conversely, the legislature should not adjudicate cases simply because they don't like the ruling of a court. If they don't like the law, they can change the law.
They did this - it was called "Terri's Law" - and guess what the judiciary did? They didn't like that law so they declared it unconstitutional.
If judges had supreme authority to do what you say we would surely find ourselves in a type of government where we are ruled over by only one branch of the government. Of all the branches of government the judiciary is fast becoming the final say in all matters. The fact that it can take any law that the Legislature comes up with and declare it unconstitutional makes the legislature a moot body. Surely this is not what the founding fathers envisioned.
The judiciary should not make new law sitting on the bench. Their role is to rule what the law is, not how much they like the law.
What a great idea.
You make this sound like a trivial family dispute yet what was at stake here was an innocent womans life. Since when did the power to end an innocent persons life become the power of the judiciary? Where the heck is that written in the constitution?
I was prepared to answer your first post, but for you to honestly propose that the courts never decide cases like hers where people disagree on treatment, there's really no point. They do have to decide it. More often that you think. Life is not clean, and many times good people can disagree on the right thing to do. Courts allow for the disagreement to get settled with some finality so people can act.
Nice cop out.
Thank you. I want out of this conversation. It isn't very good ;~D
Cause you know how bankrupt your argument is.
Correct in that the appeals process is there to handle "mistakes", which are merely shortcomings in an otherwise honest reasoning process. But when a judge deliberately abuses his authority to reach a predetermined outcome, it is the business of the legislature to take action. That's what "during good behavior" is all about.
Apparently not since YOU DECIDED to come back today and start more posts on the subject ala post #14. If you don't want to discuss the legal aspects of the Terri Schiavo case then don't post your comments, especially if you don't have the decency to back them up.
I don't have the ~interest~ to back them up.
Look, sorry I lost my temper buddy, I hate to be rude, I am just not interested. If I could take back one thing it would be my reply to you that led you to believe I was gonna sit and talk Terri Schiavo all day.
I have to go now. I hope you find good entertainment on the forum today, I now have a body cavity search to get over with, I do try to keep my promises. ;~D
Either way - keep your comments to yourself unless you are willing to stand behind them.
Jeepers you are humorless. I was trying to sign off with a smile and a pleasantry, stop lecturing me.
Sorry, but your brand of your pleasantry went right over my head.
I'll send flowers next time. ;~D
>"I was recently posed with the topic of the
> media in the lives of private people."
Murder is not a private matter be it a old
style Southern lynching, or killing of a spouse
by starvation (Terri Schiavo recently, Hugh
Finn somewhat earlier.) Argentina and Italy
lately have upheld the right of the disabled
spouse to life. Not so the U.S. Courts.
G-d save us all.
"Argentina and Italy
lately have upheld the right of the disabled
spouse to life. Not so the U.S. Courts."
I believe that if the person did not take his or her time to write up a living will, than it should be assumed that they would want medical attention. I know this case was in court a long time and I do not understand the judge's decision to let them pull out the feeding tube. Obviously she was not in a solid state of mind but like it was said in an earlier post "she was not terminal!." It is just a shame about this whole case.
I know myself, personally I would not want to be in that state at all. I have already drawn up a living will stating to pull the plug. But Terri did not and who knows she could have lives many more years. It is a shame.......
Thanks for everyones views on the issue I'm glad we have a site like this where we can have these forums.
It might be of interest for you to know that Greer's ruling had nothing to do with pulling any "plugs". One does not need a machine in order to receive nutirents via a feeding tube. It didn't tie her down in any way. This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to false perceptions about her case.
I really sincerely hope you re-examine your "Living Will"
and its provisions. You may be setting yourself up for
misery and even death because you aren't given standard
treatment for curable or maintainable conditions (insulin
if diabetic, antibiotics for infection.) There's some
discussion on this at blogsforterri.com and I think at the
C.U.R.E. site -- for that, follow the links for the "Dutch
treat" artcle at http://www.jewsforlife.com
Regarding your "died naturally" comment. Terri S did not
die naturally, if by that you mean from her post-injury
condition. She was dehydrated (and starved) to death
intentionally. Some very sick people do die naturally;
Sen. Delay's father may well have been one of them. I'm
not blaming you particularly for the confusion because it
seems to have been widely dispersed in various media dis-
cussions. As Dr. Eisenberg says, good ethics depends on
good facts. Read up on why the disabled are so horrified
by the Terri S travesty, e.g. http://www.notdeadyet.org
I had no way of knowing for sure exactly what you meant. I do know that there a lot of people out there who still don't have the full story on this case, and do indeed think (or assume) that it's in any way like "pulling the plug" of a terminally ill patient who's barely recognizable in a nest of tubes and machines. It's just become my habit to try to correct that misunderstanding whenever I come across it.
I know they pulled out her feeding tube and in a way that is almost the same thing.
I would dispute that. It's about akin to taking out a surgical implant of some kind that people live completely normal lives with, such as a pacemaker. It would be difficult in the extreme to argue that the tube was degrading her quality of life. The only argument that was really made was that being alive was itself somehow degrading to her quality of life.
See also Nancy Valko on the dangers of living wills:
http://www.hospicepatients.org/n-valko-livingwills.html
Recently on another list I heard how one person's father
was denied an angioplasty (not esp. exotic) based on his
so-called living will and how his mother could not be
treated for gastric damage from meds because the doctor
said he would not be allowed to suction out vomit if she
vomited. The so-called living will is mostly about death
not life. Hope you make other provisions regarding yourself
and your loved ones.
And I'm not that confident that in the absence of specific
instructions a hospital or court will make life-oriented
decisions. Read up on "Futile Care" (that includes the
notorious Texas statute. Best regards cj.
I think that gives a wrong impression. She lasted 13 days without food or water. Do you think you could make it that long?
Also, don't be so fixated on the feeding tube, the order was that she was to receive no nutrition orally either. I would think that would do just about anybody in, don't you?
That's true all the way up until your first press conference, at that point you've let the press into your life and now you're stuck with them, like herpes.
I really don't understand his post anyway. The press was never allowed to see or film Terri Schiavo in the first place.
Intresting. However, the plans and actions to kill Terri were in place years before the media ever reported on it. You couldn't be more wrong, imo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.