Posted on 04/20/2006 1:37:42 PM PDT by AZRepublican
CBS4/AP) WEST PALM BEACH Gov. Jeb Bush erred when he entered the bitter fight over whether to keep brain-damaged Terri Schiavo alive because government should not be involved in end-of-life decisions, Attorney General Charlie Crist said Thursday.
"I am pro-life and I respect life," Crist, a Republican candidate for governor, said at a gathering of the nonpartisan Forum Club of the Palm Beaches.
"There are some decisions that ought to be left to God and family," Crist said. "Had I have been governor, I would have not done the same thing" as Bush.
Crist's Republican challenger, Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher, hedged a bit, noting the importance of having a living will, something Schiavo did not have.
"These kinds of end-of-life matters do not belong in government," Gallagher said. "But when these kinds of situations come in front of me, I would always err on the side of life. I think that's what you must do when you don't know anything else."
Schiavo was at the center of a 15-year legal fight between her husband, Michael Schiavo, and her family over whether she should be kept alive with a feeding tube after a brain injury.
Congress, President Bush and Gov. Bush pressed to keep Schiavo alive. Ultimately, the courts sided with Schiavo's husband. She died of dehydration on March 31, 2005, after having her feeding tube was removed.
The Republican gubernatorial candidates also addressed crime, the economy, prayer in public schools, the environment, and property taxes.
Crist, a former education commissioner now in his fourth year as attorney general, noted that violent crime in Florida is at a 34-year low.
Crist cited the importance of passing the "anti-murder" bill now working its way through the Legislature, a measure that would allow judges to put violent criminals back in jail if they violate probation. He has made the bill one of his top legislative priorities.
"When somebody is put on probation it is a privilege, it's not a right," Crist said. "This anti-murder bill will simply say ... that if they violate probation, they will go back to jail."
The bill is similar to legislation that failed last year when lawmakers questioned the high cost of keeping thousands of additional suspects in county jails pending trials.
Gallagher said he would make crime a top priority, specifically for child sex offenders.
"I will make sure we're the toughest state in the nation when it comes to punishing our sexual predators," Gallagher said. "The bottom line is if you touch kids, you'll pay."
Gallagher touted his fiscal superiority in managing state money, touching on the economy, taxes and the soaring cost of insurance.
"Florida's economy is an economic model. We lead in job creation. We're sitting with a 3 percent unemployment rate and our state is doing well because of that," he said, adding that the state needs property tax reforms to continue to prosper.
"I believe property tax should be limited to growth plus inflation," Gallagher said. "We are facing some major challenges and it's going to take somebody who understands those challenges to help carry us through."
Crist said the state needs "less taxing, less spending, less government and more freedom."
The candidates agreed when asked by high school senior Amie Bass, 17, what their thoughts were on prayer and Bible teachings in school.
"I don't have a problem with student-led prayer anywhere," Gallagher said. Crist noted that as a member of the state Senate, he voted for student prayer. Both agreed the Bible belongs in schools.
The candidates also agreed that protecting Florida's environment was important and that the nation needs to secure its borders and stop illegal immigration.
Finally, both agreed on the most important topic of the day when asked if forced to vote for a Democrat for governor, would it be for State Sen. Rod Smith of Gainesville or U.S. Rep. Jim Davis of Tampa.
"I wouldn't vote for either one of them because I think both of us are better," Crist said to applause. "And I guess I should add I'm going to vote for me."
"I agree with Charlie," Gallagher added. "Either one of us is better than both of them.
Maybe because on his watch it stopped being a crime to murder a disabled woman and steal her million-dollar estate.
If he had starved a dog there may be of been more outrage from your side.
Dogs may be euthanized legally. Humans may not.
Furthermore, dogs don't make verbal statements refusing forced feeding. False analogies are just that, apples and oranges.
As I said, good people disagree on this issue.
Obviously, you like to use inflammatory rhetoric and name calling. Good luck getting converts to your side.
Floridians rejected your viewpoint. Jeb Bush can't even find a Republican sponsor to introduce a bill banning verbal requests for withdrawal of feeding tubes.
OK, I take back my joke about you being devious. You are no competition for this kind of thinking :-)
Euthanized, yes. Denied food and water, no. We republished the Pinellas cruelty-to-animals statutes several times to make the point that Terri was treated worse than any other creature.
Last year, my neighbor's old Australian shepherd dog refused to eat and drink.
Instead of force-feeding his dog, he took the dog to the vet. The vet euthanized the dog. The vet speeded up the dying process.
If the vet had not euthanized it, the dog would have died just like Terri.
O. J. probably acted in a sudden rage, not out of cold premeditation.
I had forgotten about Laci's baby...in that regard Scott was worse, killing two people.
Posting statement by discredited witnesses is weak. I'm not going to re-hash this Schiavo saga again. I'm not going to convince you of anything, and neither are you going to convince me of anything.
Your side lost because it had a weak case. All the courts that reviewed the facts and the law disagreed with your side, and most of those judges were conservative, Republicans, or both.
Here in Florida, we have the right to make a verbal request rejecting feeding tubes.
If you don't like it, try to convince the people to change the law.
Good luck in your quixotic quest.
From his affidavit:
“To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense no longer there. … As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience withdraw her feeding and hydration. No, I could not. I could not withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose face brightens in the presence of others.” --3/23/2005
When you are in hole, stop digging.
Sure. Getting back to my original comment, why did they refuse Terri to appear in court despite pleas from the Shindler attorneys? I think most people get it, you are and an exception of course.
You forgot Peter Singer in your list of bioethicists.
.
That doesn't matter. It was an "end of life matter" and those decisions don't belong in government. We are told those decisions are best left to family, as was the case with Schiavo, Peterson AND O.J. They were private family decisions.
But speaking of spousal rage, you need to look into the mystery surrounding the circumstances as to how Terri came to be paralyzed.
I have no room left on the list so have to be very choosy. I kicked John Wayne Gacy off to make room for Eric Pianka and his plans to annihilate 90% of the human race. Now that is serious bioethicking. Peter Singer never made the list in the first place. He's a sissy. He's nothing but wind. Kill defective babies, he says, but does he lead the way? Has he strangled even one baby? No.
Dr. Ronald Cranford is on the bubble. The only thing that keeps him on the list is that he's marginally less creepy-crawly than Jack Kevorkian.
I don't follow. I've read the autopsy report several times. It is not obvious at all that Dr. Cheshire's observations have been discredited. Would you kindly cite the references you have in mind and argue your case?
OK. Settled. Crist over Gallagher.
I strongly advice that you read what Martin Katz wrote in "The American Thinker" (March 29, 2005) regarding Terri. It sums it up why so many of us continue to be horrified by the treatment she received.
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.
