Giving "Water to the Least of These" -- Changing the Terri Schiavo Strategy

UCM List ^ | 23Mar05 | SH Zinser

[xzins]

It is evident that attending nurses have affidavits affirming that Terri Schiavo was able only a few short years ago to ingest food and water orally.

This is also evidenced by the "guardian's" insistence on police overlooking her room to prevent her parents from doing just that....a secret drink, an ice chip, etc.

The judge's order is that the tube not be reinserted.

There is no moral order able to be given that she not have the CHANCE to eat and drink in a manner normal for babies and others who might find themselves in a dependent status.

Everyone in "right to die" land is saying "Let her go NATURALLY."

OK....if that is accepted, then it is only fair, judicious, humane, and NATURAL to have a good faith attempt by totally uninvolved, neutral caregivers to give her food and water orally.

Change strategy -- demand the natural feeding of Terri Schiavo if there is no hope of a feeding tube being inserted! Demand Federal intervention to require this reasonable and NATURAL act!

Let's put the lie to supposedly humane cries for a "Natural" death for Terri Schiavo.

Finally, to give her water would be the side that is affirmed by Jesus Christ Himself: "Mr 9:41 - And whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of My name, since you belong to the Messiah-- I assure you: He will never lose his reward. "

[P-Marlowe]

So, last stop Anthony Kennedy. Now, there is a chilling thought (as he crouches behind his massive desk with his favorite flipping coin.)

So are you rooting for death?

BTW IF the Schindlers have been prohibited from putting water on their daughters lips are you OK with that? Your keep claiming that they aren't, but what if they are? Is that something you are willing to accept? Or would you agree that an order prohibiting anyone from attempting to feed her water through her mouth is unacceptable?

[P-Marlowe]

Brain DEAD, huh?

Are you a doctor or do you just play one on Free Republic?

[jude24]

Would have been nice if the Schindlersr had produced something like this at trial, hmm? Mar. 5, 2004 is the date of the affidavit - after the trial.

The time for discovery is before the trial, counsellor.

[winstonchurchill]

So are you rooting for death?

No, but I do believe that the Congress' action with the complicity of W was a travesty of political cynicism. I certainly don't want to see it succeed or it will be repeated. There were no defects whatever in the Florida procedure and the cynical political gamesmanship implied there was. I'm glad it has not succeeded thus far. I really doubt it will at the Supreme Court level.

I see Jeb is now asking Judge Greer for permission to take possession of the body of Terri, presumably to immediately reinsert the tube and sentence her to another 15-20 years of imprisonment accomplishing with political hubris what he could not in the courts of justice. I certainly hope the good Judge declines the 'honor'.

If her soul is still locked in that awful body, let her go Home.

[expatpat]

Do you believe the same regarding murderers up for execution? -- no re-evaluation of shaky evidence in the light of new information? If you do, then you are consistent but throwing justice out of the window. If you don't, then you are intellectually dishonest. Hopefully, the former.

[P-Marlowe]

The time for discovery is before the trial, counsellor.

OK we'll just ignore the substance and kill her over procedure.

Hey I KNOW you didn't think like THAT before you entered law school!

Nobody but a law student or a heartless lawyer would ever argue that a person ought to be killed because exculpatory evidence obtained after trial cannot procedurally be used after discovery closes. Where did you learn this crap?

This is new evidence not available at the time of trial. In administative hearings it is grounds to reopen. In death penalty cases it is grounds for a new trial. Here we have an administrative death penalty case. It must be considered, even if it requires a new trial. It is the least that can be done to protect her rights and the sanctity of life.

But you would prefer to ignore it because she had a lousy attorney at the time of the original trial.

Pathetic.

[P-Marlowe]

You didn't answer my question. Are you ok with an order prohibiting anyone from wetting Mrs. Schiavo's lips or otherwise providing her with water through her mouth?

IF, in fact, that is what Judge Greer ordered, is that cool with you?

[jude24]

The parents could have and should have run the tests prior to the trial. They got a judgment they don't like, and want another bite at the apple. The law doesn't work that way.

The Florida and Federal court's decision is based on the premise that she is brain dead. No one has ever given any evidence to say otherwise, but rather conjecture. Conjecture never gets someone another shot.

[P-Marlowe]

Would have been nice if the Schindlersr had produced something like this at trial, hmm? Mar. 5, 2004 is the date of the affidavit - after the trial. The time for discovery is before the trial, counsellor.

The affidavit is dated March 23, 2005. Which just happens to be.... today!

Death by procedure. That's pretty heartless jude. IMO, your study of "The Law" is taking away your heart. That is what they are trying to do to you, jude. You have to guard against it. Christ first, everything else second. It's WWJD? Not WW(FCCP) do?

[jude24]

The affidavit is dated March 23, 2005. Which just happens to be.... today!

That's even worse. No court will ever see that - it's published solely for the sake of publicity. Another publicity whore gets his name published.

Here's what I know: there's a heck of a lot of disinformation out there; which is why I'm looking only at the officially examined evidence. I doubt if every judge in the chain of the litigation is part of a grand conspiracy to kill Terri Schaivo no matter what the evidence says. They're going where the evidence leads them. There's no evidence on the record that she is anything other than brain dead. Show me something in the record to the contrary, then I would change my position. Until then, she's a corpse with a pulse.

[winstonchurchill]

Your keep claiming that they aren't, but what if they are? Is that something you are willing to accept?

It depends on the medical advice and the true condition of Terri, none of which we know.

I certainly see the need for only one decision-maker and that is the guardian. I am always been amazed that in seven years of litigation, the Schindlers never tried to get Michael removed as guardian. Someone suggested that they didn't have standing to do so, but that doesn't seem likely in view of the wild charges that they have made about him. If they could prove any one of the them, it would seem that they could have had him removed.

While in view of their irrationality, it seems unlikely that either of them ever would have been appointed, but there are a myriad of independent people with whom I think they might have been transitorially satisfied.

Or would you agree that an order prohibiting anyone from attempting to feed her water through her mouth is unacceptable?

As I said above, whether that is the right decision for the guardian is dependent on (i) the available medical advice and (ii) the true condition of Terri. Neither of which we know.

Let me anticipate your rejoinder, "Well, shouldn't we know?" The answer is a firm "No." Only the guardian needs to know. I realize that there are a number of people here at FR who would feel qualified to second-guess any guardian. But they are just a little out-of-touch with reality right now.

Personally, I agree with fatnotlazy above. I think Michael made his biggest mistake in not giving the Schindlers the $150K out of the loss of consortium settlement that they wanted and then make some heart or brain foundation the residuary beneficiary on Terri's trust and the Schindlers would have gone away years ago. Terri would have long since been at home in Heaven.

Instead, he told them 'no' and let the possibility of they're becoming Terri's heirs at law for whatever the remaining balance of the trust was at her death and they fight him until the money is gone.

[P-Marlowe]

The parents could have and should have run the tests prior to the trial.

Actually they were prohibited by Michael Schiavo from running many tests. Additionally the F-MRI (functional MRI) is so new that it was not available at the time of the hearing. It is the only test capable of determining actual brain function and it was not performed because Michael Schiavo would have prohibited it and it was not available for use.

The Florida and Federal court's decision is based on the premise that she is brain dead.

These same courts have also determined that life does not begin until after birth. So if we follow those courts rulings, then there's nothing scripturally or morally wrong with partial birth abortions.

[P-Marlowe]

Nice dodge Winston.

IF they are prohbited from wetting their dying daughter's lips, are you OK with that?

[P-Marlowe]

Until then, she's a corpse with a pulse.

That's really sad, jude.

[winstonchurchill]

Are you ok with an order prohibiting anyone from wetting Mrs. Schiavo's lips or otherwise providing her with water through her mouth? IF, in fact, that is what Judge Greer ordered, is that cool with you?

You see, the difference between you and me is that I was willing to (and did) read the orders which Judge Greer issued. He did NOT so order. [We know that because his orders are public record and in writing.]

I would not have been (in your elevated legal terminology) 'cool with that' because the statute does not authorize him to so order. It would, however, be within the broad discretion of the guardian.

[P-Marlowe]

Another publicity whore gets his name published.

William P. Cheshire Jr.

Director of Biotech Ethics

William P. Cheshire Jr., MD

William P. Cheshire Jr., M.D., M.A., F.A.A.N.  is an Associate Professor of Neurology in Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and a Consultant in the Department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. He received the Outstanding Faculty Award from the Mayo School of Continuing Medical Education in 2001.

Following an A.B. cum laude in biochemistry from Princeton University, he received his M.D. from West Virginia University and his M.A. in bioethics summa cum laude from Trinity International University. He served a residency in neurology and a fellowship in pain management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is a diplomat of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.

Dr. Cheshire is Director of the Autonomic Reflex Laboratory at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville where he is active in ethics education, and he is an Adjunct Professor of Bioethics at Trinity International University. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Neurology, a Fellow of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, member of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, member of the Ethics Commission of the Christian Medical Association, and an associate member of the Hastings Center. His bioethical interests include the physician-patient relationship, human embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, personhood, and end-of-life issues.

Dr. Cheshire has been involved in medical mission outreaches to Honduras and Russia. He, his wife and four children are members of the Episcopal Church of the Redeemer in Jacksonville, Florida.

Articles by William Cheshire:

• Benchmarking Bedside Manner in Medical Education
• Computer-Directed Animal Navigation Needs Ethical Compass
• Human Cloning and the Ethics of Inevitability
• Human Embryo Research After the Genome

Resource for Sale by William Cheshire:

• "Human-Animal Mix and Match: How Chimeras and Cyborgs Would Challenge Concepts of What it Means to be Human"
• "In Search of the Philosopher’s Clone, Thoughts on Embryonic Stem Cell Technology"

[jude24]

Give me one other good reason for a guy to publish his affidavit now, other than publicity. The case is all but decided now anyway. The SCOTUS certainly won't use it.

[winstonchurchill]

Additionally the F-MRI (functional MRI) is so new that it was not available at the time of the hearing. It is the only test capable of determining actual brain function and it was not performed

I am not an expert on this, but Mort Kondrake said the other day on Brit Hume's program that she could NOT have an MRI because in the first few years after the heart attack, Michael took her to California to try to slow the death and disappearance of her brain with some type of implants and those implants would now preclude an MRI. She had a CAT-scan and all they could do now is a PET-scan. I don't know any more than that; that is what Mort Kondrake reported.

[winstonchurchill]

Another publicity whore gets his name published.

I take it from your warm description, he must not agree with you.

[Ann Archy]

What will be the "cause of death" on the death certificate?