Conservative attorneys urging Bush to intervene in Schiavo case

Florida Times Union ^ | Thursday, October 16, 2003 | MITCH STACY

[nickcarraway]

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - The parents of a severely brain-damaged woman and others fighting to keep her alive stepped up the pressure on Gov. Jeb Bush to intervene in the case Thursday.

The feeding tube keeping Terri Schiavo alive was removed Wednesday, culminating a decade-long legal fight between her parents and her husband. Doctors say she will live as long as two weeks without it.

[kenth]

This is a perfect example. After having watched some close relatives go through this, I asked my family (and they asked me) to not allow them to be artificially kept alive, if any of us got to a vegetative state, beyond any hope of recovery.

The hope of recovery you refer to, it wasn't allowed to exist. The husband refused therapy. As for artificially kept alive, it's food and water. Her life support is no different than that provided to infants and other disabled people, who are unable to feed themselves.

You also are making assumptions, against much proof of denial of Mrs. Schiavo's rights. You are assuming Mrs. Schiavo wants to die. You are applying your emotional attachment to your 'close relatives' situation to this case. If you truly held an emotional disconnect, unless the close relatives were your financial obligation, what would you care if they lived or died?

The only evidence that Mrs. Schiavo would want to die was provided by her husband, who has a vested financial and adulterous interest in her death. Some of us see the whole of the evidence pointing toward a criminal interest in her death.

In short, we see a wrong being perpetrated, not only by the husband, but by the court system. It is wrong on so many levels, culminating with the state ordered starvation of a fellow human being.

[george wythe]

Why not go in and killer her now?

As a Catholic, I will try to answer that question, although you might not find it satisfactory.

If I develop a Permanent Vegetative State, I have asked my wife to remove any feeding tubes.

I have not asked my wife to snuff me.

Although my Catholic conscience will allow me to starve to death, I will consider a sin any extreme accelleration of death.

I'm assuming the Schiavos are Catholic, since the Catholic Church has issued statements on this specific case.

[Manic_Episode]

KILL ALL THE RETARDS!

SINCERELY,

CAPITALIST ERIC

[Capitalist Eric]

Just ignore Eric. He is just trolling for an argument.

NO. I do understand, however, that now, instead of being "evil" I am a "troll."

How convenient, that instead of facing the flaws in your inductive logic, you can simply label me as a troll and write me off. BTW, the standard liberal tactic...

Cogito, ergo sum. Translation: "I think, therefore I am."

She can no longer think, and can never recover. Therefore, she's already dead. Her body just doesn't know that. She's not legally competant, and the clostest next-of-kin (her husband) must make the decisions. He has made the decision.

Your whining and complaining will change it not at all.

OH, and don't worry- now I understand the emotional outbursts and attacks. It's because your line of reasoning is effectively nonexistant. Therefore you are a waste of my time.

I will go, now, and leave you to your cheese-and-whine party...

[countrydummy]

Well I asked you a few QUESTIONS and you have chosen to ignore me, but I won't you, especially after this post!

I am an RN! i have worked ICCU, SICU, CCU, OR, ER, Peds, Med-Surg, Psych and long term nursing, taught nursing......This gal is far from being in a vegatative state! I know! If for one instant, I had not tried EVEN basic care measures of range of motion, speech thearpy, and to withold tx, then I would have been charged with neglect! With that said, there is no way in hell I could ever have done such, screw the judge!

On the other hand, I have had to help families and myself accept reality too many times...in cases beyound all hope, to accept the death of their family members as well as my own family members!

I have read all the articles, afadavids, and watched all the tapes! Regardless oh how Terri arrived in the state she is in, she is NOT IN A VEGATATIVE STATE!

I do have my serious suspicious of how Terri got in the state she is in, at age 29, I seriously doubt she had a heart attack from a chemical imbalance!

[Krodg]

Keep reading..it was a great post.

[William McKinley]

Thanks for not making fun of my typo there (even if you did quote it lol)

There is a key difference, that I can see. "I have asked my wife"

This is one reason that the legal construct of a 'living will' came to be, so that such wishes can be made without it being a question of guessing what the person would want, often times with the sole witness being someone who could have alterior motives.

[Qwinn]

"I'm assuming the Schiavos are Catholic, since the Catholic Church has issued statements on this specific case."

Yes, they are indeed Catholic. That is the main justification for her parent's stance, that Terri was Catholic and that her husband's statement concerning her desire to die in such a state are therefore unlikely, as it would constitute a great sin.

I know that the Catholic Church does not balk at someone being denied "extraordinary measures". Someone would not be required to be kept in an iron lung, for example. But I can't imagine any way in which simply being -fed- would count as extraordinary measures, especially since no attempt has ever been made to rehabilitate her enough to eat and drink.

What precisely was the Church's statement on this, if I may ask? I'm curious.

Oh, by the way, to those who said it's okay to kill her because her cortex is "mostly gone"... I would point out that the key word there is "mostly". It's not all gone. That alone should be enough to keep her alive, especially when viewing the films shows she is clearly aware of people around her, and has occassionally shown indications that she may even be understanding speech.

As her doctors pointed out, she can almost certainly be rehabilitated to be able to eat and drink without a feeding tube. The fact that she does not drool shows conclusively that she has not lost the ability to swallow. The fact that she has not even been -permitted- to test this is what I find the most apalling, and I can't understand what would motivate someone to deny even the opportunity to determine this. If it turns out she can't even swallow food or water, FINE.... but why would someone like this judge be so maniacally opposed to just testing and finding out?

Qwinn

[george wythe]

This is one reason that the legal construct of a 'living will' came to be

I agree.

A living will would have prevented this spectacle.

[No, I did not notice your typo. I tend to read fast and my brain acts like a spell check ;-]

[tutstar]

Well evidently they are letting some things slide, I read a thread yesterday about some transitions going on here and there will be admin guideline of some sort posted when it's done.

We know what's going on and you shouldn't have been called a name. I have a 3 and 5 yr old who exhibit that kind of behavior LOL. I expect a bit more from the adults here.

[Qwinn]

I can't help but notice how you go off on tirades against anyone who you have successfully angered, and ignore anyone, such as me, who has calmly pointed out the issues in this case.

That would, indeed, signify that you are a troll. Answer the calm posts pointing out the most egregious problems in this case, or accept the title.

Qwinn

[george wythe]

What precisely was the Church's statement on this, if I may ask? I'm curious.

To discuss this issue without flame wars ;-)

STATEMENT OF BISHOP ROBERT N. LYNCH CONCERNING THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE

Excessive rhetoric like the use of “murder” or the designation of the trial judge or appellate judges as “murderers” not be used by anyone from our Judeo-Christian tradition. This is a much harder case than those who use facile language might know.

Click on the link to read the whole statement. It's balanced and fair to both sides.

[ladyrustic]

People are outraged because this woman's parents love her dearly, and want to take her under their own care. They insist that she recognizes them and tries to respond when they talk to her.

The woman sits up, smiles, and all her systems are functioning except that she cannot feed herself so a feeding tube has been inserted to provide her with nourishment.

The woman's husband, however, will have none of it. He wants her dead, and he has a monetary incentive to seek her death, in that he gets control of a huge amount of money that was awarded in a malpractice suit if she dies. He will not allow the parents to take over the care of their daughter. He will not divorce his invalid wife either, even though he is living with a woman and they have two children together.

This husband will not even allow nurses to try to feed his wife, and in fact has removed visitation priviledges from the woman's siblings, when they tried one day to feed her a bit of pudding.

This man has gone to court and won an order to remove the woman's feeding tube, which will cause her to die of dehydration or starvation. He wants her to be killed, although she is deeply loved by her family. They want her, but he is killing her anyway. Hence our outrage.

As far as I'm concerned, a feeding tube is not artificial life support... It's no different than holding a spoonful of soup to a badly injured person-- the least we can do for our fellow man.

[Capitalist Eric]

Answer the calm posts pointing out the most egregious problems in this case, or accept the title.

NICE try!

So far, the only rational comments and information I've received are from George Wythe and William McKinley.

Kenth also put in a reasonable answer, though I respectfully disagree with his conclusions.

To the other emotional outbursts- from the accusations of "troll" to the RN (don't remember her name) who apparently was attempting to make a point, but forgot what point to make, don't really deserve my time... After all, what's the point in trying to have a conversation with someone who is too emotional to have a rational conversation???

If that makes me a troll... Then I will proudly wear that title. Coming from such absurd posters, it is a compliment.

Time to have a late lunch.

Be well.

[TexasCowboy]

Eric, I hate to inform you of this, but you're making the same mistake I made last night.
I didn't have time to become informed except what I had heard on the news, and this case is MUCH more complicated than what you hear on main stream media.
Until you get educated on all the ramifications of this action, you really don't have anything to contribute.

[Capitalist Eric]

As far as I'm concerned, a feeding tube is not artificial life support... It's no different than holding a spoonful of soup to a badly injured person-- the least we can do for our fellow man.

Thank you for the synopsis. Ironically, it was all I was really hoping to hear.

Good day.

[Graymatter]

Terri's father is on Hannity's radio show now, saying he's not only unafraid of being sued for publicly accusing Schiavo of strangling Terri---he longs to be sued. It would get the information out.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

I have told everyone in my family that I am NEVER to be kept alive by artificial means.

If it weren't for modern medicine she would have died long ago.

My mother's biggest fear was that she would live beyond her congnitive abilities. That is exactly what happened to her. She develped Alzheimer's. My family went with her wishes and asked that heroic means not be used if she had a stroke or heart attack.

Sometimes we have to let people go.

[Babalu]

This is such an emotional issue. My "gut-level" problem with this whole case is that the courts have sided with nothing but the husband's oral testimony that he is merely complying with her wishes. He has provided no written testimony, i.e., a living will, anything at all, to substantiate his claim and his position in this case. From what I've read, it would appear the courts go on to give him complete and total control of whatever life she has left, simply because no one can produce evidence that she did NOT wish for her life to be terminated in such a manner. Isn't this a bit backwards? Shouldn't the courts, in the interest of protecting the sanctity of life, and guaranteeing this woman's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, place the burden on him to provide evidence, other than verbal or hearsay (which she is incapable of rendering at this time), that she DID want him to be the final arbiter of her life?

What evidence, other than his word, has he provided? And based on all the facts revealed, is not his word and motivation suspect? What is his motivation for behaving the way he is behaving ... denying her biological parents an opportunity to care for their daughter, at no cost to him? Is he standing on principle, and if so, when does principle give way to what is morally and ethically right? Or have we become so secularized that what is morally and ethically right is no longer even a matter for consideration?

The right and moral thing to do is not always the easy way. It takes introspection. It takes having to make a choice between expediency and humanity; between moral relativism and, yes, "what would Jesus do"; between selling your soul to the almighty, fallable legal system or purifying your soul for the Almighty, infallible source of all goodness.

This scares me to no end. It's a sad, sad commentary on how debased we've become that we should all make sure we document our desire to live. It's even sadder to think that if we don't document it, a scumbag like this poor woman's "husband" can convince a court the he holds my life in his hands.

I'm sorry if this seems like ranting, but this is very difficult for me to accept as a Catholic. The sanctity of life, to me, is not a matter for the courts or a so-called husband to negotiate. I have emailed Governor Bush, and have pleaded for him to do the right thing. Though it may cost him votes or even his political career, by doing nothing he is playing with the destiny of his soul. He can, and should, intervene. I truly believe if he and his staff search their souls, they will find a way. We, in turn, should turn the volume up loud and clear of this issue. It is a defining moment for all Floridians and citizens of our nation.

P.S. I am not a lawyer. I am not a politician. I am not a doctor. But my parents, catechism teacher, priest, nuns, relatives, and life taught me the difference between right and wrong. When I do right in the eyes of God, I can sleep at night, and don't have to rationalize my actions and behavior. I don't see how Terri's husband, or the judges in this case can possibly do so. I just don't see how.

[88keys]

"I don't think it is widely appreciated just how damaged her brain is," said Walker, an internist, who has followed the case closely by reading the public record."

Schiavo is "awake but not aware," Walker said. Parts of her brain that control reflexes and other basic bodily functions still work. So she can sleep, breathe, blink and make the other moves...[but] Her lack of consciousness is so complete that, according to Walker, if her feeding tube were to be removed from her stomach, Schiavo would not suffer.

His [Walker's] language is chilling; the picture he leaves, almost unimaginable.

I don't think "suffering" is the issue here...I appreciate the "details" provided, and I certainly understand "do not resuscitate", as profoundly painful as that decision is, but what I don't understand here is depriving this patient of "bodily sustenance" for up to two weeks so she simply starves to death over a period of time...whether she's cognizant of death by starvation is beside the point, IMHO. A civilized society would recognize the dignity of any life, and simply "euthanize" her with an injection, like we do our beloved companion animals.

Or aren't they quite sure about the ultimate "diagnoses" for this human life??

The whole idea of "death by slow starvation", whether the patient "recognizes" anything or not, is repugnant and (again IMHO) barbaric. If she will definitely die, and there's no purpose in keeping her alive in her vegetative state, then let's help her go right now, and easily. Right? That's where this the "logic" leads us, anyway...

It's extremely sad that some people are put in the position of "grasping at any straw" (the family), and that other people do not seem convincing in their "patient advocacy" (the husband and "heir", and his long-time girlfriend)...but I would hope thoughtful people would put aside "emotional outbursts" from all quarters, and seriously consider the facts as we know them, and the subsequent implications...