Posted on 10/23/2003 11:28:29 AM PDT by MainFrame65
FLORIDA Gov. Jeb Bush and the state's legislature have unconscionably meddled in the case of a severely brain-damaged woman, who has been in a hopeless vegetative state for 13 years, whose husband had finally won the right for her to die peacefully.
The decision to remove life support is difficult, but there are medical and legal reviews to ensure it also is proper. The case of Terri Schiavo, 39, had passed all those reviews, including judicial scrutiny that reached the Florida Supreme Court twice and the U.S. Supreme Court once. Considered medical opinion has ruled out any hope of recovery.
Schiavo's husband, Michael, who was opposed by his wife's family, abided by the rules that govern these decisions and won at each step. He insists his wife never wanted to be kept alive artificially. Last week he won final permission to have his wife's feeding tube removed. Death was to follow in a week to 10 days.
But Bush let ideology trump law, medicine and very likely Terri Schiavo's wishes. This week, the legislature passed a law, tailored to fit this case, that allowed Bush to order Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted. Bush quickly signed the law and issued the order. So much for the opinions of Schiavo's doctors and court orders and, since a 1990 Supreme Court decision, a matter of settled law.
"This is a response to a tragic situation," Bush said. It is a bad response and a dreadful precedent. Are Florida politicians now the final arbiters of life-and-death medical decisions?
Schiavo's case will return to the courts, in an effort to reverse Bush's meddling. Thanks to him, this painful and protracted process has become even more so.
***********
Implicit in this editorial are some blatantly incorrect assumptions about the situation that Governor Bush and the Legislature of Florida were attempting to correct by the extraordinary measures they recently enacted.
First among these false assumptions is the suitability of the husband, Michael Schiavo, to make a life or death decision about his wife. She might still be his wife, but he has failed to be a husband to her since her disabling incident, if not before. He is openly and notoriously living with another woman and her first child by him, with another on the way. Devoted husband?
Second, he has serious financial motives to hasten her death. another clear conflict of interest. When she dies, he will own outright the remainder of her trust fund, as well as the proceeds of her life insurance, to enrich his new, unencumbered life. He also will have disposed of any evidence of possibly causing her condition, as alleged by her family. The trust fund came from a million dollar malpractice judgement for his wife, secured partially by promising the jury he would devote it to her care, therapy, and rehabilitation. But that was a lie. Instead, he has thwarted every attempt to deliver what was promised, doing everything he could to restrict or eliminate contact from her family and spending the trust fund instead on legal fees to terminate her life instead of improving it. Devoted husband?
Third, in addition to denying any attempt at rehabilitation or therapy, he has prevented every attempt by her family to provide such services, or even comfort care and mental stimulation. He even prevented the delivery of last rites to her during his latest attempt to starve her to death. And he has done everything he and his lawyer could think of to cut off her family, to prevent them from providing any relief or assistance to her. Devoted husband?
Fourth, Mr. Schiavo and his lawyer have been very careful and selective about who they have selected and allowed to evaluate her condition. No examination by a neutral medical authority has been permitted, so the assumption that she is both unable to communicate and will remain so is specious at best. Devoted husband?
Fifth, the judge overseeing this case, George Greer, seems hell-bent to do her in. He has brushed aside all objections fronm her family, and every attempt to perform an independent evaluation of her condition. He has even allowed her trust fund to be used to pay for armed guards to keep her family away. Why would he do that? Perhaps because of his ties to the hospice where she is kept, where he until recently sat on the board of directors. His judgement is tainted, and he should recuse himself from her case. You state that other courts have reviewed his actions, but they have reviewed only his legal procedures, not his findings of "facts" that are not facts. A system that allows one person such power over the very life of another is deeply flawed.
Sixth, the Florida laws that allowed the husband to force the withdrawal of sustenance is clearly flawed, a fact made apparent only now because of its abuse by Mr. Schiavo and his lawyer. The Governor and the legislature simply recognized the flaws in that law and acted to correct the egregious results. Normal sustenance is not medication, and a stomach tube is a means of delivery, not some monstrous mechanical contrivance. And there is ZERO actual evidence that Terri Schiavo ever told anyone, including her husband, that she would prefer starvation to maintenance. Only his word, tainted by his obvious conflicts of interest, and contradicted by her faith. These are issues that need to be addressed in a more considered manner, not while a ghoulish husband and death centered judge are licking their lips over another near victim. But a woman was about to die because of these loopholes, so an emergency measure was appropriate to correct them.
Far from meddling, Governor Bush and the legislature have performed the highest and best act of government. They are setting right a serious failure of government to protect its citizens from misapplication of badly written law. Every citizen of Florida stands to benefit from the results of this set of events. And the rest of us will benefit from this forced look at all of the issues it raises, from the importance of setting one's own parameters in a living will to the culture of death creeping into our society.
Only I can measure the quality of my life, just as only you can measure yours. Every time you hear such a judgement pronounced about another person by anybody, be VERY afraid. History does not speak well of such people.
What I don't understand is this: WHY is it so damned important to so many liberal columnists and other scum that this woman die? How will her continued life (even if it does not meet their high standards) affect them in any way?
Truly we have some folks in this country who embrace a culture of death- for individuals and for the Nation.
Nope. No exaggeration here.
His decline had been rapid - every day brought new evidence of his diminished capacity. While we agreed to a "do not resuscitate" order, we drew the line at withholding nourishment, although it was suggested by the nursing home people.
The thought that we could have said, "Go ahead, starve him to death" is abhorrent. We had no way of knowing whether or how much he could feel pain, but that wasn't the point. You just don't starve a human being with the expectation, the hope, that he'll die. If you do it to an animal, you get charged with a crime. How sad that Terri's so-called husband is a hero of the pro-death crowd.
With all respect, from what I've read about this case Terri's condition now resulted from a heart attack several years ago. While I'm certainly not saying that doctors ought not do whatever is possible to help someone who has had a heart attack, I am saying that whatever they did was the first intervention in the natural course of events.
None of us knows the mind of the Creator. It's possible that Terri was being called home those many years ago.
I do think that someone ought to try feeding her by mouth, if that's possible. Unless her doctors know that her swallowing reflexes are gone, it seems strange that no one has tried to do that.
(She is not in a vegatative state she has sat upright, smiles...tries to talk...has said: "mommie" and "help me"
Lie number 2 " whose husband had finally won the right for her to die peacefully.
("Mike has been tyring to legally kill this women for ten years...her indominable will to live notwithstanding.)Terri doesnt want to die...the videos her father made support this..This sentance seems to mislead people into thinking Mike Schiavo cares for his wife...rather than the 3/4 Million dollars he stands to collect upon her death)
Lie number 3 "The decision to remove life support is difficult,"
(feeding tube isnt life support) she could easily be trained to eat from a spoon ..but Mike has blocked any efforts to allow therapists to work with her...had appropriated therapy been allowed these last ten years...who knows how far she may have progressed to date)
Lie number 4 "But Bush let ideology trump law, medicine and very likely Terri Schiavo's wishes."
(Terri's Wishes have not even been considered..nor her real family's...only the man who wants her dead for his personal fincancial aggrandizement)...
Too many lies out right lies or misleading facts...slanted to make it seem Terri wants to die and Bush is dominating her will and her familie's....and of course the real impetus of the article
IMO - to slander Gov Bush
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.