http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Terri_michael.htm
Posted on 10/26/2003 12:36:03 AM PDT by churchillbuff
I tuned in in the last minutes of David Gold's talk radio show (supposedly a conservative show) and he was saying, with reference to Terri, how dangerous it is for us to allow the state to pry into personal stuff. I wasn't sure, but it sounded as if he was opposing what Jeb Bush and the Florida Legislature did to protect Terri from being starved to death.
I agree I don't want the state meddling where it shouldn't, but protecting life -- even from misguided or hostile "loved ones" is one of the state's few responsibilities. If it isn't there to protect "life and liberty" there's no purpose for it at all. Gold was talking about the dangers of the state intruding on home schoolers. I agree, that's a worry - - but it doesn't follow that government shouldn't step in when somebody's about to be killed. For instance, I don't want social workers messing with parents, as a rule - - but if parents are beating their kids senseless, then I want the police to the house, pronto. And if Terri's parents want to love her and nurse her, I want the state to protect her from a "husband" who's living with another woman and seems simply to want Terri to die quickly.
I hope he reads the Free Republic threads overnight -- if nothing else, they're loaded with factual ammunition he could use tomorrow.
Government DOES have a role - - that role is to protect life. Even if the threat to life comes from another member of your family, in the home or in a family situation. I don't care whether it's elder abuse or abortion - - or a husband who seems strangely intent on letting his wife be starved to death (and who also reportedly has a 'fiance' and a child, without divorcing that wife, according to the Orlando Sentinel), there's a role for government in protecting innocent life.
Barbara was a breath of common sense after the loopy comments of David Gold - - a guy who says he wants government to protect unborn babies, but (if I understood him right) apparently draws the line at Jeb Bush trying to protect a brain-damaged woman who never signed any paper saying she wants to be starved to death.
Yes, and that's a valid concern in its way. But it refers back to the knotty decisions that come up if we make "quality of life" our standard. The government has little or no role if we treat life as sacred. If we did things that way (the old way), Terri's life wouldn't be threatened by her husband. We would not have to call in Jeb Bush to pry Michael Schiavo's fingers off Terri's throat.
I don't think he said that. His argument was that the executive branch should not intervene in a judicial proceeding. And there's normally a strong case for that. But Terri's case is not a routine question. There is plenty of reason to doubt the honesty of this judge and his bizarre rulings.
Oh really? So the president, or a governor, can't commute a court's death sentence?
They can, but that is a specified constitutional power. David's point was that the proper avenue of appeal is a higher court.
I think Michael is guilty of far worse than "stunts." In my opinion, he has tried to murder Terri three times. The first was when he beat and choked her thirteen years ago in the heat of an argument. (It is known that they had a terrible argument that day, and it doubtless continued into the night.) That has the feel of a "crime of passion" rather than attempted premeditated murder. (I'll bet he was surprised and panicked at how much damage he did.)
The other two attempts to murder Terri were indeed premeditated, and I think George Felos deserves equal billing as the attempted murderer. I refer to the two times Terri's feeding tube has been removed.
Even in FR, we have not adequately thought out and discussed the murder weapons. Here's my take. I see two.
One is the power of a legal guardian. It is very nearly absolute: doctors, nurses, even the judge, all have to heed his orders. (Lord, does THAT need legislative reform!) Michael is one of the meanest people alive and he has used his guardianship over Terri to torment her and deny her care all these years. (That in truth could be counted another attempt on her life -- the hope that she will die of neglect or untreated illness.) Michael, as guardian, simply ordered Terri's death, and after a few legal technicalities, the deed was done for him.
The second weapon is the "right to die" idea spread by our latter-day Nazis (bioethicists, euthanasia movement, eugenics movement, and that ilk). An argument is offered that the victim is better off dead, and lo! it's fine and dandy to kill her. This idea, working its way into medical practice and into the lawbooks, opens the door to murder of any unwanted person. Only it's all perfectly legal, so the murderer walks away with ease. He even earns public sympathy for making a "difficult decision" and putting his wife out of her "misery" (as if she were a wounded gerbil.) There's nothing difficult about this decision for Michael Schiavo. He hates her and thinks her death will make him rich.
I'm sure that George Felos, in his conversations with the Angel of Death, figured out this technique for legal murder years ago. He's the real psycho, and almost as vindictive as Michael Schiavo.
It is endearingly human to hold two opposite views at the same time :-)
Dr. Victor Gambone. He's the good Nazi. He followed orders. He's instinctively "right to die," probably because that is the norm and he never gave it a thought. I don't really think he has a philosophical idea in his head. He never resisted or questioned Michael's orders to withhold treatment for Terri and in the end, to pull her feeding tube. I imagine he was paid well.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Terri_michael.htm
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.