Terri's Fight - (Daily Thread) October 29, 2003

I wonder if my words that I thought were encouraging, were actually discouraging.

No, you did fine. Maybe she was in a confused state and waiting to hear something like that. We can't know. You have to look at your overall performance, and I'm sure you did your best. We can all look back and see things we wish we had done a little differently.

321 posted on 10/29/2003 7:45:37 PM PST by Aliska

That link sent chills down my spine. I had a friend in the eighties who was a WWII Vet. He was at one of the concentration camps when the prisoners were freed. He took a lot of pictures of naked, piled up bodies, bodies with skin removed, and sick skinny prisoners. It was a much more horrific photo album than what most people have seen of these death camps.

Observing the way their bodies were treated, with such utter disrespect, has left a lasting impression on my heart. Those pictures spoke volumes about the risks associated with downplaying the value of every individual life.

My dad (now deceased) was there as well in WWII and brought pictures home. I was a little girl when I first saw them and I can still clearly see the skeletal, sad, figure looking at the camera today, as well as the bodies stacked up like cordwood on train cars with body fluids pouring over the rails. It made a permanent impression on me.

322 posted on 10/29/2003 7:45:55 PM PST by PeyersPatches (I have intestinal fortitude)

To: Robert Drobot

May it go there directly! How many friends Terri has who want that peace -- finally -- for her, her family & for themselves.

323 posted on 10/29/2003 7:49:54 PM PST by cyn (http://www.terrisfight.org)

No---your words were freeing. When it is time, and it will happen to you and me and everyone here, everyone everywhere, death is both welcoming and frightening.

It is as natural as birth, but God decides the time, not man.

We know when our beloved pets are suffering, there comes a time to choose between the duration of time the suffering has to go on, and when to step in and help the suffering cease.

My aunt died with the hospice's tender care. They were in her home, monitoring her body cycles-adminstering water and morphine to the back of her mouth, soothing her with wet, soft cloths, holding her hand, and talking to her when she seemed to need it...she was not fed, cancer had caused her such suffering for a long yr, but the last 8 months were full of begging her to eat. My uncle suffered terribly. Sometimes administering a literal drop of jello onto her tongue...taking hours to feed her just 1/4 cup.

After a couple of months in hospitals, when every test, every nuance of medical knowledge and care had been exhausted, she was sent home to die and that is when hospice entered in...providing a bed, instruments needed to help her, catheter checks, etc.

When her intestines became quiet-the hospice worker told us she would probably pass in a day or two. The hospice staff was there around the clock. And this is what hospice is supposed to do....help the DYING while they undergo the transition to heaven. Terri...IS NOT DYING, WAS NOT DYING, but WAS BEING MURDERED via a court order.

My aunt NEEDED the morphine, no doubt. THERE was suffering. But there was no way to force her to eat, and a feeding tube would have extended suffering. Her body was shutting down. People who are terminally ill become so sick that eating is painful...perhaps this part of it IS god's plan. Hospice is supposed to ONLY enter into a patients life when that patient is in the last stages of their life and all means of cure or rehabilitation had been EXHAUSTED. This is stated in their own bylaws.

But the dehydration part is INCREDIBLE....that is so wrong I cannot STAND it....who in Florida could turn this into a LAW?

I know, really. People like FELOS who want to help disabled, brain damaged, comatose, suicidal, imperfect people DIE 'quote naturally' because starvation and dehydration ALWAYS lead to death. Then they can say it was GOD's way, not call it what it really is, MURDER.

Felos wants to help the imperfect DIE, whether they want it or not, because he KNOWS BEST. The terminally ill probably bore him to tears.

324 posted on 10/29/2003 7:53:33 PM PST by Republic

How can the courts continue to legitimize these lies in one proceeding after another?

There are basically only two ways in which an appeals court can completely overturn a trial court's finding of fact:

The appeals court can find that the trial court made its decision without any evidence whatsoever to support it. Very occasionally happens with jury trials (usually a trial-court judge will order a finding for the defendant in such a case); even more rarely happens in bench trials.
The appeals court finds that some evidence should have been excluded, leaving no evidence whatsoever to support the original decision.

Otherwise, if an appeals court finds that a trial court failed to consider all the evidence it should have, or if it wrongfully considered some evidence but enough evidence was rightly considered to constitute at least a possible case, the appeals court will send the case back to the original court where it was heard with instructions regarding what evidence should or should not be considered. If the original trial court judge is biased, corrupt, or inept, the appeals court process will do nothing to fix that.

Note, btw, that findings of fact are basically never overturned on the basis of being just plain wrong. The situation would be roughly analagous to a sports "instant reply" rule which only allowed a replay judge to determine whether an official was in the right place to make a call--not whether the call itself was reasonable. Even if the replay showed a batter watching motionless as the ball bounced two feet in front of the plate, unless the official wasn't standing in the proper spot his "strike three" call would still be binding.

325 posted on 10/29/2003 7:53:52 PM PST by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)

interesting -- thanks. I wonder what the likelihood is that would happen; someone said up this thread that the 'payer' had gone out of business.

326 posted on 10/29/2003 7:54:04 PM PST by cyn (http://www.terrisfight.org)

Why Was Terri Denied Holy Communion?

Pete Vere, JCL

By now, most of you are familiar with the Terri Schindler-Schiavo situation down in Florida. Now that her life has been spared through the intervention of the Florida State Legislature and Governor Jeb Bush, many of us can sit back and reflect upon the events as they unfolded.

From my own perspective as a canon lawyer and a baptized Catholic, the incident I found most troubling throughout this drama was the denial of Terri’s right to the sacraments. Terri is a baptized Catholic. As such, she enjoys certain basic canonical rights. Thus we should find it troubling that Michael Schiavo and his attorney George Felos – neither of whom are Catholic – were capable of denying Msgr. Malanowski permission to administer the sacraments to a dying woman. And even more troubling was the Diocese of St. Petersburg’s apparent refusal to back Monsignor up. Where was Bishop Lynch when the police threatened this eighty-year old priest with arrest?

As an aside, many also raise serious questions about Terri’s religious rights. Was Terri’s constitutional freedom to practice her religion, which the First Amendment ought to protect, violated? Indeed, this question should trouble every Catholic living in America. Because my legal training does not extend to civil law, however, I will limit my following commentary to the denial of Terri’s canonical rights. Nevertheless, as a concerned Catholic I would welcome the response of a qualified civil lawyer.

Of the canonical issues involved, the first concerns Terri’s right to the sacraments. The Church considers this a fundamental right of all those who are baptized or received into her membership. As canon 213 clearly states: “Christ’s faithful have the right to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments” (emphasis mine). There are very few exceptions where this right may be limited, and even then only in view of the common good (cf. canon 223) and according to an application of the law that is restricted to as few cases as possible (cf. canon 18). Neither applies in the Terri Schindler-Schiavo situation.

Beginning with the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, Terri may receive this sacrament more than once. Yet certain individuals in Michael Schiavo’s corner have reportedly attempted to deny Msgr. Malanowski permission to repeat the administration of Extreme Unction, claiming that this sacrament may only be administered once. Obviously these individuals are not familiar with the Church’s teaching concerning this matter, since the only sacraments that cannot be repeated are Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders. In other words, the sacraments that leave an indelible mark upon one’s soul.

One may even repeat the sacrament of marriage. For the death of one’s spouse dissolves the matrimonial bond and allows the surviving spouse to enter a valid sacramental marriage with another. Of course, if one killed one’s spouse in order to marry another particular individual, the marriage would still be invalid. For as canon 1090 states: “§1 One who, with a view to entering marriage with a particular person, has killed that person’s spouse, or his or her own spouse, invalidly attempts marriage. §2 They also invalidly attempt mariage with each other who, by mutual physical or moral action, brought about the death of either’s spouse.” While such incidents are fortunately rare, they nevertheless still happen in our day.

Yet returning to my initial point, Anointing of the Sick does not leave an indelible mark upon one’s soul. It may therefore be repeated. In fact, when necessary it should be repeated. With merely the most elementary of research, this would become apparent to even a non-Catholic attorney with no background in canon law. For canon 1004 §2 is clear concerning this issue: “This sacrament [Anointing of the Sick] can be repeated if the sick person, having recovered, again becomes seriously ill or if, in the same illness, the danger becomes more serious.” Starvation and dehydration obviously increase one’s danger of death.

Let us now turn our attention to the more serious abuse of Terri’s canonical rights, namely, that of denying her the possibility of receiving Holy Communion. Reception of the Holy Eucharist is not merely just another spiritual practice of the Catholic faith. Rather, following the Church’s sacred Tradition, the 1983 Code of Canon Law establishes the centrality of the Holy Eucharist to the spiritual life of Christ’s faithful. This is found in canon 897 which states:

“The most august sacrament is the Blessed Eucharist, in which Christ the Lord Himself is contained, offered and received, and by which the Church continually lives and grows. The Eucharistic Sacrifice, the memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, in which the Sacrifice of the cross is for ever perpetuated, is the summit and the source of all worship and Christian life. By means of it the unity of God’s people is signified and brought about, and the building up of the body of Chris is perfected. The other sacraments and all the ecclesiastical works of the apostolate are bound up with, and directed to, the Blessed Eucharist.”

In short, the Eucharist is both the source and the summit of our spiritual life as Catholics. All our actions should flow from the Holy Eucharist, and all our actions should ultimately be directed toward the Holy Eucharist.

When the Holy Eucharist is administered to a dying person, this is known as Viaticum or food for the journey. Canon 921 §1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law establishes the basis for seeking Viaticum as follows: “Christ’s faithful who are in danger of death, from whatever cause, are to be strengthened by Holy Communion as Viaticum.” Under canon 864 §1 of the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, the Catholic faithful were bound by ecclesiastical precept to seek Viaticum when the danger of death presented itself.

Although the 1984 Code of Canon Law no longer binds under precept, it is clear that Christ’s faithful remain bound in spirit to seek Viaticum when the danger of death arises. This is in keeping with the canonical principle of canon 21, which states that “...later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.” Additionally, when interpreting any canon it is important to follow the canonical principles of canon 17. One of these principles is “recourse to parallel places, if there be any...” In the case of administering Viaticum, canon 708 from the Code of Canons of the Eastern [Catholic] Churches speaks of “..the obligation of receiving the Divine Eucharist in danger of death...” Thus the reception of Viaticum is both an essential right and an essential obligation of all Catholics in danger of death.
But what if the individual either lacks consciousness or has fallen into a persistent vegetative state, as is alleged in Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s situation? Although much evidence suggests that Terri is merely severely brain-damaged and not in a persistent vegetative state, let us assume the latter for the sake of the argument. Does not canon 922 state the following: “Holy Viaticum for the sick is not to be unduly delayed. Those who have the care of souls are to take assiduous care that the sick are strengthened by it while they are in full possession of their faculties”?

This canon speaks of the ideal, namely, that the individual in danger of death receive Viaticum before losing consciousness. Its intention is obviously to stress the urgency with which Viaticum should be administered when the danger of death arises. This canon speaks nothing of how a pastoral agent should proceed if the individual merely possesses partial-consciousness or if the individual loses consciousness completely. Similarly, both the 1917 Code of Canon Law and the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches express the ideal, but are silent concerning the other possibilities mentioned.

Fortunately, the Church does not leave us without a means of resolving this pastoral and canonical dilemma. For drawing upon the Church’s great canonical tradition, the Roman principle of “favorabilia amplianda, odiosa restringenda” applies in such situations. English-speaking canonists commonly – although not literally – translate this revered principle as “favors are to be multiplied, and burdens restricted.” Without question, the favorable interpretation is to administer Viaticum to Terri Schindler-Schiavo.

Moreover, keep in mind that Viaticum is usually, although not always, intimately linked to the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. Therefore, canon 1005 offers another parallel place to which a pastoral agent may have recourse. This canon states: “If there is any doubt as to whether the sick person has reached the use of reason, or is dangerously ill, or is dead, this sacrament is to be administered.”

Finally, let us look at the reason why Michael Schiavo and his legal team continue to deny Terri her fundamental right to receive the Holy Eucharist. According to most press reports, they allege that allowing Monsignor Malanowski to administer Viaticum to Terri would “cause her distress.” As an aside, I am by no means a medical expert but it is inconceivable to me how someone who is truly in permanent vegetative state could experience distress at receiving the Most Holy Eucharist. What adds to my incomprehension is that these same individuals reportedly allege that Terri feels no distress from her starvation and dehydration. But setting aside this medical marvel, it is not inconceivable that someone in a persistent vegetative state could find the Holy Eucharist comforting since Viaticum is primarily food for the soul and not for the body.

Nevertheless, this is a significant admission on the part of Michael Schiavo and the legal and medical team assisting him. For if Terri possesses sufficient consciousness to potentially find reception of the Holy Eucharist distressing, then for pastoral and canonical purposes she also possesses sufficient consciousness to find Viaticum comforting. At the very minimum, Mr. Schiavo and his team have raised a doubt of fact concerning Terri’s condition. Thus following both the Church’s canonical and pastoral custom, a pastoral minister must err on the side of administering the Sacrament.

For as I have already stated, Viaticum is not food for the body but food for the soul. And as such, it is the fundamental right and obligation of every Catholic in danger of death to receive Our Lord as food for the journey. Thankfully, just as Michael Schiavo and the Florida judiciary prevented Msgr. Malanowski from providing Terri with food for the journey, so too did God, through the intervention of Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida Legislature, prevent Terri from making this journey.

327 posted on 10/29/2003 7:54:28 PM PST by Theosis

I used to hang out on those boards quite a bit (about 2 years). That was before I discovered FR. Now I just check in over there once in a while. I have to agree with you, they are either ignorant or evil, ignorant being the best description for about 50% of them. Then you have the "Rob Bealers", now that person, I believe is evil......take his quote, Rob Bealer 10-28-2003, 12:08 PM Who here would want a dead lump of SOULESS vegetative dead humanity artificially being kept alive, taking up space......

That just p*ssed me off!!!
You are so right about people accepting the drivel that the media dishes out. One of my professors the other day had snipped a column out of the newspaper about how Terri's family needed to let her go...etc. She had the whole class riled up ( mainly teenagers) about how they needed to "unplug the woman". Another lady and myself spoke up and told her some of the things that weren't mentioned in that article like "Terri is NOT in a coma" and how the husband said that he wanted the money in order to become a nurse and take care of Terri, and when he got the money he turned around and put a DNR order on her. There were quite a few things that the professor didn't know and it was obvious. She still wanted to argue that Terri IS in a coma though. Needless to say, the rest of the class piped down.I believe that some of them were ready to lynch Terri's family for letting her live "like that". It upsets me that people tend to just get one side of the argument before they form their opinions as when people listen to the news or these columnists or college professors and take everything that they spit out as pure gospel. I guess that is just human nature though.

Another thing that really stinks about this is those who you mentioned say she will never recover. How do they know! She has NEVER been given the chance from everything that I have read!

328 posted on 10/29/2003 7:55:13 PM PST by A-plus

To: floriduh voter; Flyer

Flyer, this is a CLARIFICATION of my previous ping to you... Please see if the Houston FReepers would like to add their comments on this website:

tp://www.ntdaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/10/28/3f9ded49b7a8b

(They claim poor Terri Schiavo is being kept alive because of her mean old parents who refuse to let her go.)

329 posted on 10/29/2003 7:55:24 PM PST by Humidston (Two Words: TERM LIMITS)

To: pickyourpoison

Someone said if Terri doesn't die, their book deal may go down the tubes. There's the $$$$$$ again

I keep reading talk about this new book Felos is planning. What actual evidence and documentation exists of it? The only reason Felos has been allowed money from Terri's trust fund is that he's supposedly "her" lawyer. The book deal, if there's anything substantial there, would suggest a pretty incredibly huge conflict of interest.

330 posted on 10/29/2003 7:59:10 PM PST by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)

"Michael Schiavo is a damn liar and I'll bet you he voted for Bill Clinton twice."

Why only twice?

331 posted on 10/29/2003 8:03:54 PM PST by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)

To: floriduh voter; MarMema

The actual bill isn't posted at Nelson's website yet. I highlighted particularly bothersome items in his press release below. It is being modeled after successful education campaigns on organ donation.

Health officials can up living wills awareness, media release, October 28, 2003.

SENATOR: HEALTH OFFICIALS CAN UP LIVING WILLS AWARENESS

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Terry Schiavo - like three-fourths of all Americans - had no living will when she had a heart attack at age 26 and lapsed into a coma 13 years ago.

The Florida woman’s parents and husband became embroiled in a legal debate over whether she should be sustained on a feeding tube. More recently, the state’s governor and Legislature ordered further life-prolonging treatment.

The dispute on Tuesday prompted U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson to unveil legislation aimed at avoiding such gut-wrenching disputes in the future by making more people across the nation aware that they can write down instructions for their own final days. That way others won’t be deciding medical treatment for them.

“People have a right to be treated with dignity,” Nelson, a Florida Democrat, said today. “And there’s no reason why we shouldn’t help make them more aware that they can decide in advance about what kind of medical treatment they want at the end of life.”

Nelson’s bill covers those most likely to face looming decisions about whether to be kept alive on respirators or feeding tubes - people over 65 years of age. It does so by expanding Medicare to cover a single doctor’s office visit solely to discuss end-of-life treatments.

Such a discussion between a patient and doctor is recommended by experts in the field of aging. Yet Medicare has never covered a doctor’s visit specifically for talking about the kinds of medical decisions one is likely to face if they become incapacitated. When the federal health-care program for seniors was enacted in the 1960s, so-called living wills weren't often contemplated because medical technologies didn't provide as many possibilities for sustaining life.

Besides the Medicare provision, Nelson’s bill also would require the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to develop a $25-million public education campaign aimed at alerting adults of all ages about their health-care options should they not be able to communicate. It would be modeled after successful education campaigns on organ donation.

Before his election to the Senate in 2000, Nelson served as Florida’s treasurer for six years. During that time he was a founding board member of Aging with Dignity, a nonprofit Florida-based group that offers people information about living wills. Nelson friend Jim Towey, now head of President Bush’s faith-based initiatives office, created the nonprofit group.

332 posted on 10/29/2003 8:05:05 PM PST by windchime

I understand the attorney mentioned it on Larry King. One of the posters had the title of it here on FR.

333 posted on 10/29/2003 8:05:07 PM PST by pickyourpoison

To: Admin Moderator; sweetliberty; EternalVigilance

Admin Moderator: Could you please explain why you (I assume it was you) would pull this thread OUT of Activism/News/Chapters? And what would you suggest for the future?

For more explanation, I had FreepMail with the originator around noon today, who replied this...

I dont' understand why it would get pulled from there. Teri's fight IS activism and news! Perhaps if you sent a note to the moderator explaining what we're trying to do keeping Terry News and activism focused primarily on one thread. I would do it, but I think it would be more effective coming from someone else since I am the one who originally posted the thread.

My comments to HIM included the following...

I like what you (SL) are doing, but I don't like what has happened to the Terri's thread(s)

When I goto F.R. I always start out at "Latest Threads"
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/browse?ao=1

And along my right side, I see three summaries...
Activism/News/Chapters
Breaking News
Front Page News
I already know the DEFAULT conditions also include (Extended News, Editorial, Free Republic, and Announcements)

I almost never read or visit threads posted in other areas, as I feel they are of lesser importance. I think a huge number of others treat these the same way.

As a result, I don't even like POSTING to threads that aren't in one of those 3 categories (and I usually avoid older threads that have scrolled off the initial page)

I see you started out todays Terri's Fight (Daily Thread) in the Activism/News/Chapter but someone (moderator?) yanked it, assuming it was UNRELATED to activism/news. (I see there still ARE older activism threads in that summary)

I think it is critical to stay in one of those three categories, so if necessary, please rename the daily thread from now on, something that wont get yanked... Suggestions:
Terri's Army -latest news -October 29,2003
or maybe even MORE yank-resistant:
Terri's Activists -latest news -October 29,2003

Thanks!
FLE

334 posted on 10/29/2003 8:14:18 PM PST by Future Useless Eater (Freedom_Loving_Engineer)

>>graymatter, FReeper researcher extraoridinaire

Lord help us.

335 posted on 10/29/2003 8:15:07 PM PST by Graymatter

LOL!!! We're lucky to have you (and, besides, you probably know how to spell extraordinarie correctly!)!

336 posted on 10/29/2003 8:19:41 PM PST by Republic

To: sweetliberty

337 posted on 10/29/2003 8:26:04 PM PST by JustPiper (RIP Freeper Lynne - God loves you! You are our angel now!)

338 posted on 10/29/2003 8:28:45 PM PST by JustPiper (RIP Freeper Lynne - God loves you! You are our angel now!)

The press release for the bill Senator Nelson sponsored that floriduh voter mentioned is in post #332.

339 posted on 10/29/2003 8:31:04 PM PST by windchime

Thanks! Glad to be here!

340 posted on 10/29/2003 8:32:22 PM PST by A-plus

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794