Terri's Fight - (Daily Thread/Updates)November 1-2, 2003

Various | November 1, 2003 | sweetliberty

[Robert A Cook PE]

But, what happens when there is much evidence that the government (ONE judge, that is) HAS already screwed it up?

Who protects the innocent when the "family" (that is, a "husband" who is trying to kill his wife) IS the one "screwing" up?

If a husband is beating huis wife or kids, the STATE is legally required to step in. In a clear suicide case - where the "victim" is actively trying to kill himself, the state is STILL required to step in a prevent to suicide.

Here, the ONLY "evidence" that she wanted a DNR order is the husband trying to kill her.

[sweetliberty]

The entry, as you say, of the legislative and executive branches of the government into this case was at the DEMAND of the governed (you know, we the people and all that) that they perform one of the few functions that they are commissioned to do by the Constitution, which is to protect the right to life of citizens.

What you are suggesting is that it is the right of a family (or in this case a "spouse" with blatant conflicts of interest) to make a determination about whether a person's "quality of life" is such that they can be justifiably terminated. The "government" from the courtroom had already WAY overstepped its bounds by, in effect, ruling that murder is acceptable in some instances. By what other means would you suggest that the courts, a branch of government, by the way, be reined in? Or are you one of those people who thinks it is perfectly okay to redefine "life" for political and economic expediency?

This is not an individual who is terminally ill and there have been conflicting medical opinions regarding Terri's capacity to be rehabilitated. She is not in a coma and being sustained by artificial means. We are not talking about someone who is brain dead and on a ventilator, who has a written directive regarding the use of such measures. We are talking about a realtively young woman who responds to her environment and who seems to have an amazing will to live in spite of all the efforts to kill her. She has been denied the most basic therapies and even treatment for illness over the past 10 years. The monster who poses as a husband (despite having another "family,") has denied her even basic sensory stimulation and hygiene.

I say thank God for Governor Bush and the legislators actually listening to the will of the people and thank God that there are still some of us who can tell the difference between forcing someone to live who is dying and killing someone who is fighting to live. Had Governor Bush not done what he did, as a man of conscience and as someone in a position of authority, her blood would have been on his hands. He has the power to pardon a murderer on death row, but no authority to stay the execution of a woman who has done nothing wrong? Isn't there anything about that that seems distorted to you?

[Theodore R.]

George J. Felos is know for his "New Age" mysticism, as was the late Sen. Alan Cranston, D-CA.

[sweetliberty]

Another article posted.

Husband challenges law that keeps his wife alive

[Randjuke]

Or are you one of those people who thinks it is perfectly okay to redefine "life" for political and economic expediency?

Actually I'm one of those people who agrees with you most of the time. If you don't want to have a civil discussion on this that's fine. Sorry I posted.

[sweetliberty]

It wasn't meant as an attack. I'm sorry if you took it that way. This case just really has my nerves frazzled. There is such a clear right and wrong and most of the side arguments and discussions around this case, while interesting and having need of being considered for the purpose of possible future cases, do not alter in the slightest what the right decision is here. It is just that the wrong one is wrong at so many levels.

[Snykerz]

iowamomforfreedom:
Thanks for setting me straight on the Schiavo names...LOL.. Ive been on the computer for toooo long...LOL

Info on Michael R Schiavo:
He grew up in Levittown, Pa., in suburban Philadelphia, the son of Bill and Clara Schiavo. His father worked a steady
white-collar job as a safety engineer for AT&T. His mother was a stay-at-home mom who could make meatloaf 100
different ways - all of them good.
His brothers are, Bill Schiavo Jr., Scott Schiavo, Brian Schiavo (and one other brother) can't find his name.

Now check out this info.. it may or may not be relevent
See the last entry for William and Clara Schiavo, looks like they are all for deeds to property.

The number of Pages are estimated for documents where the Pages value is marked with *.
Order
From
To
Date
Document Type
County
Instrument Number
Book/Page
Pages

SCHIAVO
WILLIAM F
05/14/2003
PROBATE
DOCUMENT
PINELLAS
0000000003196306
12747/943
5

8975/1175
22
Description: CANTERBURY CHASE UN 2

SCHIAVO
WILLIAM F JR;
SCHIAVO
WILLIAM
FRANCIS SR;
SCHIAVO
WILLIAM F
MILLER
MARCIA
C
03/27/2003
DEED
PINELLAS
0000000003121376
12628/593
1
Description: LT 175 CANTERBURY CHASE UN 2

SCHIAVO
STEPHEN;
SCHIAVO
WILLIAM
FRANCIS SR;
SCHIAVO
WILLIAM F
MILLER
MARCIA
C
03/27/2003
DEED
PINELLAS
0000000003121375
12628/592
1
Description: LT 175 CANTERBURY CHASE UN 2

SCHIAVO
WILLIAM F;
SCHIAVO
DOVAN;
SCHIAVO
BRIAN;
SCHIAVO
WILLIAM
FRANCIS SR
MILLER
MARCIA
C
03/27/2003
DEED
PINELLAS
0000000003121374
12628/591
1
Description: LT 175 CANTERBURY CHASE UN 2

SCHIAVO
WILLIAM
FRANCIS SR;
SCHIAVO
WILLIAM F;
SCHIAVO
SCOTT
vs
MILLER
MARCIA
C
03/27/2003
DEED
PINELLAS
0000000003121372
12628/588
1
Description: LT 175 CANTERBURY CHASE UN 2

SCHIAVO
WILLIAM
FRANCIS SR
DEC;
SCHIAVO
WILLIAM F
DECD;
SCHIAVO
MICHAEL R;
SCHIAVO
MICHAEL R PR
vs
MILLER
MARCIA
C
03/27/2003
DEED
PINELLAS
0000000003121371
12628/587
1
Description: LT 175 CANTERBURY CHASE UN 2

SCHIAVO
WILLIAM F
06/03/2003
PROBATE
DOCUMENT
PINELLAS
0000000003226269
12793/1515
1
Description: 0203378ES

STARK PAUL D
JR;
STARK
KATHRYN D vs
SCHIAVO
CLARLA
MARIE;
SCHIAVO
WILLIAM
FRANCIS
SR
08/14/1992
DEED
PINELLAS
BP00000080000229
8000/229
2
Description: 175 CANTERBURY CHASE UN 2 PL 66/98

[Randjuke]

OK, sweetliberty, no problem. For me government's role in this is a big issue, not just a side issue as it is for you. I have only marginally more trust in the legislative branch than I do the judicial, ultimately I like the government to stay out of personal decisions as much as possible. This case will end up in the courts again and the decision may have far-reaching implications that I do not welcome. Once government gets a foot in a door it's very unusual for it to decide to back away, generally they will continue to encroach.

Most of the time in a decision such as this a family is able to come to a decision replicating what they believe the patient would have decided had she been able (most of the time death is fairly imminent - this case is different I know). What I do NOT want is the government or courts making a "one size fits all" decision, taking away the decision making from the family.

[Ohioan from Florida]

With all due respect, I think that Terri's law makes it difficult for the government to step in again except when certain conditions are met. Part of those conditions is that two "sides" of family members disagree about whether or not the feeding tube should have been removed in the first place. The law wasn't originally designed to cover the situation when the families disagreed. It was intended to give them permission when they did (agree).

[supercat]

With all due respect, I think that Terri's law makes it difficult for the government to step in again except when certain conditions are met.

One of which would be that the government invent a time machine, since the governor's authority is self-expiring except that stays issued while the law is in effect will remain so until explicitly recinded.

[Randjuke]

With all due respect, I think that Terri's law makes it difficult for the government to step in again except when certain conditions are met. Part of those conditions is that two "sides" of family members disagree about whether or not the feeding tube should have been removed in the first place. The law wasn't originally designed to cover the situation when the families disagreed. It was intended to give them permission when they did (agree).

Who will set the parameters on intervention? Traditionally one spouse makes the decisions for the other in the case of incompetence, maybe it's appropriate to take that power away in this case but will it be in the next one? My experiences with court-appointed guardians have not always been positive, they are not necessarily people you want trusting lives with. Sometimes they are more poorly equipped than the families.

Right now this is a "special case" but you know that there will be more, and lawyers will try to broaden the definitions of appropriate cases and find judges that agree with them. Maybe this is all inevitable but I don't have to be happy about it.

[Orlando]

Bad news, we are losing it's at....

Yes.....47%
No......53%

The forces of murder & death don't want to lose this poll
for some reason. I wonder if Micheal & new wife are voting
like crazy ???

FR Time !

[Ohioan from Florida]

Well, I do see your point, and I'm not terribly happy that the law had to be tweaked, but the judge was clearly overlooking things he shouldn't have been. In a life or death situation, what recourse did Terri have after they'd already yanked the tube out? Were we just supposed to sit idly by, and let them not only starve but dehydrate her as well? Why didn't they just go ahead and put a pillow over her face? I mean, oxygen is just as necessary as food and water. I'm not trying to harass you, I'm just frustrated with the whole legal system. It's supposed to work, and it doesn't. I thought that's when the legislators are supposed to fix it.

[Republic]

I agree.

Besides-I still love the comment a poster made about how judges who are facing a grumbling and unhappy person as a result of following the law, usually say "You don't LIKE the law, then CHANGE IT!'

And, is EXACTLY what the legislators and govenor DID per the WILL of the people.

It's called PUTTING the SPIRIT back into the law. It is called representative government. And it is the way we correct LAWS that are not deliberate enough to cover the rights of ALL PARTIES involved.

Now there is a LAW in Florida, that MINUS a written directive or living will, PROTECTS a person from family members who might be unscrupulous-LIARS!

[Republic]

I have already voted....but hope it turns around. I was so infuriated by the comment eleanor clift had on the page about our troops in Iraq I wanted to go after her (online) but ya have to register...lol

[sweetliberty]

Amen Rep, and very well put!

[Beach_Babe]

Age Group 14-17
Yes 0%
No 100%

Age Group 18-34
Yes 14%
No 86%

Age Group 35-49
Yes 56%
No 44%

Age Group 50-64
Yes 50%
No 50%

Age Group 65+
Yes 56%
No 44%

[Krodg]

Age Group 14-17
Yes
0%
No
100%


Age Group 18-34
Yes
14%
No
86%


Age Group 35-49
Yes
56%
No
44%


Age Group 50-64
Yes
51%
No
49%


Age Group 65+
Yes
56%
No
44%




That's pathetic....

[sweetliberty]

"I see a need for a law passed to protect what I *thought* was an inalienable right - the right to life over death."

Yeah, silly us to believe that it actually means what it so clearly says.

[sweetliberty]

"I heard he has a 14 yr old child ? Still not confirm."

The person who wrote the letter to the editor making that claim emailed me saying only that she wasn't at liberty at this time to say any more. I got the impression that she would when she could. I guess it really makes no difference anyway, as far as the disposition of this case. It just goes to the quality of Michael Schiavo's character, and we have already seen, without the factoring in of another adulterous and "fruitful" relationship, that he has none.