Posted on 03/21/2005 8:54:40 AM PST by annalex
POSTED: 10:34 am EST March 21, 2005
UPDATED: 11:13 am EST March 21, 2005
WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush signed emergency legislation early Monday morning that gives Terri Schiavo's parents a chance to plea for their daughter's life in federal court.
The House majority leader said Congress is giving her a chance to live, but some lawmakers said the law goes too far.
Passage of the law came following hours of emotional debate.
"This woman needs help -- not a death sentence," Rep. Joseph Pitts, R-Pa., said.
Democrats protested the decision.
"The majority wishes to undermine over 200 years of jurisprudence," Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., said.
The House voted 203-58 for a bill that gives Terri Schiavo's parents the right to file suit in federal court. That could trigger the reinsertion of feeding tubes needed to keep the brain-damaged woman alive.
"I told her we were going to take her for a little trip, and take her outside, and get her some breakfast, and I got a big smile out of her face, so help me God," Schiavo's father Bob Schindler said.
Almost immediately after the bill passed early Monday morning, Bush signed it into law, vowing to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans.
The law allows Schiavo's parents to ask a federal judge to prolong Schiavo's life by reinserting her feeding tube that was removed Friday. U.S. District Judge James Whittemore set a hearing for 3 p.m. on the request for a temporary restraining order.
A lawyer for the brain-damaged woman's parents filed a civil-rights lawsuit in federal court in Tampa as allowed under the new law. The lawsuit alleges a series of rights violations. Those violations include that Terri Schiavo's religious beliefs are being infringed upon, that the removal of the feeding tube violated her rights and that she was not provided an independent attorney to represent her interests.
"We are hopeful that the federal courts will follow the will of Congress and save my sister's life," Schiavo's sister Suzanne Vitadamo said.
Schiavo's brother-in-law doesn't believe the bill is about family. He thinks lawmakers have gone too far.
"It's politics. Nothing else. People like the Bushes [and] that knucklehead Tom Delay. I have no idea what he's about. He is an absolute buffoon," Brian Schiavo said.
Schiavo's husband, Michael, said she told him that she would not want to be kept alive in a vegetative state. Her feeding tube was removed Friday under a state court's orders.
Her parents and many lawmakers say she needs treatment and another opportunity for life. Schiavo's feeding tube was removed twice before. Doctors say she probably will die in about two weeks if the feeding tube is not reinserted.
It would change things, certainly. Right now it is a right to kill case. If her considered wish to be killed were established (that would require a recent written or otherwise certified statement specific on the level of disability that would trigger the assisted suicide, and specific on the manner of execution), then that would be a right to die case.
I would not assist anyone in a suicide but I would understand that law might recognize such a right. I would leave that on the conscience of the people involved.
No one at this forum or anyone else I know of would say that someone has an absolute duty to go to extraordinary lengths to save their own life. Passively refusing to go to the doctor in order to let a condition run its course, or to rely on faith, or whatever, is not in the same moral category as intentionally ending one's own life. And I doubt if anyone is going to argue too much that if someone puts that into a will, that is not worthy of categorical condemnation. But I guess I shouldn't presume to speak for everyone here.
FNC seems to have all the democrats on right now.
ALL have gotten the talking points: 1. let the FL court decision stand, 2. this should be left to family and priests, 3. Government should not involve itself in personal lives, 4. This is pure politics.
You could do a montage of soundbites.
FNC should just read the talking point memo and we would not have to suffer these hacks.
Pro-life fanatics, like me, are saddened when people actually put in writing in a Living Will that they don't want food and water, but we accept that decision. But what happens, when a person who has a Living Will, changes their mind after they are injured. Will anyone listen to them?
Should Terri Schiavo be placed back on a feeding tube?
Choice Votes Percentage of 1159 Votes
Yes 542 47%
No 617 53%
Thank you for participating in our survey
Let's roll!!!
I would be shocked but I would not be surprised. Pro-death decision abound in our legal climate.
The judge will have his decision written out and very scrutinized.
But, at this point, isn't the request just to allow Terri food and water (by whatever means), until the appeals can actually be decided on.
I guess you would hope people would think hard before putting something like that down in writing that they would not want to be kept alive in such a state. Meaning, they would no they could not change their mind if such would occur. Thanks for the post
How scientific is this poll?
Unlike the Clinton administration, who'd point their fingers in the wind and see what direction the wind was blowing before deciding where they stand on any given issue(control polling), my views are not invalidated by the so-called majority vote by polling.
This is a weak attempt to disqualify those who support Terri's right to live by giving the false impression that the majority stands against allowing her to live. Given all the facts surrounding this case, and the number of citizens getting involved directly or indirectly in support of Terri Schiavo, the polling accuracy is flawed.
Even if the poll reflected the views of the majority in this country, that doesn't justify the courts decision to put to death an innocent human.
I believe that there is no moral problem with a DNR order regarding someone who is terminally ill, but there is a moral problem with withholding nourishment.
So, in our living wills this is stated. No heroic measures in the event of a terminal illness, but any measure that will make us comfortable while we die is permitted.
We have no right to ask another to do anything to hasten our natural death.
according to this article, saving Terri's life equals "prolonging" it. There are no words, gang- there are NO words.
agreed
Brian Schiavo:
"that knucklehead Tom Delay. I have no idea what he's about. He is an absolute buffoon."
Mr. Schiavo has no idea what Tom Delay is about yet accuses him of being a absolute buffoon. Now who is the buffoon here.
"knucklehead..." And a great orator to boot. I would advise Brian to remain in an arena of knowledge that he's most comfortable and natural in. The bowling alley perhaps.
"when a person who has a Living Will, changes their mind after they are injured. Will anyone listen to them?"
my mother-in-law was in a deep coma for 6 weeks before she died. Long story why, but bottom line was she was deprived of oxygen for too long and all brain activity left was to regulate involuntary functions like breathing. She DID have a valid living will, and even tho she was on a respirator for a while in the beginning, despite the living will it took more than a couple of weeks to turn the respirator off. THat was when she kept breathing on her own. I don't know if this is peculiar to NJ or not but I don't know how long it would have dragged on were it not for the living will at any rate.
Terri's case is different, I believe than my mother-in-law's. If my mother-in-law had alertness and responsiveness that Terri appears to have, we would all have been of quite a different mind. Terri's quality of life would be greatly enhanced if she were entrusted to her loving family, rather than in the hands of a dubious so-called "spouse" who would benefit greatly if she were out of the picture.
It is a concern. I read a sad account here by someone whose father had a living will, but when he was asked at the hospital if he had one, he told them no. Which that poster recognized as a testament to the will to live. Unfortunately, the poster went on to say that she took her copy of her father's living will to the hospital. Once the hopsital had it, they stopped treatment and the father died. I have to admit, I was a little bit stunned by the account.
Now, in another instance, my sister works in a hospital. The other night she was present when a doctor was checking with a patient about whether she wanted to keep her DNR (do not resuscitate) order in place. The conversation had some double negatives in it, and the patient was agreeing with the doctor. My sister knew the conversation was a little confusing and hard to follow-- but she knew the doctor and knew he wasn't trying intentionally to be confusing. After the doctor left, the patient said, "Tell him to save me. I want to be saved." So, my sister went to the doctor, told him, and he went back to clarify things with the patient. The discussion resulted in the doctor removing the DNR order.
If something had happened requiring medical intervention on the patient's behalf after the doctor first spoke with her, and before he went back to clarify things, well, that would have been too late then. People do CHANGE their minds about these types of decisions.
What I love about these "murder" obsessed Dummycrats is how they're squealing about states' right now when, for decades, they allowed the feds to squash all states' rights regarding busing, affirmative action, OSHA, EPA, taxes, abortion, etc.
Now the whole disgusting bunch is trying to kill someone in a way that if done to a cat or dog would get jail or prison time. The idiots on the other side are on the WRONG side of this issue. I hope the GOP shoves these nasty quotes down their throats during the next election.
Death to all weak and helpless! Kill the crippled! What grand bumper stickers for these lefty, bloody handed buffoons. Only the murderers on death row get their attention. Disgusting!
States' rights? Where where these moral cretins in the last 30 years?
At 9:53 PST it's 51 yes and 49 no.
Looks like the DU types have been busy.
"Pro-life fanatics, like me, are saddened when people actually put in writing in a Living Will that they don't want food and water, but we accept that decision."
Why on earth do you except that decision? That's pro-choice. Living wills are suicide pacts sanctioned by the state under the cover of "unconsciousness," making murderers out of the designated guardian and the helath care provider. If there is a constitutional right to life at play here the fact if she expressed her wishes vocally or in writing is irrelevant.
Unless this Congressional maneuver is just grandstanding, greater principles are involved. I think it's grandstanding because if Congress was principled it would have given the rights to all people in the same boat.
Many people from the 'ethics group' at the hospital questioned this, but doc and I both witnessed my husband's approval.
Sadly, he didn't get any better and a couple of days later, 'requested' that the machine be removed. He died 3 days later.
But we had to at least give him an extra chance, didn't we? I never found for sure what killed him because I left the hospital and his son said, "no autopsy."
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.