Posted on 03/22/2005 12:17:35 AM PST by goldstategop
Just what is it that so earnestly motivates those who zealously want Terri Schiavo's feeding tube to be removed? While there are plenty of exceptions, I dare say that most people in this camp are not driven by constitutional concerns, despite their hollow protests to the contrary.
As my brother Rush cogently noted, it is easy to understand what drives those who want to save Terri's life: the human urge to protect and save the life of another human being. The motivation of those fighting with equal fervor to remove the tube is not so self-evident.
The more I read about this case, the more it weighs on me – the more a creeping feeling of horror sweeps over me. If, in fact, Terri Schiavo wants to live and is going to be denied that right, the prospect of a court-ordered removal of her feeding tube is no less horrifying than that of a person being buried alive.
If Terri truly wants to live – as a lawyer visiting with her when her feeding tube was removed avers – how could any caring person wish death upon her? The question is not whether we think we would want to live in Terri's state, but whether in fact she wants to. Are those advocating Terri's death allowing themselves to consider that this woman truly wants to live – just like they do?
I doubt I'll ever be able to understand, much less relate to, the sympathies of certain people. Generally speaking, they seem to feel more compassion for wildlife than animals, more for animals than human beings, more for guilty human beings than innocent ones, more for Communist dictators and tyrannical thugs than freedom fighters, and more for the vindication of an abstract principle devaluing human life than for an actual human being like Terri Schiavo, who, though severely disabled, may truly want to live.
How can we possibly view in a favorable light the position of those who protest to save the lives of convicted killers on death row and who bend over backward to believe their most incredible stories of innocence, but won't lift a finger in support of Terri Schiavo and won't even momentarily consider that Terri wants to live? Where are the "Free Mumia" chanters when Terri needs them?
I realize some believe that many advocating for Terri's life are using her for their own political purposes and that even Terri's parents, the Schindlers, are putting their own selfish wishes to keep Terri alive above those of Terri herself.
But do we actually believe that loving parents – parents who would eagerly trade places with Terri in an instant – would place their own comfort above their daughter's? If not, how can we possibly believe they would fight to prolong her suffering? In examining this case from a distance, isn't it much easier to believe Terri's parents' assessment of her desire to continue living than that of her adulterous husband, whose conflict of interest should disqualify him from guardianship in this case and participation in this decision?
And isn't the essential argument of those wanting the tube removed that Terri's wishes ought to be honored? Since Terri left no legal document directing her death in these circumstances, shouldn't the system require clear and convincing evidence that Terri indeed would want to die in these circumstances? Yet the court is relying on the hearsay evidence of Terri's estranged husband, Michael.
The question is whether as a society we want to resolve these very difficult, doubtful cases in favor of death.
I detect more than a bit of intellectual dishonesty among many favoring Terri's death. They are claiming they merely want to honor Terri's wishes, yet they rely on her tainted husband, callously discount the testimony of her loving parents, blindly accept the disinformation that Terri is in a purely vegetative state, and ignore multiple firsthand accounts, including from examining physicians and nurses, that Terri is responsive, sometimes animated, and definitely wants to go on living.
Could it be that something besides Terri's wishes motivates many of the death-soldiers, such as an allegiance to the culture of death, or some abject, inhumane resentment that we spend so much money keeping severely disabled people alive? I've received appalling e-mails from people complaining about the financial burden to society of keeping Terri alive.
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone specifically, because I know that many who want the tube removed are motivated by their perceived compassion for Terri and even honoring Terri's wishes. But I fear that many arguing for tube removal are doing so with complete disregard for Terri's actual wishes in this case. To the extent that is going on, we are witnessing up-close the face of evil.
We must fight on. … More prayers for Terri
The picture of Terri with her husband on page 1.
That's what I don't get.
The deterioration that has occurred doesn't jibe with what I have seen as a nurse in similar cases. I am continually struck by how her hands have curled to such an extent and her left leg completely turned outwardly. This is from lack of ROM and simple measures that every health care worker knows how to do. Her leg should have been braced. Washclothes put in her hands.
Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.- George Santayana
Thanks for the cite, FRiend.
I have heard that quote (and used it myself) all my life and never knew where it came from.
"Why are so many eager to take her life?"
They usually say that it is because they themselves would never want to be a burden to anyone, and that that is the right, unselfish way to be, but that isn't it. The truth is that they never want anyone to be a burden to THEM, that they never want to feel obligated to put themselves out to care for anyone so helpless, and if they can push society to legitimize these so-called "mercy deaths", then they will never have to. This is the end road of the "ME" ethos, the "ME" generation, and it's very, very ugly. But to stop and re-consider the rightness of that ethos would call into question every choice and decisions in their lives of endless selfishness, and they simply cannot allow that. Hence, the passion of the fight for her death.
The very existence of people like Terry's parents, people willing to sacrifice themselves, their time and their money, their own desires, to care for their daughter, is a reproach to those who would never do that. Always remember, first the helpless are killed, then the godly. Just like Nazi Germany.
You are an old friend whom I greatly respect, but you can forget this one. Without an order of a court, such an action would be illegal. The Justice Department (the U.S. government) is not a party to the action. Only the same private parties as in Florida. All that has been (assertedly) done by the new law is grant federal court jurisdiction to the parties to the FL action.
Apparently, by the way, the parents had already filed some sort of action in this US District Court before the new law took effect. They are locked into that District Court now. Once the District Court rules, they can appeal if they are not satisfied. Nothing more.
I just read that they had already appealed.
However, couldn't one argue that the Justice Deptmt would simply be ensuring that the Congress' law COULD be carried out if they took her into protective custody?
I can see the argument making sense.
If she hasn't exhausted her appeals, and it appears she is about to die, and if that death can be prevented, then an argument that protective custody was necessary would make SENSE.
Things that make sense can generally find a legal logic to make them palatable.
More to the point: what if she doesn't...?
But, none of us actually know, except for him
Given that he's been accurately quoted as demanding, of the hospital staff, "Why won't that bitch die?": we may safely discount Michael Schiavo's not-until-seven-years-later recounting as being either a fair or an accurate one.
Actually, this comparison occurred to me yesterday in the spirited debates on another Schiavo thread here, but no one mentioned it. In the late 18th century (IIRC), many people became fixated on the risk of being inadvertently 'buried alive' by the funeral directors of that day. Thus, coffins began to be built with little cupolas extending above ground with little bells in them and a cord reaching down into the coffin so that the unfortunate could always wake up, pull the cord to alert people to his dilemma and thereby be rescued. Obviously, it never happened and the practice was eventually abandoned.
We may not know what Terri's wishes are but we ought always to resolve them in favor of life.
Insofar as matters known to human experience are knowable, we do know Terri's wishes. But your statement is unusual for what it implies: Even if we do know the wishes of the subject, "we ought always to resolve them in favor of life." That, of course, is what frightens those conservatives like me, who have had loved ones who needed enforcement of advance directives or who fear non-enforcement of those directives for ourselves.
Here is the Court's summary of the evidence which allowed it to determine Terri's wishes not to be artificially maintained to the very high 'clear and convincing evidence' standard:
"The court does find that Terri Schiavo did make statements which are creditable and reliable with regard to her intention given the situation at hand. ... Statements which Terri Schiavo made which do support the relief sought by her surrogate (Petitioner/Guardian) include statements to him prompted by her grandmother being in intensive care that if she was ever a burden she would not want to live like that. Additionally statements made to Michael Schiavo which were prompted by something on television regarding people on life support that she would not want to life (sic) like that also reflect her intention in this particular situation. Also the statements she made in the presence of Scott Schiavo at the funeral luncheon for his grandmother that "if I ever go like that just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine." and to Joan Schiavo following a television movie in which a man following an accident was in a coma to the effect that she wanted it stated in her will that she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that ever happened to her are likewise reflective of this intent. The court specifically finds that these statements are Terri Schiavo's oral declarations concerning her intention as to what she would want done under the present circumstances and the testimony regarding such oral declarations is reliable, is creditable and rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court. (slip op. at 9)
Moreover, this is not a Christian/non-Christian divide. As a Biblical Christian myself (I use that awkward term only to differentiate my views from those who base their objection on RCC dogmas), I feel strongly that respect for life does not equate to "physical 'life' at any cost." Everyone retains the right to control their own physical fate, as the Bible tells us we each control our own spiritual fate as well.
I raise this because the article by David Limbaugh and your comment as well are silent on the importance of enforcing advance directives to end physical life when the conditions are irreversible and grave and the person has adequately expressed his or her wish to do so.
The only question in Terri's situation for conservatives is whether or not our judicial system has accurately determined her wishes in this matter in relying on oral statements. One can make an argument (though not a good one, I think) that the Florida court's determination of Terri's wishes is not accurate, but if it is accurate, then she must be allowed to die.
Read one of the ladies story:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05031408.html
Well, that won't work. They have to give the District Court time to consider and rule. But it does show that the parents don't think they are going to win in the District Court.
I would be very interested in the insights of a Florida lawyer into the workings of the 11th Circuit.
However, couldn't one argue that the Justice Deptmt would simply be ensuring that the Congress' law COULD be carried out if they took her into protective custody?
Remember that the law didn't (theoretically) say, 'You must keep Terri alive.' [Even the Republican politicians wouldn't be that foolish.] It purported to grant jurisdiction to the federal courts to hear the matter. Nothing more. The parents now are having that access, although at the moment, they don't seem happy about the access they are enjoying.
If she hasn't exhausted her appeals, and it appears she is about to die, and if that death can be prevented, then an argument that protective custody was necessary would make SENSE.
No, that's the argument of irreparable injury necessary to a TRO to make to the court. One of the reasons is because the court must find that the appellate procedure envisioned is not facially frivolous, that it has some reasonable possibility of success. Otherwise, it is simply a delaying tactic.
BTW, those truly concerned about Terri (and not just about some political argument) would want that determination. I would not think that anyone would want the feeding tube surgically reinstalled just to withdraw it later. Much inaccuracy has been written here about asserted 'agony' and 'pain' accompanying her death, but whatever discomfort her final moments may include should certainly not be unnecessarily duplicated -- by anyone's view.
Besides the obvious moral concerns of this case, I'm fascinated by J.Greer's contempt of Congress' order to have T. Schiavo appear at a committee hearing.
Is he actually liable for a contempt of congress charge?
During the polio epidemic of the 1950s, when people were being housed in iron lungs, the country would have had a cow if anyone was unplugging these things and letting people die. Check out for yourself what an iron lung looks like if you are unfamiliar with them.
In this decadant era, people would be climbing all over themselves to flip the switch on the iron lung patients as the poor polio stricken human beings would be yelling, "Help! They're killing me!"
From what I know, no one has review the initial facts as put forth by the original four physicians. These facts are down in stone. Somehow you have to get the judges to initiate a renewed fact finding effort. None have done so. The original facts fit the Florida law so tight, that it was a matter of going through the motions and coming up with the same opinion.
I am not aware that the judge actually did anything in response to the discussion of the subpoena? Nor am I aware if it was ever served on Terri. I had heard that it was simply mailed to someone, but I have no idea to whom. Do you know?
So, two questions.
1. What is your understanding of what the judge did in "...contempt of Congress' order to have T. Schiavo appear at a committee hearing"?
2. Who was the subpoena served upon and how was it accomplished?
Excellent questions. Going from memory, I'm confidant that the judge expressed to someone that the subpoena simply didn't apply and/or was unconstitutional.
I assume that meant that the subpoena came to him through some route.
Let's go at it this way. My understanding is that the Congressional committee issued a subpoena to Terri (probably directed to husband as guardian of her person) in an effort to trigger a criminal statute which punishes 'harm' done to witnesses under Congressional subpoenas. It was hoped (by the issuers) that this would dissuade doctors from removing the feeding tube. I further understand that the subpoena was not properly served, but was mailed to someone.
Contempt of Congress comes in ignoring its lawful order. Usually, with a subpoena, that means 'appear.' If you fail to appear, enforcement is through a contempt citation.
Clearly, the judge could not be guilty of contempt (nor could anyone else save Terri). He wasn't ordered to appear.
By the way, the premise of the whole endeavor begs the question. Was pulling the feeding tube really 'harming' Terri? Was it done at someone else's direction or at her own, judicially-determined direction? I think the relevant Congressional committee would like to forget the whole thing.
What about the criminal statute? I don't know the statute so we are really flying blind here. I don't know whether it requires the witness to have been lawfully served. I would guess it would, otherwise, they wouldn't really be a 'witness'. Lots of problems here and I doubt anyone would want to try to enforce it. It was mostly a PR ploy in my view.
I did hear some windbag pounding the virtual table about subpoenaing the judge to testify to a Congressional committee about the basis of his ruling. I would suspect every judge in the country -- state and federal, right and left, Republican and Democrat -- would unite as one to oppose that on separation of powers basis. What an awful precedent.
Much ado about nothing.
What I don't get it why those desiring her death don't feel the same way about Alzheimer's and Down syndrom victims. Heck, they can't feed themself either but then maybe they are just as gung ho and have been hiding in the weeds about it.
No question about the decline in our humanity in the last 60 years. Downright scary.
I was watching an episode of "Animal Cops Houston," on the cable network called "The Animal Planet." It showed three dogs who were left to starve in an apartment by this couple. The animal enforcement officers staked out the apartment in plain clothes. The arrest was on the level of a drug arrest, complete with handcuffs and Miranda Rights. The officer, talking to the handcuffed woman made this remark: "You can keep silent about the facts of the matter or you can tell us all. If you keep silent and leave it up to the legal system, you will risk big time punishment for your crime."
There are more rights for animals than their are for helpless human beings. Florida would be a good place to start getting their act together. They are starting to treat their retirement community worse than dogs. It is almost an age biased bigotry. Don't you think?
This has weighed as heavy on me as anything I can remember and I've prayed for her and her family more than anything I can remember but it appears that the Lord has a different plan for her. My hope is that those who love her will find some kind of peace as I can't image what this must be like for them.
Age and disabled in any capacity unless it's a "favored" disability. How long before Downs Syndrome and Alzheimer's victims are offed by the state because of their "poor quality of life"? How I hate that term when used by others to justify the murder of another. It's only one of the cloaks they use because they don't believe in anything beyond themselves and the state.
I think the single best collection of thoughts I'd seen on why so many are so dead set on her death is this column by Diane Alden:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/21/203724.shtml
I recommend it highly.
I have written several times how Terri's situation was a form of human sacrifice. I have read Diane Alden's article and she has mirrored my thoughts when she writes:
Over the centuries, leaders rarely have shown much courage in challenging injustice or the status quo. Terri Schiavo's justice may have to wait for God Almighty and His Son to offer it. Like Joan of Arc and a host of others, she may simply be the latest victim sacrificed in the name of ideology, power, the law, the process, system, privilege or the status quo.
This is what I wrote in an earlier post:
We are witnessing the Death Culture which emerges out from one culture after another with the face of the barbarian. Why such sub human behavior is able to take hold without immediate suppression is due to its seductive face. Its seduction is the promise of an utopian outcome from a human sacrifice. This throwing of the virginal inocent over the cliff to appease the angry god has taken on different patterns through the ages. It may be the hanging of the black to purify society. It may be the gassing of Jews in another. In others, it is the killing of baby girls when male babies are preferred. Wherever this cult of death is practiced it always becomes the ultimate expression of the narcissistic self. If I can control my own destiny through the sacrifice of another human being, so be it. It is the horror of human sacrifice in its various manifestations through the ages.
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.