Posted on 03/23/2005 9:01:53 AM PST by areafiftyone
Congressional Republicans who took extraordinary measures last weekend to prolong the life of Terri Schiavo say there are no further steps Congress can take to intervene.
A federal district-court judge declined yesterday to issue an order to reinsert Schiavo’s feeding tube. Schiavo’s parents have appealed the ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
The court ruling concerning the Florida woman whom doctors say has been in a “persistent vegetative state” for 15 years prompted a strong statement from House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who said that the court violated the “clear intent of Congress,” which passed a emergency Schiavo bill last weekend.
Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), who drafted legislation that served as starting point for a narrower bill passed by the Senate, said, “I am deeply disappointed by this decision today, but I believe this matter now belongs in the hands of the judiciary.”
DeLay went further, saying, “Congress explicitly provided Terri Schiavo’s family recourse to federal court, and this decision is at odds with both the clear intent of Congress and the constitutional rights of a helpless young woman.
“Section two of the legislation we passed clearly requires the court determine de novo the merits of the case — or in layman’s terms, it requires a completely new and full review of the case.
“Section three requires the judge to grant a temporary restraining order because he cannot fulfill his or her recognized duty to review the case de novo without first keeping Terri Schiavo alive.”
DeLay did not, however, signal any further steps that Congress might take.
Section three of the Schiavo law states that the judge “shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights” of Schiavo.
But Senate floor statements appear to contradict DeLay’s interpretation. An earlier version of the bill included language mandating that the court issue a stay. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) objected to the provision and negotiated to have it removed. GOP leaders needed the consent of Senate Democrats to move the bill in a speedy fashion, and during a House floor speech DeLay later thanked Senate Democrats for their cooperation.
During Senate consideration of the bill Sunday, Levin engaged in a colloquy, or conversation on the floor, with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), stating his belief that the bill would not require the court to issue a stay.
Frist agreed, saying, “Nothing in the current bill or its legislative history mandates a stay. I would assume, however, the federal court would grant a stay based on the facts of this case because Mrs. Schiavo would need to be alive in order for the court to make its determination. Nevertheless, this bill does not change current law, under which a stay is discretionary.”
A House Judiciary Committee aide said that the final law was stronger than the initial Senate bill and that it did require the judge to issue a stay.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) also released a statement, saying that he was very disappointed by the court ruling.
Time is working against Republicans who would like to do more on Schiavo’s behalf. At best, if the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, lawmakers might decide to file friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of Schiavo’s parents.
Legislative provisions negotiated by Senate Democrats during the hours before Congress acted last weekend appear to have had a substantial effect on the case.
When Frist first moved to take up a bill dealing with Schiavo in the midst of a budget debate, Democrats objected. One who objected was Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who was concerned that the legislation could have an effect on an Oregon law dealing with assisted suicide.
As a result of negotiations with Wyden, the final law included language stating that it should not be construed to give new jurisdiction to courts regarding a state’s assisted suicide law. Wyden did not object to final action, even though he opposed the bill.
Democratic aides said their members decided to allow the bill to move forward once it was changed so that it was narrowly tailored to the Schiavo case. An ABC News poll released Monday showed that 70 percent of respondents thought the congressional intervention was inappropriate.
“Just because members oppose a bill doesn’t mean they exercise every procedural option to block it,” one Senate Democratic aide said. The bill eventually passed the Senate on a voice vote, after no senator demanded a recorded vote be taken.
Meanwhile, Frist wrote Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) yesterday urging quick action on the part of the state Legislature: “The extraordinary nature of this case requires that every avenue be pursued to protect her life.”
Michael Schiavo wants to scatter Terri's ashes in PENNSYLVANIA - one last crap on the heads of Terri's family.
Yes. According to Congress and doctors on the floor of the House Sunday night, they said that thousands of times a day these decisions are made. I had not thought it was that high but will defer to their numbers.
It's happened in our relatively small family twice. My stepdaughter works in a nursing home; it happens there nearly every week. She gets very attached to her patients and calls to tell me whose family is letting them go because they had a massive stroke or other medical conditions for which there is no hope and no one wants their family members to be kept alive on machines.
The majority of these people do NOT have living wills. As over 70% of the country does not.
They did an emergency session to pass a law that, to put it mildly, offends the sensibilities of anyone who dislikes the idea of federal intervention in matters which do not concernm them, costing them dearly at the polls and hurting their chances to get ANYTHING else done, AND THEN the same people who demanded THAT little fiasco now vilify them "for not going far enough".
Not to minimize the suffering and tragedy of this case, but when exactly did it become the most important issue on the planet? Why exactly does the whole country have to grind to a halt over a family dispute in Florida, which has already been adjudicated?
And when, exactly, did someone decide that this whole thing issue trumps ALL OTHER issues before the American people?
According to the latest Gallup poll, something like 80% of the people think the government was wrong to take this step. So now 20% of the people decide to ignore everything else, even their OWN party's agenda to the point of calling for federal troops, and it's suddenly OK because it's "our" issue?
Has the world gone mad?
that is exactly the point. I don't know a single person in my family (extended) who has been starved and dehydrated to death. Zero. they died of something else. Maybe they weren't being fed the last few days of their lives, but that's not what killed them.
I don't know why its so hard to make that simple point to alot of people on these threads, I have avoided getting into arguments on these threads the last few days, but some of these claims are really irking me.
I know that. But I'll bet the Schindlers didn't expect him to cease therapy, put a DNR on her chart and eventually try to stop feeding her while he was "moving on with his life."
Their admission doesn't mean much in the medical community, for doctors are wrong every day and often change opinion. People defy diagnoses all the time. And specifically, PVS is a highly contraversial and often subjective diagnosis - a diagnosis that is wrong 40% of the time as many people come out of so-called PVS. Even the expert witness for Michael, Dr Ronald Cranford, has testified of patients being in PVS, who actually came out of such a state later on. He even claimed one patient was in PVS despite that the man could operate a wheelchair and put colored blocks in a desired pattern. So despite what the Schindlers may have believed so many years ago, they can't be bound by it. Can you imagine if we required doctors to never be wrong? Who would dare practice medicine?
And who cares if she is in PVS or not anyway? Does that make her any less of a person? Apparently some believe that is the case - that same Dr Cranford on Hannity & Colmes last night admitted that he doesn't believe people like Terri have constitutional rights, nor do advanced alzheimers patients. What a slippery slope all this is. The bottom line for all of us should be that no one should ever be starved to death, period.
I think it's a ridiculous law.
You honestly see no conflict of interest in guardianship situations like this? That is astounding to me.
That's just not so. One of the cases in our family involved removal of a stomach tube. And my step daughter sees it all the time in the nursing home. We've had several freepers on these threads saying it's happened within their families...removal of the feeding tube.
What the hell is the true meaning of your entire post? I just went back and read it again and I believe you are stating that liberty trumps life. Is this your position? Are you of the belief that the Congress had no right to pass the measure they did?
You haven't clearly made your case, because you have omitted the role of food and hydration to the patient's condition.
And the court noted he didn't have to do what he did. Those are their words, btw, not mine. It's in their court documents.
Yes, I know that. It's the "what he did" part (or "what he had a right to not seek court permission for") that I aksed about. My comment was pretty clear, if he had the right, if a doctor had to follow Michels order to stop feeding the patient, then he was stupid to ask for permission. Hell, he could have sat there himself to insure his order was being carried out, if he had that power that you are implying he had.
How does it feel to know that you have no justice, no recourse, and no prospect of either in your lifetime?
I mostly know catholics and religious jews - and I think that has alot to do with the comments I am hearing.
God forbid that anyone would read this:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder0903.pdf
Death-???????-All powerful/sleep.
What's "vincent?"
I knew the other two, but couldn't find vincent even in latin dictionaries online.
This guy is a real winner. He might want to do some research into what people can do when the reach the breaking point of grief and are further crapped on in petty ways.
I am never one to encourage vigilanty justice, but as a member of a jury, I can't say that I would be too sympathetic if he became the victim of something. In fact, I would put him up for a Darwin award.
Gloating and in your face nonsense in the wake of someone else's misery and pain is a sure fire way to end up on the wrong side of the course of events.
And all those legislators voted to say it was okay to do the same thing being done to this poor woman, even in a federal facility that they have financial control over.
Why can't they make it a federal crime for the medical community to deliberately starve/dehydrate a person to death?
Okay. That was the linchpin.
I was wondering if two facts-- his common-law wife and their family, and a church annulment-- could carry enough weight in court to dissolve the husbands authority over her. Then his claim of her expressed 'wish' would have less merit .
It's an angle that I've not heard yet. It's unbelievable that he can be construed 'husband' to two women simultaneously. If so, bigamy is legal. Prove his common-law status and maybe something will give.
Could the Church make an exception to its rule? Their declaration would buttress the claim, I'd expect.
It's in one of the links below; I don't expect you to go read the links and am asking a freeper who will remember exactly which document it's in and will let you know. I've forgotten which document it is.
Then, read:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt
Greer's ruling in 2002 after the 5 doctor trial to see if there were any hope for her to improve.
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/2D02-5394.pdf
The Second district court of appeals' (interesting) ruling in support of his decision.
And the Wolfson Report, which gives the most thorough history:
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf
(Her parents asked him to be re-instated. Both sides trusted him. he's the main voice of sanity here, I think.
And he was convinced, as were the other three guardian ad litems, that Terri was PVS.
Terri's medical discharge summary:
http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/Humana%20Discharge%20Summary%20050990.pdf
Report of Guardian ad litem Richard Pearse, who was relieved after 6 months when it was discovered that he had a previously stated personal objections to legalizing the removal of patient feeding tubes:
http://www.hospicepatients.org/richard-pearse-jr-12-29-98-report-of-guardianadlitem-re-terri-schiavo.pdf
(BTW, he also believed Terri was PVS)
And just for kicks:
Greer's denial of bone scan - the doctors who actually saw Terri, and the radiologist who did follow-up x-rays saw nothing suspicious.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02-scan.pdf
Greer's finding that Carla Iyer and others were not credible:
http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/Order%20Denying%20Pet%20Immed%20Ther%20091703.pdf
Description of the complete 4 hours of video:
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/10/Tampabay/Schiavo_tapes__snippe.shtml
Description of the testimony at the 2000 trial to determine Terri's wishes.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/08/Tampabay/Schiavo_s_wishes_reca.shtml
NATIONAL ENQUIRER 1998 featuring Dr. William Hammesfahr (he has ads there)
http://www.floridaneurologicalinstitute.com/national_enquirer_1998.htm
More links at http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
and http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo_project.htm
Catholics will understand the terms used in this article, but if this person is on to something, and I happen to agree with him, then the results will affect this country in ways we cannot even imagine right now. Flame on :-)
The battle of good vs evil is about to enter an even graver time....interesting how we're approaching Easter ...hmmmm
http://www.spiritdaily.com/schiavodarkness.htm
I just linked that and a lot of others.
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.