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.”
Can you post that? I had not seen that one. The freepers I have talked with have said something quite different.
The problem is that is not altogether a description of what is going on here:
"But none of the decisions of the courts make any mention of "a feeding tube". For example, the last decision that was made by Judge George W. Greer of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, on February 25 that led to the last removal of Ms. Schiavo’s feeding tube, read in part as follows:
"Therefore it is… ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, MICHAEL SCHIAVO, shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, THERESA SCHIAVO, at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005." [Emphasis added]
The court order doesn’t just require that the feeding tube be removed — it orders that Terri Schiavo be deprived of all food and water. The decision of the Florida court is not the equivalent of "pulling the plug". If someone needs mechanical assistance to breathe and the ventilator is removed, it is not unusual for some patients to start to breathe on their own. To compare the situation that Terri Schiavo is in with someone who is on a ventilator would be the equivalent of the ventilator being removed, the person starting to breathe on their own and then requiring that they be smothered because the court has ordered that they not be given any air. What is truly amazing is that there has been virtually no mention in the massive media coverage about the prohibition against all food and water. All that is discussed is the feeding tube."
"The point that others have made, and I have asked about, is the context of the cessation of nourishment and hydration."
Curious, would it make a difference if she were on a ventalator?
Seems like some people feel if she were on a ventalator (assisted breathing) and it was removed and she suffocated that would be understandable.
But if they remove the assisted feeding tube that would be starvation and not ok.
Don't get me wrong, I know it's a source of confliction either way.
And this is where people's basic misunderstanding comes in.
Do you think that people have feeding tubes because people in the nursing homes, rehab centers and hospitals are too busy to cook?
It is because people have had massive strokes or are PVS or a host of other reasons and cannot eat or swallow. For a few days an IV will do the trick, but after some length of time and a feeding tube is required.
So although the court order does not specifically say "remove the feeding tube", it DOES say "remove hydration and nutrition". They are one and the same thing.
I'm not getting you wrong and I said the exact same thing to my husband today.
It's like people knew that people got taken off machines. But they never knew people had feeding tubes removed and allowed to "starve".
Seems like some people feel if she were on a ventalator (assisted breathing) and it was removed and she suffocated that would be understandable.
Yes. It would make a difference if the measures sustaining her life were something other than food, clothing and shelter.
It would also make a difference if there actually was clear and convincing evidence that Terri would starve herself to death if given the chance.
Get a load of this (sent to me via freepmail by another freeper):
ABC News; Peter and their doctor guy (can't remmber his name, but he's always on as their doctor) have a copy of the papers that Jeb Bush is filing today with the "new" evidence that she might not be PVS.
The doctor read from the last page; the "new" doctor was in the room for 90 minutes, during that time she did NOT exhibit ANY of the things they claim -- no sounds, no eye movement, no recognition -- NOTHING.
But he then went on to say something like, "But you get the sense she can."
Following their logic.......what IF they removed the ventalator and she began to talk.
What IF they removed the feed tube and she began to talk?
In the case at hand, it ain't gonna happen... the courts have determined after listening to the testimony of those who are suppose to know.
I've never posted to you on this topic, although I've noticed you are "on the other side". I can respect that even though I disagree.
I think that if she had been given therapy and stimulation and every avenue of rehabilitation had been pursued, even to the point of doing an MRI for goodness' sake, more people would be willing to support this. We all know it happens frequently, whether voluntary (the patient stops eating) or by agreement of the family when the patient is terminal and all hope has been lost.
For you see, all hope by Terri's family has NOT been lost and she is NOT terminal.
Another thing that many just can't seem to get their minds around is why doesn't this man who has granted himself a de facto divorce by living with another woman and fathering children by her won't divorce Terri and let her parents care for her. Why is he so hell-bent on killing her?
I understand that you've been through this with a family member and I respect that decision. But I'd be interested in why you support terminating her life when she has loved ones who are ready, willing and able to care for her until she does indeed die naturally.
Respectfully, GG
"Yes. It would make a difference if the measures sustaining her life were something other than food, clothing and shelter."
I'm not sure I follow. Why is food any more or less necessary than breathing to sustain life?
"It would also make a difference if there actually was clear and convincing evidence that Terri would starve herself to death if given the chance."
If spending the next 15 years like, I just spent the previous 15, I'd want out any way I could.
A brain surgeon just up the thread said "they'll be burying them alive next."
Every poster seems to be jumping offside trying to raise the level of hysteria another notch.
Nothing...."But you get the sense she can."
There's probably a "Sat. Night Live" line there, but I'll forgo it. (Just rolling my eyes)
I'm sure you do follow, and are playing word games. I'm not interested.
If spending the next 15 years like, I just spent the previous 15, I'd want out any way I could.
Just stop eating. You have the power to.
You can read the PDF document of the afidavid which is posted at NRO
"RE: READ IT AND WEEP [K. J. Lopez]
This neurologist who Jeb Bush mentioned in his press conference earlier today, William Cheshire, says outright that he believes that "it can be ethically permissible to discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for parsons in a permanent vegetative state." But having "met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person" he doesn't believe this should be happening to Terri Schiavo.
"He states that "There remain, in fact, huge uncertainties in regard to Terri's true neurological status." She hasn't been fully evaluated by a neurologist for three years, he says, has not had an MRI or a PET. And some of the technology to determine if a patient is in a minimally conscious state has only emerged in the last few years. "New facts have come to light in the last few years that should be weighed in the neurological assessment of Terri Schiavo."
"He writes that Terri Schiavo “demonstrates a number of behaviors that I believe cast a reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS.” Among these observations, he pinpoints: “Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of familiar persons such as her parents or her nurses…Several times I witness Terri briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humoroius comment someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of someone else’s laughter.”..
Dr. Cranford 'diagnosed' Terri from a 45-minute visit. You claim knowledge of PVS, so I'm sure you are aware that a PVS diagnosis can't be made in 45 minutes.
Ask Kate Adamson what it was like to have her feeding tube removed while diagnosed as being in a Persistent Vegetative State. She didn't like it at all.
Starving someone with a PVS diagnosis is wrong.
You just came to this realization? I think what you describe is exactly true. People did not know that it is medical routine to deny otherwise healthy bodies food and water in order to cause the bodies to die.
In fact, I'm still skeptical of the claim. But judging from the medical people posting here, I am rethinking my impression of medical "ethics."
Hi, GG. Thanks for your nice tone, even though we disagree :-)
I'm just going to post some facts and hope I can answer some questions. (Mr. Peach is playing music and waiting to play cribbage).
If you would like links, I can provide them later as I'm kind of rushing right now.
1. In 1993, Terri's doctors recommended to Michael that he remove the tube. This is done all the time in this nation.
He didn't want to do that because he thought it was cruel. He then saw his parents go through it so by 1998(?), he said ok.
But still he didn't want to be the final arbiter of this and went to the court and asked THEM to make the determination. The Courts noted in their decision he didn't have to do this and effectively weakened his own position by doing so. (I have the exact words in the link to the court decision).
2. During the first 3 years of Terri's PVS status, no one argues that she wasn't given the most rigorous therapy. Everything that could be done, was done. He even had electrodes implanted in her brain in an effort to stimulate her brain activity. In the early 90's, the electrodes used make her ineligible to have an MRI. They use different kinds now and there has been some suggestion that doctors recommended those electrodes be removed, although no freper has ever been able to provide me with a link to that.
#3. In the early 90's, MS sued the hospital for malpractice. Terri presented at the hospital with cardiac arrest as the result of being bulimic. The hospital didn't pick up on that and didn't treat her appropriately which in part resulted in her PVS. MS was given $300,000 for loss of consortium; the rest went to Terri's care and is controlled by the court (I think). Mr. Schindler thought he was entitled to some of that $$ and they argued over the $$.
#4. Previous to that, MS and the Schindlers had gotten along fabulously. Schindlers considered him like a son and said they couldn't get through it without him. Then came the $$ problem.
#5. The Schindlers testified under oath the yknew their daughter was PVS. They now act like she isn't, but they've already admitted it.
#6. The Schindlers tried in the early 90's to care for their daughter and returned her to rehab shortly after because they were overwhelmed (their word). There is no reason to believe that 13 years older they are better capable of caring for Terri this time.
#7. The Schindlers testified under oath that they would be willing to see Terri undergo multiple amputations should she get diabetes from loss of circulation. They also said that no matter what she wants, they want to keep her alive.
#8. No honorable man who knows his wife is PVS is going to stand by and watch her get carved up. In my opinion.
#9. Michael became a respiratory therapist in order to better learn to care for Terri. Under oath, the nurses who cared for Terri said his care of her was extraordinary. She never even had a bed sore, nearly unheard of, and that he was very demanding of nursing staff.
#10. Now we have nurses and others coming out of the woodwork saying that they know Terri isn't PVS because (insert blabbering). It's amazing that they never told thsi to the Schindlers! They have written affadavits (if these people are even nurses...most of this is over the internet).
So some freepers think we should believe unsourced material over the internet but not court documents and witnesses that were subject to cross examination under oath.
Anyway, when I first started writing about this last week, I hadn't really made up my mind about this matter. The more I examined it and other freepers started researching it, the more I determined that the Schindlers are not acting out of love, in my opinion.
Have you ever stood at the bedside of anyone on any kind of life support or feeding tube? Nearly every one standing around will say something like "I don't want to ever end up like that." The courts have found Michael believable on this point...that Terri didn't want that after visiting some relatives that were dying and watching a movie about Karen Quinlan (not sure about the name of the movie or what it was about but that's my recollection).
This is probably way more than you wanted to know :-)
It took me until yesterday to realize that people thought this was somehow "different". It's not.
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.