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.”
"Terri will not live forever, at worst she could go on oblivious to her own condition."
Which I hope for everyone when the time comes.
You expres yourself much better than many on here. :-)
"Ah, nice safe answer. ...did not testify... So, he wasn't under oath"
Testify and testify under oath are two differnt matters.
Look it up. LOL
No.
I won't "take a hike".
I have already "hiked" furthor than I am willing to go.
You exist today only because I, among many others, "hiked" for your right to life.
That you think you have some kind of higher "right" to argue what those who put their lives on the line to protect is incredibly offensive.
I attended their funerals.
Your obviously ignorant opinion is less important than toilet paper to me.
I have a use and need for toilet paper.
You do understand, don't you, that the Schindlers are not qualified to judge whether or not Terri is PVS. If not, please go back and read me previous post on the subject. I'm not qualified to make a decision as to whether she is PVS, either via the Internet or in person, so cut the sarcasm - unless you can point to a post where I claimed otherwise.
PVS is a label. Some group of people, over time, came up with that label, diagnosable through subjective measurements, and then claimed that it was acceptable to starve someone to death if there were so diagnosed.
Whether or not she is PVS is, in my mind, irrelevant. Whether or not she will ever recover to the point of operating a wheelchair and handling blocks under the direction of a therapist is also, in my mind, irrelevant.
It is not acceptable to starve Terri to death - regardless of whether or not she is PVS. No matter how many doctors diagnose her as PVS, and no matter how many times you repeat the diagnosis, starving her to death is not acceptable behavior.
Thanks Smartaleck. :)
Have you ever read ONE single solitary court transcript regarding this matter? Just one? Have you ever read one GAL report?
Have you googled PVS (spelled out) and understand that Terri is acting like nearly ALL PVS patients and it means nothing? ABC has links on this very issue tonight.
At the very least, read the Wolfson report. Link below. Others as you may wish.
Freepers used to be smarter than this. People used to do research instead of falling for every single internet rumor and unsubstantiated doctor to come down the pike who "says" he's a doctor and just knows that Terri can be cured.
Are the new rules around here that we are supposed to believe internet people who have no way of verifying their words, didn't testify under oath and weren't subject to cross examination vs. court documents and people who did testify under oath and were subject to cross examination?
Are those the new rules now? Just tell me and I'll make sure I never do one damn bit of research again.
And for the two doctors you seem to think have validity that the Schindlers brought to court in 2002, are you aware that one of them didn't know the difference between a coma and PVS? And one of them is an alternative medicine doctor, has faked being nominated as a Nobel prize winner, his clients must pay in cash because insurance companies won't cover him and he advertises in the National Enquirer? Links below to that tidbit too.
The Courts ruled the two doctors who make up that blessed 40% you are so fond of quoting weren't competent and didn't present evidence that is recognized by the medical community.
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 made up my mind.
And the Wolfson Report, which gives the most thorough history:
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf
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.
This excellent, official time line of events, including links to other court decisions:
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm
Extra Links
Cruzan decision
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=497&invol=261
More on Cruzan:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/cruzan.html
Terri's medical discharge summary:
http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/Humana%20Discharge%20Summary%20050990.pdf
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
Wonderful. Dr. Cranford wanted to starve Wendland to death, and knew that Wendland was not even in a PVS? Nice.
While I have not checked the law in every state, I repeatedly read that there isn't a uniform law regarding feeding tubes. As for me, I'm fine with the law in Florida as I have read it. I'm simply unconvinced by the evidentiary record I have seen regarding her wishes to have her life terminated. And I'm curious why some tests haven't been done as a final objective part of the record.
I lived locally and have been aware of Terri Schiavo's "case" since 1993.
I am/was her neighbor.
Literally.
I have met both of her parents and two of her siblings.
IMHO Terri is a human being that I am aware of as a neighbor.
You have no "right" to call for her execution.
Nor does any agent of our governmemt
"Wonderful. Dr. Cranford wanted to starve Wendland to death, and knew that Wendland was not even in a PVS?"
You have a serious difficulty with facts don't you? Try doing a little research and less relying on hearsay.
I was more referring to the fact that their website does not address this.
While yes, they may be on record for saying so, do you have any speculation as to why they do not concern this in their own website?
Is it possible they weren't fully aware of the (new) term "PVS?"
Is it also possible that the doctors who told them to believe she was in PVS did not yet know about the 43% rate of mislabled PVS patients?
None of that is hearsay, because it all came from Dr. Cranford's own words.
Are you asserting that I am misunderstanding any of his positions, and if so which?
It was Wendland's wife that decided to remove the feeding tube.
"Rose Wendland praised Dr. Ronald Cranford, a Minnesota neurologist and bioethicist, for providing her with medical and moral advice during Robert's final days. Cranford, ****a consultant in several high-profile right-to-die cases,***** did not personally treat Wendland but advised doctors on his care."
He was brought into the trial to testify as to the effects of dehydration from what I read.
His credentials. (He is a bioethicist)
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:q9tOfeXrVsUJ:www.bioethics.umn.edu/faculty/cranford_r_cv.pdf+Robert+Wendland++Dr.+Ronald+Cranford&hl=en
I have a funny feelinbg we will hear the following after Terri dies: "The Republican Party did all we could within the confines of the law to save Terri. This is precisely why we need to confirm more conservative judges, so this type of tragedy doesn't occur again in the future." If so, the blowback in the 2006 mid-terms COULD be significant.
So, which of these two facts are you disputing? A) Dr. Cranford wanted Wendland to starve; or B) Dr. Cranford knew Wendland wasn't PVS.
If you can't tell me which of those two facts are wrong, I'll need to assume that it is you who has a problem with facts. Whether or not anyone else on this planet also wanted to starve Mr. Wendland is not the point here.
You wrote "He was diagnosed with PVS,"
He wasn't was he.
"Wonderful. Dr. Cranford wanted to starve Wendland to death, and knew that Wendland was not even in a PVS?"
You have a serious difficulty with facts don't you? Try doing a little research and less relying on hearsay.
I wrote the part beginning with "Wonderful". You wrote the part beginning with "You have".
You attacked me, and are unable to support your attack. Therefore, it is apparent that you are the one who has a serious difficulty with facts.
Dr. Cranford thinks conscious people should be starved to death. He obviously has problems. You have your own set of problems. Please go away.
I agree. But if Repubs aren't willing to exert the 'nuclear option' what's the point?
There is no official timeline, despite the assertion you find on this page.
Michael Schiavo, when given the benefit of the doubt, in regard to his wife's wish to "not live like that," failed to honor her request for nearly eight years.
Properly, and knowing her wishes, he had a duty to go to probate court in Florida, in 1990 and lay it all out --- he had a duty to tell the court then. He had a duty to petition the court for the right to keep on trying to help her get better, but he did not do that.
He could have peitioned the court in March 1990, and in April 1990, and in May 1990, all the while she was still in the hospital, in suspended animation, but he denied her.
He went on to deny her, through 1991, 1992 ... 1997.
It wasn't until nearly 2,800 days after the original medical incident, did he do what he should have done in 1990.
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.