Aside from killing a disabled woman, what’s the controversy?

A cousin asked me the other day, “What’s this Terri Schiavo thing all about down in Florida?” I did my best to catch cousin up to speed on the history of the plight. While on line, a newbie at FreeRepublic cited four points over which the newbie needed confirmation or correction. I did my best to address the problems with the perspective expressed in the four points of interest as stated by the poster.

Clearly, there are different levels to this issue; this is not a simple controversy lending itself to sound byte explanations, though the mainstream media tend to over simplify and use sound byte explanations, usually tainted with the network’s bias –such as the stilted poll done by ABC, for which they received precisely the ammunition they were trolling for, rather than an honest perspective of the American people.

Let’s take a look at the controversy from a perspective other than bedside sadness.

First, there is a lengthy judicial process followed in Florida, and controversy and major dispute beginning with the power and perspective of one Judge Greer. Terri was receiving due process without complaint from any family member, until Judge Greer’s court took over dealing with the controversies. Every appeal following the Greer rulings amounted to other courts rubber stamping Greer’s actions … and therein lies the reason for the Congress of the United States finally getting involved.

That brings us to a second point of controversy, with major political ramifications. A state judge in a Florida court has order that a non-criminal severely disabled woman be put down via starvation and dehydration by ordering that the port for her feeding tube be removed … and a feeding tube is all this woman needs to continue living. [Is food and water actually artificial medical intervention?]

Last week, the United States Congress issued an oversight action authorized by the Constitution in the Third Amendment, in order to give Terri Schaivo assurance that her Fourteenth Amendment rights were not short changed in arriving at her current court ordered sentence of death by dehydration. The bill issued by Congress stated a request for a ‘de novo’ hearing of the case at Federal level. The Federal Judge who received the case chose to ignore the request and do yet again what has been done at every judicial stage in this controversy, glance at Greer’s rulings and stamp them adequate for Terri’s rights.

It is precisely the questionable nature of Greer’s rulings that caused Congress to request a Federal de novo hearing. What if Greer has a bias or new facts have come to light that indicate Terri Schiavo has not in fact received fair and balanced treatment from the court or the court has been in error due to inadequate facts? How can the wrong rulings of a judge be questioned in a process where rubber stamping passes the rulings along without honest ‘de novo’ review? Apparently, not even Third Amendment responsibility of the United States Congress can break the bias of particular court systems.

And therein is the substance of the second major controversy: how can judicial activism and rubber stamping based on political/philosophical bias be corrected, if Congress only requests without any consequences to follow when a judge such as Whittemore (the Federal appeals Judge who received the Congressional request) thumbs his nose at the Congress in their Constitutionally authorized oversight of the judiciary?

Terri Schiavo is not going to be saved from death by dehydration through a conflict between the Legislative and the Judiciary. As things are now progressing, Terri will be dead before the controversy could be resolved. And therein is the substance of a third controversy: what’s the damn hurry to execute Terri Schiavo before full de novo hearing can be accomplished? Is it so outlandish to consider that Judge Greer has a bias that has prevented Terri from receiving fair and balance justice? If a de novo hearing concludes that all court rulings have been sound, without new information changing anything of the findings of fact and promotion of truth, Terri isn’t going to flee to some other jurisdiction and thus be beyond the judge executing her after further review. What’s the hurry to put her down without actual Federal de novo hearing?

And therein lies the fourth controversy: political forces are thrashing the issues around for political empowerment; one force with a heavy bias toward granting to one person the right to kill another alive, sensing human being feels their rite, er excuse me, their right is threatened by de novo review that potentially could change the now obvious destiny of an inconvenient human being; Terri, if granted a fair and thorough review, just might get a stay of execution and then be given therapy that would improve her interactions with her environment, and thus embarrass the faction pushing for this inconvenient human to be put down. Surely the other faction, the one wishing to value even the life of a severely disabled woman, realized that further review might confirm what are already the findings, so that faction was willing to risk the ridicule inevitable from the liberal media in their water-carrying for the other political faction.

So how honest is the faction now demanding that Terri be put down and cremated immediately, without a final de novo hearing? And how cold, political, calculating, and stark is the wrong committed by a Federal judge ignoring the oversight request from the Congress of the United States, to yet again rubber stamp the rubber stamps forwarded up from his fellow Florida Judges?

This truly is an historic controversy, but it remains to be seen if the Congress has the loyalty to our Constitution that would follow through in settling judicial tyranny that is killing one severely disabled woman in Florida.

The following was posted in the Chicago Tribune web-site today as a letter to the editor. I hope this posting does not violate any copyright rules.

In any event, here's the link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-0503240108mar24,1,6718034.story?coll=chi-newsopinionvoice-hed

The letter has to do with a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care. Very interesting reading.

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE (LETTER)

Pick medical decision-maker to represent you

K. Michael Lipkin, MD

Published March 24, 2005

Highland Park -- This is regarding the legal impact of the Terri Schiavo case ("Schiavo case underscores importance of a living will," News, March 21).

Living will? No.

Power of attorney for health care? Yes!

A living will is a legal document indicating a person's wishes about medical treatments should they be incapacitated, e.g., "If I am terminally ill and incapacitated (unable to competently communicate my wishes), I do not want any attempt to restart my heart when it stops beating."

A power of attorney for health care (known as a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, or DPAHC) is a legal document appointing a person (known as your health-care agent or surrogate decision-maker) to make decisions about your medical treatments in case you are incapacitated.

Since both of these directives are considered "advance directives" (i.e., directions made in advance to apply under future circumstances), it is necessary to clarify the important differences between them and to emphasize advantages of a DPAHC.

A living will cannot "speak," whereas a health-care agent (DPAHC) is fully empowered by law to be the spokesperson for you when necessary. Living wills are not flexible; they cannot cover unforeseen problems and are subject to interpretation; they are not always available when needed; and even when available, living wills have sometimes been ignored by caregivers. In contrast, a health-care agent can speak and can engage in conversations with your doctors/caregivers that apply to your specific and unique situation. Your health-care agent has the right to be fully informed about your condition and your medical treatment. He or she has the flexibility to respond to the complex and ever-changing circumstances of life-threatening conditions. In many states--Illinois is one of them--a DPAHC authorizes your surrogate decision-maker to speak for you regarding care even after your death (e.g., organ donation, autopsy, etc.).You can provide your health-care agent with written instructions or guidelines that you want him or her to follow or you can empower her to make all decisions based on her judgment about your best interests and her knowledge of your values and beliefs.

Although having a living well is better than having no written record of your wishes about desired or unwanted medical treatments, it is much more likely that your wishes will be honored if you appoint a person who knows what you want, who knows your values and beliefs, and who could figure out what you would decide in unforeseen circumstances.

I believe that every adult person of sound mind should appoint a health-care agent--now! You cannot know ahead of time when you might be unable to speak for yourself. It could be tomorrow. You can change your mind about the person you want as your decision-maker (be sure to write down any change--dated, signed and witnessed). You can and should indicate a second and even a third person to act as your health-care agent, in case the first person you have chosen becomes unable to speak for you. (It is necessary to designate one person as your agent, so choose someone who will also take into consideration the ideas and opinions of anyone else who you feel should be consulted.)

Every hospital and medical clinic has forms for appointing a surrogate medical decision-maker. To make things simple, you can sit down right now and write a note indicating who you want as your substitute medical decision-maker/health-care agent (date it, sign it, have it witnessed). The person you choose must be willing to act as your agent, and he or she needs to know as much as possible about what you want and what you do not want in the way of medical treatment--especially your considerations about being kept alive in a condition that would have no purpose or meaning for you.

If Terri Schiavo had written down her wishes about such treatment or had simply written down who she wanted as her medical decision-maker (husband, parent or someone completely unrelated), a personal and family tragedy of a most private nature would not have been turned into a public spectacle and a divisive political struggle.

If you are unconscious or too sick to make or communicate decisions about medical treatment, someone else will make those decisions, and you may have no say about the care that could so profoundly impact your life and the lives of your loved ones.

Choose or lose.

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.