With this:
Posted on 03/23/2005 11:00:46 AM PST by MHGinTN
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.
"well you can eat by yourself, so it's not artificial..even if you couldn't, and you asked someone to feed you, it wouldn t be considered artificial to me..but if someone had (because you couldn t even ask them for it) to feed you via a tube (only liquids), and from time to time set a new feeding pack for you to be fed continually, this would definitely look artificial to me."
This is rank sophistry and moral bankruptcy.
Hildy, the category also lists 'current events' ... put some ice on it, Hildy. You're not, as afr as I know, the head administrative moderator. This is still Jim Robinson's website.
rottrikhan is advocating the killing of a lot of people. I'm guessing he/she is pro-abort too?
Well then we should have just killed all those polio victims in iron lungs then. After all, they were breathing artificially, right?
A crib-bound infant is totally reliant on life support. The topic is about the controversies, aside from the order resulting in Terri Schiavo's court ordered death, get it?
Maybe he will, maybe he won't. The future is an unknown. He certainly can't ask me to feed him right now; all he can do is die if I don't.
But even if he never learned to speak or to feed himself, he would still deserve to be fed, not to be starved.
Rott, Mrs Schindler does not require help with her autonomic functions. She requires food and water, and because she is largely immobile, she also requires other forms of primary care. We wouldn't refuse this form of care to an Alzheimer's patient, or a six-month old child. Or a dog.
Is that was a possible Troll?
How can FReepers know the difference?
Use the shift key to get upper case.
That's what I thought
I remember being in school back in the 60's and asking how this could have happened. (The Holocaust)
We watched movies and news reels showing how people were "dehumanized" to the point where killing them became easy.
Should he be starved to death too? If not, please explain the difference between him and Terri.
"Reichsleader Bouhler and Dr. Brandt M.D. are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that persons who according to human judgement can upon most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness be accorded a mercy death.
Signed - A. Hitler".
From the form letter sent to relatives of the victims:
"In view of the nature of his serious, incurable ailment, his death, which saved him from a life long institutional sojourn, is to be regarded merely as a release."
Cordially,
"TOld him, in no uncertain terms, that if I was only relying on food & water, he'd dam well better not stop that. He promptly shut up."
Good for you. I too have made it quite clear that I don't want to be deprived of food and water.
Oh for the love of God. I'm just about as sick of this story as I am the Michael Jackson crap.
Pretty we will be able to brag like those in Britain that anyone over sixty-five has no quality of life and deserves no long term life saving measures either. No dialysis, no cardiac bypasses. I'll bet it started with redefining the terms of life support too. Enjoy your new health care by judge fiat.
With this:
My Dad had a book and it showed pictures of open graves about half the size of a football field full of very very thin dead people piled on top of each other.
The pictures were taken at one of the gas chambers when the soldiers got there. And they showed pictures of people who were still alive who looked like walking dead.
"this would definitely look artificial to me."
So, since it "looks artificial to you" let's go ahead and starve her.
Her right to life should not be subject to your (or anyone else's ) perceptions of what is and what is not "normal"
And that includes the doctors and the courts because as we all know these "experts" are never ever wrong.
I don't have a medical degree and i don't have a law degree but I know a living breathing human being when I see one.
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.