No compelling reason to kill Terri Schiavo

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | March 27,2005 | Mark Steyn

[Randjuke]

Using "emanations from penumbras" the SC has determined that all areas of life are open for their and their fellow judges activity and control. That horse is already out pf the barn.

I agree with what you say, but continue to feel that further government intervention makes things worse. What is your solution?

[exDemMom]

It seems to me that the Fla. judiciary decided that Terri was Michael Schiavo's chattle.

Up in Vermont, a man was just arrested for allowing his cows to die of starvation/dehydration. They were inarguably his property, yet he cannot legally treat them the way Michael can treat Terri. Terri has less standing than property.

(Maybe that Vermont man should hire Felos as his lawyer.)

[Arthur McGowan]

The whole "living will" thing is prolefeed. According to the law signed by Jeb Bush in 1999, everything that is being done to Terri is legal. The law was pushed by Felos, Greer, and other euthanasia activists. That's why Jeb is terrified to do anything to save Terri now. He would be violating HIS OWN LAW, and his stupidity and culpability would be exposed. Under that same law, "living wills" and "advance directives" can be ignored, IF they call for life-saving procedures--e.g., food and water.

[The Other Harry]

Well there is at least one aspect of Greer's behavior that is clearly illegal, even under Florida law, and that is his refusal of the parent's request to give her food and water by mouth!

Excellent post. I hope everyone reads it.

I also wish you were her attorney.

Of couse, the Honorable Judge Greer has ruled that she cannot have an attorney of her own, so you could not serve in that capacity.

What is it the police regularly tell people when they get arrested?

[exDemMom]

End-of-life decisions are tough in the best circumstances.

I hope you are not making the mistake of thinking this is an end-of-life case. It is not. It is a right-to-kill case. If Terri's condition had been terminal, she'd be dead already, and this case never would have gone to court. No one here arguing for Terri's right to live her life is advocating interfering with the decision whether or not to end futile treatment for a dying person.

[First_Salute]

The leftists' great desire for "judicial activism" includes, of couse, the primary weapon of same: ignore "original intent."

The leftists do not want judges to adhere to the original intent that is the basis of our Constitution.

The leftists do not want judges to adhere to the original intent in your will.

In both cases, the leftists work at destroying the original intent of the Founding Fathers, and you, to preserve life, liberty, and property. Whatever the Founders meant, whatever you meant, by judge-made laws and legalisms, is made worthless, moot, inadmissible, or "not credible."

Whereupon, the judicial activists decide for the Founders and for you, what will be their (the leftists, the judicial activists, the judges and lawyers) desires.

I think I'd like to entitle my living will:

A Declaration of Original Intent, This is My Living Will

[the invisib1e hand]

all well and good. but the debate is being pushed subtlely into the realm of "consciousness equals life." this is a deluded and woeful assertion which, if it becomes public policy, will indeed ease the way for a renewal of a eugenics-based genocide -- more sophisticated, mind you, than others that come to mind, but no less deadly and no less unjust.

[The Other Harry]

I hope you are not making the mistake of thinking this is an end-of-life case. It is not. It is a right-to-kill case.

Yes.

[Stormcrow]

"The Mosaic Law is not incorporated into either the Florida or US law codes. If you think it should be, get a movement started to make it so. Don't criticize a judge for applying the law as it stands rather than making up his own."

I wonder if you even understand the consequences of what you are saying?

If the "law" said that Restorer was to be tied to a tree, doused with gasoline and set on fire, would you expect everyone to stand back placidly and watch?

That IS what you're saying, after all.

[The Other Harry]

If the "law" said that Restorer was to be tied to a tree, doused with gasoline and set on fire, would you expect everyone to stand back placidly and watch?

There is nothing wrong with Judge Greer which could not be cured.

[Randjuke]

I hope you are not making the mistake of thinking this is an end-of-life case. It is not

Maybe "end-of-life wasn't the best choice of words, maybe "individual determinism" would be better but that sounds pretty pretentious.

What I am getting at is that many people consider chronic tube feedings to be extraordinary means, and request on their living wills that it not be provided to them. On the standard living will form is a little box about tube feedings. This is a very common decision.

Since many people don't have living wills, though, when they are disabled or incompetent it falls to the next of kin to decide what is extraordinary and what is not. The goal of the next of kin is to make the same decision the patient would make if they were able to make it.

Now I think Michael Schiavo has done a pretty crappy job as next of kin. But what is the solution? Let the government decide? As don-o points out the government is already too involved in our lives, why give more power to it?

The current system is imperfect, but I have not yet seen a solution that makes it better, just ones that make it worse.

[T'wit]

Here is the text of the Pinellas Country prohibition of cruelty to animals. Terri IS covered, of course. She is as much an animal as any dog or cat. Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo are plainly in violation of this law. So is the hospice.

- - - - -

Pinellas County Animal Control Ordinance

Sec. 14-32. Cruelty to animals.

(a) Whoever impounds or confines any animal in any place and fails to supply the animal during such confinement with a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water shall be in violation of this article.

(b) Whoever keeps any animal in any enclosure without wholesome exercise and change of air shall be in violation of this article.

(c) Whoever abandons to die any animal that is maimed, sick, infirm, or diseased shall be in violation of this article.

(d) A person who unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily or cruelly beats, mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner, shall be in violation of this article.

[exDemMom]

Now I think Michael Schiavo has done a pretty crappy job as next of kin. But what is the solution? Let the government decide?

In this case, the government DID decide. Had the judge simply applied the law--no living will, nothing in writing: no case--we wouldn't be having this discussion. The presumption should always be to err on the side of life in the absence of other evidence. (BTW, are you aware that Terri was spoon-fed (another artificial method) for the first few years of her disability?)

[Restorer]

If the "law" said that Restorer was to be tied to a tree, doused with gasoline and set on fire, would you expect everyone to stand back placidly and watch?

The "law" doesn't say that, so your argument is purely hypothetical.

All I'm saying is that one cannot denounce judges for legislating from the bench to allow homosexual marriage, and simultaneously denounce them for following the law with regard to Teri Schiavo and not legislating from the bench to prevent the law as it presently stands from being carried out.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of making some significant changes in these laws.

[Max in Utah]

And having a second legally recognize wife he has legal standing because of?

Easy for you to say hard me understan for.

[Randjuke]

Had the judge simply applied the law--no living will, nothing in writing: no case

I'm sorry, but that's not the law. The guardian is supposed to make the same decision the incompetent would make if they were able to make it.

Anyway, what is your solution?

[Restorer]

Your explanation of the case is not accurate.

Greer did not order Teri to be put to death.

He refused to interfere with medical decisions made by her next of kin, her legal guardian under the law.

There is an enormous difference.

[Restorer]

His "fiance" is not his legally recognized wife. Although presumably he'll marry her soon after Teri's demise.

[Stormcrow]

"your argument is purely hypothetical"

Thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out what was already specifically implicit.

And when they write the law to burn (or starve or shoot) Restorer to death, don't come crying to me please.

[bannie]

Michael Schiavo took a vow to be faithful in sickness and in health, forsaking all others till death do them part. He's forsaken his wife and been unfaithful to her: She is, de facto, his ex-wife, yet, de jure, he appears to have the right to order her execution. This is preposterous. Suppose his current common-law partner were to fall victim to a disabling accident. Would he also be able to have her terminated? Can he exercise his spousal rights polygamously? The legal deference to Mr. Schiavo's position, to his rights overriding her parents', is at odds with reality.

rife...