Personal Injury - Disabled - Senior Citizen - Accidents
Medical Malpractice - Wills - Trusts - Slip & Fall
Medicaid - Criminal Defense - Tax Shelters
Spontaneous Comas - Estate Planning
|
Posted on 03/28/2005 11:01:48 AM PST by marshmallow
Mar. 25 (CWNews.com) - The treatment of Terri Schiavo has emerged as a major watershed in the drive toward euthanasia in the US. If I were an enthusiastic proponent of "the right to die," I would not be comfortable with this test case.
There are times when it really is not clear when respirator should be disconnected-- times when it is difficult to know whether or not a beloved relative should be allowed to die in peace. This is not one of those cases.
Terri Schiavo was not close to death-- until her feeding tube was disconnected. She was not, apparently, in pain. She was not "brain dead" by any definition of that slippery term. She was not being kept alive by extraordinary means. Her death would be caused not by the suspension of medical treatment, but by starvation and dehydration.
From a non-medical perspective, it was all too clear that Michael Schiavo has incentives for seeking his wife's early death. He stood to gain a substantial financial inheritance, and freedom to marry the woman with whom he has conducted a lengthy affair. His implacable hostility toward his wife's parents showed all too clearly that he was on a personal crusade to end Terri's life. And those parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, were clear and outspoken in their insistence that Terri wanted to live.
No, this was not a good test case for the "right to die" movement. And yet the advocates of euthanasia have chosen to take a stand in this case, and thrown their full support behind Michael Schiavo. Why?
There are two answers to that question, I think. First, the "right to die" movement is seizing an unexpected opportunity. Second, the pro-life movement has been betrayed-- yet again-- by its political allies.
1) A careful political strategist, plotting a campaign for euthanasia, might have planned a series of test cases, beginning with "hard cases" (a patient who is in chronic severe pain, and terminally ill), and moving gradually forward as public acceptance increased. But with the Schiavo case, the "right to die" movement recognized the opportunity to skip over several intermediary steps, to score a major legal and political coup. If the courts would authorize the starvation of this woman, and if the public would accept it, the entire debate would shift in favor of euthanasia. If Terri Schiavo can be starved to death simply because her life has been judged burdensome, then every person who is disabled, retarded, or senile becomes a candidate for similar treatment. The key precedent will have been set; the principled opposition to "mercy killing" will be thoroughly undermined.
2) But why did the "right to die" movement perceive this enormous opportunity? Because as the Schiavo case developed, they encountered so little determined resistance. The courts sided with Michael Schiavo, and the people's elected representatives-- both in Florida and in Washington-- grudgingly acquiesced.
When they were presented with a judicial fait accompli, legislators could have begun impeachment proceedings to remove the judges who had produced these outrageous decisions. Executives could have intervened directly to save Terri Schiavo's life, claiming their authority to defend citizens from imminent danger. (As I write, there is still a flickering hope that Governor Bush will take that step.) Instead, fearful of avoiding a constitutional confrontation, both the legislative and executive branches announced that they would abide by the court's decisions.
Notice that both in Florida and in Washington, most elected officials (at least, most of those who had the courage to cast a vote) were inclined to help Terri Schiavo. But they were not willing to pay the price of intervention. A generation ago, the federal government summoned the political will to send federal troops into Mississippi, to integrate schools there, in a direct confrontation with state officials. On this occasion, our government has shown that it lacks the will to save an innocent citizen from a court-approved killing.
If Terri Schiavo dies, countless thousands of other Americans are instantly imperiled. And if that happens, it will be because the American forces of "culture of death" showed more political resolve than the pro-life movement.
The words of William Butler Yeats echo in my mind:
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Where did you hear that talking point? Felos? One of their paid doctor "witness"?
|
Protester Jeff Asmussen, of Silver Bay, Minnesota, is all alone as he keeps a vigil outside the Woodside Hospice, where brain damaged Florida woman Terri Scghiavo is being cared for, in Pinellas Park, Florida, early March 27, 2005. A wrenching dispute over the fate of Schiavo neared its end Sunday as she moved closer to death and her parents gave up their long and bitter legal battle to prolong her life. REUTERS/Bob Jordan 
In this undated photo released by the Schindler family, Terri Schiavo is shown before she suffered catastrophic brain damage. (AP Photo/Schindler Family Photo)
Protesters take part in an Easter mass outside the Woodside Hospice where Terri Schiavo is a patient on Sunday, March 27, 2005 in Pinellas Park, Fla. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Protesters prepare a sign that says, 'God will judge America' outside the Woodside Hospice where Terri Schiavo is a patient on Sunday, March 27, 2005 in Pinellas Park, Fla. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Bob Schindler, left, Mary Schindler, center, and Suzanne Vitadamo, right, Terri Schiavo's family, walk to visit Schiavo at the Woodside Hospice on Friday, March 25, 2005 in Pinellas Park, Fla. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
One and the same. The courts are a branch of gov't. The balance between the branches of gov't may be out of whack. It could be a structural problem, or it may be that a handful of individuals have temporarily caused the imbalance.
keep your head up and KEEP FIGHTING WE CANT EVER QUIT
>
> The Forum: If Terri Dies, Who is Safe?
>
everyone that writes a living will.
It is too bad you are anonymous so that the proper legal authorities are unable to come after you and put you away.
Doctors for Michael Schiavo have said that an MRI and PET are not necessary for Terri because PVS is primarily a “clinical” diagnosis, that is, one arrived at on the basis of examination of the patient, rather than by relying on tests. And the neurologists I have spoken to agree on the clinical nature of the diagnosis, while insisting that advanced tests nonetheless are a necessary part of it. But the star medical witness for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Ronald Cranford of the University of Minnesota, has repeatedly dismissed calls for MRI testing, and his opinion has prevailed.
Dr. Cranford was the principal medical witness brought in by Schiavo and Felos to support their position that Terri was PVS. Judge Greer was obviously impressed by Cranford’s résumé: Cranford travels throughout the country testifying in cases involving PVS and brain impairment. He is widely recognized by courts as an expert in these issues, and in some circles is considered “the” expert on PVS. His clinical judgment has carried the day in many cases, so it is relevant to examine the manner in which he arrived at his judgment in Terri’s case. But before that, one needs to know a little about Cranford’s background and perspective: Dr. Ronald Cranford is one of the most outspoken advocates of the “right to die” movement and of physician-assisted suicide in the U.S. today.
In published articles, including a 1997 op-ed in the Minneapolis–St. Paul Star Tribune, he has advocated the starvation of Alzheimer’s patients. He has described PVS patients as indistinguishable from other forms of animal life. He has said that PVS patients and others with brain impairment lack personhood and should have no constitutional rights. Perusing the case literature and articles surrounding the “right to die” and PVS, one will see Dr. Cranford’s name surface again and again. In almost every case, he is the one claiming PVS, and advocating the cessation of nutrition and hydration.
I think that so many that have gotten emotional over this need to step back and think what may happen from a precedent standpoint and who you want making the decision for you at this time.
Republicans have deserted the issue every since polls
showed up to 80% of citizens think they should keep
their pandering noses out of it Rats deserting a sinking ship.
The religeous right has lost mush of its sway it
held over the Congress Republicans.
Wait till the smoke clears and the bible thumpers will
be treated the same as any other annoyance to political
aspirations of Republicans
You cannot speak for everyone concerned about the starvation of Terri Schiavo. You apparently believe you know the motives of millions of concerned people and can neatly organize them into one nasty smear.
A lot of us want an innocent woman to live. We will never apologize for that compassion for the helpless.
I am a registered Republican. It still looks like the best affiliation in these times. Maybe something better will come along in the course of time, and it could happen quickly or not at all.
I am a conservative first, registered and usually vote
Republican. It's not in me to accept everything the Rep.
party does as my marching orders.
Your welcome. And I didn't mean leave the discussion.
We don't get marching orders. Maybe marching orders are issued, but they don't get out to the general membership. We are on our own, and that is the way it should be.
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.
