Posted on 04/04/2005 8:06:29 AM PDT by tessalu
Vice President Cheney says he opposes revenge against judges for their refusal to prolong the life of the late Terri Schiavo, although he did not criticize House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for declaring that they will "answer for their behavior."
Cheney was asked about the issue on Friday by the editorial board of the New York Post. He said twice that he had not seen DeLay's remarks, but the vice president said he would "have problems" with the idea of retribution against the courts. "I don't think that's appropriate," he said. "I may disagree with decisions made by judges in any one particular case. But I don't think there would be much support for the proposition that because a judge hands down a decision we don't like, that somehow we ought to go out -- there's a reason why judges get lifetime appointments."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You're right, judges have become modern day dictators.
What might those circumstances be?
I don't think you've been going around the country protesting at the thousands of times a year this happens.
You mean to tell me that thousands are being denied food and water by mouth?
If what you say could stand in a court of law, then I am for the prosecution of Judge Greer!
Okay, so by "completely ignored" you mean "Judge Whittemore didn't apply it in a way I agree with". Just wanted to be clear on that.
GF: How the conspiracy grows!
It's no surprise that you were a public school teacher.
What we have here is far beyond a personal tragedy (in that Teresa Marie Schindler (schiavo) died a horrible death under what is claimed to be proper procedure), but the real significance is that Felos hand-picked a case that would ratchet up the death cause several steps. The word conspiracy is not too strong to use.
It was absolutely guaranteed that this woman would die, no matter what the Schindlers' attorneys or the public at large said about it. The way in which we discovered that there is nothing we could ever have done anything about it (weeks of roller-coaster news) is ALSO part of the death cult's plan. Are we worn down yet? Discouraged? Fearful? Well, if not, wait until you see what they have cooked up for the next case and the next case after that...
It would only stand up in a court of law where the judge APPLIES AND USES what is already written as law.
Unfortunately, as you have witnesses, this country is now run by an oligarchy, we are no longer a government run by a representative form ... the judiciary has taken over and is making their own laws at their individual whims.
That's a pretty sick thing to say. It hasn't even been 15 days.
Sad commentary of our times. Calloused, indifference, will eventually lead America into the godless nation she is fast becoming!!!!!
OH nicmarlo, this is so sadly true!!!
And there's nothing Congress or the President apparently want to do about, although Congress is empowered to do so under Article III of the Consitution....but they're too worried about politics to worry about such "little" things as violations against the Constitution.
If that was the person's wishes. Unfortunately, Florida law apparently allows this without absolute proof of the person's wishes.
You mean to tell me that thousands are being denied food and water by mouth?
What happened to Terri happens thousands of times a year. The only difference is the families are in agreement about it so no media circus develops.
Just had some R & R, and ready to fight the next battle.
Nope, I'm not worn down.
Judge Greer was a Republican, and many of the FL senators were Republicans. I called the National Republican Committee several times (202-863-8500), and told them I would not contribute to them, if they don't keep tabs on the Republican Parties in their state. I also called the Florida Republcan Party (850-222-7920)
Also, I called Tom Delay (202-225-5951) to thank him for all he has done, and encourage him to further fight judicial tyranny.
If I lived in FL I would write letters to editors, to tell readers what each legislature did to Terri with their vote JUST BEFORE each candidate came up for reelection.
Unknown Number Face Life-Support Decision
Monday, April 04, 2005
By Robin Wallace
Fox News
NEW YORK — Terri Schiavo is not the first person to have a feeding tube removed, although the public may be left with that impression because of intense media attention and her parents' emotional pleas to have the tube reinserted.
But getting an accurate picture of how often this procedure or stopping other forms of life support takes place in the United States is extremely difficult, partly because of privacy concerns.
No national or state statistics exist on the number of patients removed from life support each year. FOX News contacted more than 12 public and private organizations and agencies in search of this number and confirmed that such data is neither tracked nor recorded.
What officials can say is how many people depend on a feeding tube to stay alive.
In 2003, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the National Center for Health Statistics reports that 146,000 procedures were performed to insert permanent feeding tubes into patients. According to the Brain Injury Association, there are between 35,000 and 40,000 people diagnosed with being in a persistent vegetative state — the same diagnosis that Terry Schiavo’s parents dispute.
These statistics, however, can offer only a glimpse into just how many families may be struggling with decisions regarding keeping a loved one alive through artificial means.
“It’s not an uncommon occurrence,” said Jon Radulovic, vice president of communications for the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. Radulovic said that anecdotal evidence culled from doctors, families and other health care professionals confirms that “thousands and thousands” of patients are removed from life support each year.
Hospital officials concur, characterizing life-support-removal decisions as everyday occurrences that rarely spark public — or even private — controversy.
"It happens all of the time, you just don't hear about it," said Amanda Engler, director of communications for the Texas Hospital Association. Engler said thousands of patients are removed from life support in Texas each year, either as a result of decisions reached by family members and doctors or because of the patients' own advanced directives or living wills.
"It's just like every other medical decision," she said.
The available statistics seem to bear this out. For example, thousands of people are connected to forms of life support other than feeding tubes, such as respirators and ventilators, each year, and it can be concluded that some percentage of those patients will be among those removed from life support.
But just as it is impossible to know how many patients with permanent feeding tubes have them removed to facilitate death, it's impossible to know how many patients placed on respirators were done so temporarily for conditions from which they will recover, or how many will also be removed in a decision to end life support.
There are no laws, government agencies or private groups either compelling hospitals to report these events nor asking them to volunteer the information. For example, the data collection systems at both NCHS and the American Hospital Association do not even ask the question.
"It's not part of what the state requires in standard reporting," said Kim Steit of the Florida Hospital Association. Steit said the issue of recording these events came up about a decade ago in discussions of tracking mortality rates but that the information was too difficult for hospitals to record in the current reporting system.
"There's no way you could collect this sort of data. It happens on such a daily basis," said Elizabeth Sjobert, a registered nurse and attorney who helped craft the 1999 Texas Futile Care Law, the legislation that allowed doctors last week to remove Sun Hudson, a terminally ill 6-month-old infant, from life support against his mother's wishes.
Asked why there wasn't more interest in this information — or in revising reporting systems to make it easier — experts in the medical and health care fields, as well as the data people at government agencies, cited privacy concerns for families and patients, as well as a lack of medical relevance.
“You very much run into privacy issues,” said Tom Burke, director of public affairs for the American Health Care association, a professional association for nursing homes. Burke said his group tries to track legal issues and litigation associated with right-to-die issues but must rely on anecdotal reports from facilities. “When we try to talk to someone at a nursing home, the administrators are very reluctant,” he said. “These are private matters.”
Tiffany Himmelriech, a spokesperson for the Ohio Hospital Association, said the main goal of hospitals is to work with families and patients to decide what's best. "If it's not something required in reporting, they have no reason to record it," she said.
Experts also said that the number of patients removed from life support every year does not provide any useful medical insight in terms of understanding disease or treatment.
Medically, people do not die from life-support removal, they die from heart disease or cancer. Death certificates do not list "Removal from life support," or "car accident" or "drug overdose" as official causes of death. Death certificates say "heart failure" or "cardiac arrest."
Mary Jones, a spokesperson for the NCHS, said the government wants to know the number of specific procedures performed, how widespread disease is, mortality rates for specific diseases and conditions. They do not connect procedures or diagnoses to specific patients, Jones said.
"Having a tube removed is an action, not the illness or cause of death," Radulovic said. "Those are the statistics that are important, that help us understand disease."
But if the information is useless from a medical standpoint, does the lack of it raise a public policy question?
When the Florida Legislature and Congress enacted emergency legislation in response to the Schiavo case — legislation in effect to save the life of a single person — without knowing how many individuals and families they would be affecting, lawmakers had no way of assessing the ramifications and consequences of the legislation.
Even in Texas, where the furor and outrage over Sun Hudson's death brought national scrutiny to the state's futile care law, official records are not kept.
Though the law requires hospitals to convene ethics panels to determine patient treatment, it does not contain a reporting requirement. While individual hospitals would have records of the meetings convened by the ethics panels that determine patients' treatment, "there is no repository" for this information, Sjobert said.
Since Texas enacted the futile care law in 1999, Engler said she knew of only four cases, including Hudson's, where decisions to end life support resulted in disputes or litigation.
Because of Schiavo, the public has become much more familiar with issues surrounding the painful issue of removing life support. And it's likely other cases will enter the public's consciousness.
This week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear the case of John P. King, a 74-year-old man whose wife and daughter disagree about honoring his living will and removing his feeding tube. Experts say that the rash of cases in the media are aberrations. Doctors, patients and their families, they say, make these decisions quietly every day.
GF: How the conspiracy grows!
TE: It's no surprise that you were a public school teacher.
I also retired from the Air Force, so what's your point? My point is that not everyone is out to subvert your rights. Cheney is not part of some vast conspiracy, but keep your guns close just in case!
This greatly DISTURBS me.If we allow the injustice towards Terri,to just fade away unresolved,the door will be open wide for those advocating "death by euthenasia(sp?)" to trudge ahead to victory!!
no no no! LOL
When it comes to murder, the opposite point of view should be booted off the board in the same way most DU posts are because they are so contrary to conservative values. Last time I checked, FR did not advocate brutal starvation and murder of helpless handicapped people. I am sick to death of hearing pro-murder proponents on this board pretend to be just so hurt when people oppose this kind of vicious behavior.
"When it comes to murder, the opposite point of view should be booted off the board in the same way most DU posts are because they are so contrary to conservative values. Last time I checked, FR did not advocate brutal starvation and murder of helpless handicapped people. I am sick to death of hearing pro-murder proponents on this board pretend to be just so hurt when people oppose this kind of vicious behavior."
Is this what you want, Jim? Is everyone who does not tow the exact line as the prevailing hysterics here on FR over Schiavo now going to be branded "pro murder?" Are they all going to be "booted off," as Freepertoo suggests?
Freepertoo hasn't got a clue what my views are re Schiavo. He (or she) is responding to comments I made in #163, which expressed views about two things: religious bigotry and the U.S. Constitution. He didn't agree with those comments, therefore, like far too many people who've been raging about Schiavo here, he leaps straight to a preposterous conclusion. Then, like a true extremist and fanatic, he takes the next step of seeking to deny my free speech rights.
So I ask again, Jim. Is this what you want FR to devolve into? Because at this point, only you can set a much needed example of tolerance -- not necessarily agreement with, but tolerance for people whose views on Schiavo are more moderate than those of Freepertoo and others like him.
If you are interested in my actual views on this case, you might check out #562 here. Hardly the stuff of someone who is "pro murder."
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.