Posted on 05/17/2005 9:40:33 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Ironically, if Terri Schiavo's feeding tube had been reinserted and she had been allowed to live on, it would have done very little damage to the purported "right to die." It would have set no precedent for cases in which a patient has left written instructions, in which a patient's heart is unable to beat or lungs are unable to breathe without the aid of a machine, in which a patient was already suffering a terminal illness, or in which a patient's closest family members are united as to what the patient wanted. What made Terri's case stand out was not how typical it was of "end-of-life" issues, but how utterly unique.
While allowing Terri to live would have done little harm to the "right to die," the determination of her husband and the entire judicial system of the United States to kill her set some very dangerous precedents indeed. One is what it says about the role of judges in our system of laws.
Liberals who were cynical about legislative intervention in the case gleefully pointed out that the courts that heard various motions in the case could hardly be accused of "judicial activism." This term is often used by conservatives to describe judges who read into the law principles not evident from its language. Indeed, courts in this case might better be accused of "judicial inactivism"--an unwillingness to draw obvious conclusions from newly enacted laws if it might mean questioning the decision of a fellow judge.
The common thread, however, is judicial arrogance, judicial supremacy, and judicial tyranny. Defenders of the courts' refusal to intervene tout the constitutional principle of the "separation of powers" between the branches of government. They are less enamored with the concept that the three branches exercise "checks and balances" upon one another, except in a one-way direction (that is, when judges tell legislators to throw out the laws they have passed through the democratic process).
In the Schiavo case, the defenders of this judicially-mandated death argue that the Florida courts correctly construed the decision-making process which Florida law provides under such circumstances. Even if that is true, it was surely the prerogative of the Florida legislature to change that law in a way that provides additional protections for a fundamental right. The courts would then be under an absolute obligation to obey that law, because legislators write laws, and courts merely apply them to individual cases.
The courts, however, would have none of it. That's why, when Florida legislators passed a law in 2003 that would have granted Terri added protections, the Florida Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. And when Congress passed a law in March giving federal courts jurisdiction to protect Terri's right to life, the courts simply refused to exercise it. Our branches of government are supposed to be co-equal, but in this case, preserving judicial supremacy over the legislative branch trumped all other considerations, including obedience to the rule of law.
Along with the "separation of powers," another principle gleefully trumpeted by the advocates of Terri's death is "federalism." Why, they wondered, do conservatives who normally defend the powers of the states now want to promote federal intervention in a court case already settled at the state level? However, the conservative concern about "states' rights" arises primarily when the federal government interferes with the states in one of two ways--by exercising a power that is not explicitly granted to it by the Constitution, or by denying states a power that is not denied them by the Constitution. In this case, however, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says explicitly, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The precise question at issue in the Schiavo case was whether Terri was being "deprived of life ... without due process of law." Federal courts have a perfectly logical role in determining whether a state has violated such a clear-cut federal constitutional right. A case like this, in which "life" means "life" and "due process" means "due process," is a far cry from liberal judicial activism like Roe v. Wade. In the latter "life" means "only a life that is wanted by the mother," "liberty" means "abortion," and "due process" means "meeting the approval of liberal elites."
Judges must indeed be independent, but that does not mean that they are sovereign, with the power to write, interpret, and execute the laws. Granting them such power is a recipe for tyranny.
For now, people are trying to decide the best way to do something about it.
* The court ordered the removal of all nutrition and hydration from Terri Schindler, which meant NOTHING by MOUTH. The order never mentioned the feeding tube. *
I wonder if that fact has set precedent for not allowing a person to have food and water, who doesn't even have a feeding tube and can still eat by mouth. Interesting.
The progression of what is medical care has fallen over the clift. Actually even that has been happening for years under the cover of darkness. A friend of mine's grandma was dehydrated to death in the 70's by her doctor.
She begged for water, food and even ice chips, but the doctor had told the family it was not allowed. It took her about 10 days to die and it was NOT her choice. My friend can't believe her mom and aunt listened to the doctor and agreed with his orders. I asked what was put on the death certificate, thinking it would be something medical.
It was DEHYDRATION. Needless to say, I was shocked. I hope people have woken up to the fact that doctors are not gods and they should not be obeyed, like they are.
Pepper you are so RIGHT. I hope so too.
If I might relay a personal experience. When my father had cancer (this was in the mid 80's), as my mother was deceased, it was my responsibility to care for him, which I did gladly. It was an honor and a privilege, he was such a good man. I was 25 at the time.
A Catholic sister who came regularly to give him communion said to me, when I was upset by something that had happened, YOU are your father's ADVOCATE. Until that moment I had not realized that is exactly what I had been doing and the way I should continue to approach his care.
When his doctor made an error about the amount of injection medication to give him and went on vacation (I didn't have enough medicine and fortunately was able to convince the hospital pharmacy of the mistake and they gave me more), I told my uncle, my father's brother, about the doctor's mistake. My uncle responded that someone so educated would not make such a mistake. I told my uncle EVERYBODY is capable of making mistakes even doctors and explained to him how the doctor miscalculated. My uncle insisted the doctor would NOT have made that mistake (I can assure you my father would have disagreed with my uncle.) and was concerned that perhaps I was taking the drugs. I was incredulous. My uncle would rather have believed I was taking drugs (drugs have NEVER been a weakness or even a temptation for me) than that the doctor had made a mathematical mistake. It was then that I realized many people are of the erroneous opinion that doctors are infallible. This is one of the many facts of life I was to find astounding as a young adult.
There were many times throughout his illness that I had to advocate for the proper adjustment for his care as in more pain medication, and eventually pain medication delivered intravenously, etc. Had I NOT done so my father's suffering would have been far more severe. Fortunately, no one at that time suggested any measures to shorten his life. And had they, I would NOT have been fooled. But I understand from my conversation with my uncle many people might be.
I continued to care for my father at home (I had had some nursing training), despite pressure from a close family member, who had just put his father-in law in a nursing home, that I put mine in one, and despite pressure from the very same uncle I mentioned above (whose family cared for him at home when he became ill with cancer), that I put my father in the hospital. I had worked in both and knew I was capable of delivering better and more constant care. I NEVER doubted those decisions, but as time progresses and I read more and more horror stories regarding medical institutions, including the story you relayed, I am even happier we stuck to the original strategy we decided as a family before my father became so ill.
How sad for your friend.
"I wonder if that fact has set precedent for not allowing a person to have food and water, who doesn't even have a feeding tube and can still eat by mouth. Interesting."
Greer's order has most certainly established precedent and a MOST dangerous one. It was DELIBERATE and INTENTIONAL on Greer's part. Terri's case was used for this purpose by Euthanasia enthusiasts, and was ordained from the outset.
Our sincere thanks to all!! Keep us posted.
Saundra, the Terri Dailies got stuck in bloggers & personal. Nobody can find it. If someone is looking for the May 11th Dailies, please have them freepmail me and I'll ping them there. Thanks, floriduh voter
Les, we are joining protester Lisa Saturday at 4:00 pm at the intersection of 66th St. and 102nd Ave. N. and parking at the bank pkg lot. I don't know how many are going to be with her but I have another sign to make. FV
Thank you for posting links to those two articles.
CHILLING!!!!!!!!!
I've heard that if you disagree with Greer or leaders who voted for Terri, he will get in your face, no matter who you are. Guess that's what happens when you go over to the dark side, you just keeping veering off track.
Greer's future: I'm seeing him flipping out at some point. Can you imagine being responsible for someone's death?
Once the awards stop, he's going to experience inner turmoil from his deliberate actions to starve and dehydrate Terri to death.
I agree. Greer will "flip out". He knows he blew it and most people know it, too. He made the fatal judgment error. Now he has to live with it. An innocent disabled American paid the price with her life.
FR nitpickers, don't bother flaming me for not using html for this. I won't reply to your kind.
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/printer_7760.shtml
Well, if you find the Terri Dailies, please ping me. I have no idea where they are and I feel sad that someone at FR pushed them aside. I will never get over what happened to Terri. It's fresh in my mind and will continue to be. I want to be kept abreast of all the news about Terri. All the news - so that her death will not have been in vain.
If I didn't already, I'll ping you to the Terri Dailies. pushed aside is right. We'll do better in June 2005. That's a promise. FV
FR nitpickers, don't bother flaming me for not using html for this. I won't reply to your kind.
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/printer_7760.shtml
(I know you're not a nitpicker SD but they swarm like bees to honey when I don't use Html.
I wonder if we have the leadership among us to work toward a statue of Terri or some other permanent monument to
life and liberty to remind our nation - never again?
This might give us a place to put our energies whilst the
wheels of justice slowly grind.
I read it. And thanks Charlite for posting it here.
And I look for articles about her case every day.
Your list of 3 is great. I tried to save the links
but got too many others.
You mention a dehydration case back in the 1970s.
I didn't know it was going on back then. I have a
NYS Medical society article by a Dr. Rosner discussing
the change in definitions, and deploring it. That was
1988. How painful that must be for your friend.
Terri Dailies? Pls tell me what they are.
That is the greatest idea I have heard yet!! How do we make it happen?
Terri is one of the most prominent casualties in the culture war. Her suffering and death deserve to be so remembered!
Well done!
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.