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.
Hentoff and Ralph Nader, another left-winger who spoke out for Terri, remind us that it isn't WHO says it, it's WHAT THEY SAY. Our goal is to get at the truth. It doesn't matter who contributes to that end or where they are on the political spectrum. The only question is, "Is what they say true?"
To fix on "who" says it is the logical fallacy known as "ad hominem." The fallacy is simply that it's a diversion to discuss the messenger instead of the message. "Who" said it is irrelevant.
For instance, some of the WPPFF folks are amazingly fixated on Dr. Hammesfahr. The party line is that he wasn't really nominated for a Nobel Prize. The answer to that is, "So what?" It has absolutely nothing to do with Terri's case. It's just ad hominem, a diversion away from the questions at hand.
Not one of the doctors who decreed death for Terri spent as much as one full hour with her. Dr. Hammesfahr spent ten hours with her over three days and wrote up extensive and wonderfully clear notes on his testing. Unlike the others, he knew he was interacting with a human being, with a naturally shy young woman. He was friendly to her, he took time to get to know her, so Terri responded much better to him than she did to brusque, unsympathetic strangers like Dr. Cranford.
In other words, the death doctors botched their job and made Terri pay with her life for their own mistakes. They probably went in there with a preconceived idea that Terri was PVS. They treated her like a vegetable and surprise! she didn't respond well. So they wrote that she was PVS.
But Terri responded well to Dr. Hammesfahr, who took the trouble to treat her as a person.
I think we would be able to find the artist without
much difficulty and even raise the funds. I think finding
a place in FL where it could be permanently situated would
be next to impossible and in DC it would be too much of
a reminder of the failure of the powers that be to save her. So where could it be located?
Prayers that the good Lord will give us a vision!!
Terri's legacy must be a new respect for human life throughout the Wesern world.
If Terri's murder can lead to strong protection for the old, the sick, the disabled, (and the unborn!), her death will not have been in vain.
I should add that we ALL must be prepared to FIGHT for such respect and protection.
The judge didn't judge. They held the line.
typo correction: The judges didn't judge. They held the line. Terri was so alert and aware, it was ashame that she was hidden from the world so they could continue the charade that she was gone 15 years ago. Guess that's why they fired 3 nurses halfway through, who had relationships with Terri and were sympathetic to her because they knew she wasn't pvs or even close.
It's the way all "evil doers" operate. Michael Jackson fired employees from "Neverland" once they caught onto his game there. Everyone who is operating dishonestly or criminally does the same thing. They get rid of the ethical, moral people around them, once those individuals see what is happening. It's the only way in which they can remain "above the law." (like musical chairs; just keep taking away chairs, changing the music........)
And yes, prayers will be enormously helpful!
I think she was sweet on Gibbs.
*You mention a dehydration case back in the 1970s.
I didn't know it was going on back then.*
This was done by the doctor and the courts were not involved because the daughters (my friend's mom & aunt)approved of it. I was shocked by it when she told me of the details about a month ago.
This happened in the late 70's. I asked her to get a copy of the death certificate which said DEHYDRATION for the cause the death. I wonder if I could post it here, with her permission, to show how long it's been going on. She said her mom worked at the same hospital as a nurse. Her mom as a nurse, was afraid to question the doctor's actions. Unbelieveable.. huh.. :( :(
She also told me that the rumor at the hospital was that this particular doctor did similar things all the time. Perhaps this is what is meant, when some posters tell us - "What's the big deal - It happens all the time."
The doctor in this case, may have been some sort of a serial/ghoul killer. Very strange and weird. If the truth were known, we'd probably be very surprised to know how much this does happen in hospitals without any objection or attention. I think family members might just trust doctors too much without questioning them. Who would have thought there are doctors who do NOT have the patients best interest at heart. Guess we lived in a fairy tale world before. Now we know different and it's ugly.
"Now we know different and it's ugly."
It's ugly, barbaric, and uncivilized.
I keep wondering why it's taking the autopsy so long. Surely it's been completed.
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.