SCHIAVO
THERESA MARIE
BELOVED WIFE
BORN DECEMBER 3, 1963
DEPARTED THIS EARTH
FEBRUARY 25, 1990
AT PEACE MARCH 31, 2005
[image of a dove]
I KEPT MY PROMISE
Posted on 06/19/2005 8:19:40 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Just when it seemed that every liberal commentator on the Terri Schiavo case was starting to sound like Barney Frank, the great Joan Didion published a long and remarkable article on the case in the quite far left New York Review of Books of June 9. Frank, of course, took the occasion of last week's Schiavo autopsy results as yet another opportunity to denounce Republicans as "this fanatical party willing to impose its own views on people."
For those of you still somehow unaware, "imposing their views" is a semiofficial Democratic meme or code phrase meaning "religious people who vote their moral views and disagree with us." Didion, on the other hand, cut through all the rhetoric about imposing views and said the struggle to spare Schiavo's life was "essentially a civil rights intervention." This is a phrase of great clarity, particularly since Democrats have a long track record of protecting civil rights and Republicans don't. Behind the grotesque media circus, the two parties were essentially switching roles. In the first round of public opinion--the polls--the GOP took a beating. But in the long run, the American people tend to rally behind civil rights, and the party that fights to uphold them is likely to prevail.
On the "rational" or "secular" side of the dispute, Didion wrote, there was "very little acknowledgment that there could be large numbers of people, not all of whom could be categorized as 'fundamentalists' or 'evangelicals,' who were genuinely troubled by the ramifications of viewing a life as inadequate and so deciding to end it." Amen. There was also little admission that this was a "merciful euthanasia" controversy posing as a "right to die" case. Many of us understood, as the autopsy has now shown, that Schiavo was severely damaged, but a national psychodrama built around the alleged need to end a life without clear consent is likely to induce anxieties in all but the most dedicated right-to-die adherents.
"The ethical argument" Didion did not conclude that ending Schiavo's life was a wrongful act, but she seemed to be leaning that way. She wrote: "What might have seemed a central argument in this case--the ethical argument, the argument about whether, when it comes to life and death, any of us can justifiably claim the ability or the right to judge the value of any other being's life--remained largely unexpressed, mentioned, when at all, only to be dismissed."
That issue was slurred and muffled by the media and by shrewd, though completely misleading, right-to-die arguments that distracted us from the core issue of consent. George Felos, the attorney of Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, told Larry King, "Quality of life is one of those tricky things because it's a very personal and individual decision. I don't think any of us have the right to make a judgment about quality of life for another."
Here Felos piously got away with adopting a deadly argument against his own position by presenting it as somehow bolstering his case. This can happen only when the media are totally incurious or already committed to your side. Michael Schiavo made a somewhat similar eye-popping argument to King: "I think that every person in this country should be scared. The government is going to trample all over your private and personal matters. It's outrageous that these people that we elect are not letting you have your civil liberties to choose what you want when you die." Americans were indeed scared that they might one day be in Terri Schiavo's predicament.
But Michael was speaking as though Terri Schiavo's wishes in the matter were clear and Republicans were determined to trample them anyway. Yet her wishes, as Didion says, were "essentially unconfirmable" and based on bits of hearsay reported by people whose interests were not obviously her own--Michael Schiavo and two of his relatives.
One hearsay comment--"no tubes for me" --came while Terri Schiavo was watching television. "Imagine it," Didion wrote. "You are in your early 20s. You are watching a movie, say on Lifetime, in which someone has a feeding tube. You pick up the empty chip bowl. 'No tubes for me,' you say as you get up to fill it. What are the chances you have given this even a passing thought?" According to studies cited last year in the Hastings Center Report, Didion reminds us, almost a third of written directives, after periods as short as two years, no longer reflect the wishes of those who made them. And here nothing was written down at all.
The autopsy confirms the extraordinary damage to Schiavo and discredits those who tried to depict the husband as a wife-beater. But the autopsy has nothing to say about the core moral issue: Do people with profound disabilities no longer have a right to live? That issue is still on the table.
Not his original court order in 2000.
The one to which you're referring was in response to a requested "experimental procedure", or so it was ruled because of a mistake made in the submission of the request.
It was never resubmitted.
It was filed in February of this year. I think it was denied in March.
This is the final court order that lead to Terri's death.
If Terri had a Living Will or Power of Attorney, we never would have heard of her. If Florida did not accept oral declarations, we never would have heard of her. If either of the interested parties had conceded, we never would have heard of her.
We ended up, however, with a Perfect Storm.
"Why not have a review board analogous to a pardon board in criminal cases ... Texas gives the governor the power to ..."
Well, you're adding an additional layer and you're still putting the final decision into one person's hands -- a political person, no less.
But, if that's the decision of the citizens of that state, then that's fine by me.
"The feeding port could have been maintained by ..."
A surgically implanted feeding tube is medical care. Even in a professional setting, "she suffered from bile stones and kidney stones, according to court papers, and had to have her gallbladder removed. She has ''drop foot,'' where her foot twists downward, and the ensuing pressure resulted in the amputation of her left little toe. She frequently developed urinary tract infections, diarrhea and vaginitis. Several cysts were removed from her neck. Several times, her feeding tube got infected."
The citizens of the state of Florida decided via Terri's Law that Terri should not be killed. It was the judges in the state of Florida that decided that they knew better and declared Terri's Law that was enacted by the Congress of Florida unconstitutional. Therefore it was not the citizens that decided it was the judges.
The Amendment deals mainly with the rights of prisoners and those under suspicion of a crime. However to float your little boat
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
she received due process through her guardian. She could have been represented by a state appointed lawyer and the outcome would have been the same
I suspect, however, if the State orders your death, you will be screaming to the high heavens for your Constitutional rights and federal review.
No sir, I would not. I would appeal only to the state Supreme Court and that's it. And if you think that is false bravado, I assure you to the depth of my soul I mean that. Federalist #45 is clear and I will not allow my life, or death, to add to the destruction of federalism that Republicans are looking to continue. You want to use my lifeless body for one of your crusades think again.
The assumptionthat a judges, especially an elected judge is NOT a political person? That's why these guys get away with murder if you will pardon the implication. In this day and age, does anything think a judge is impartial? In any age, for that matter?
I asked you first. Wassa matter? Can't support your statement?
This is getting stupid. YOU falsely stated that the morphine had been ordered because of the "extreme right to life fanatics" and you said that it was injected into a "vegetable". See post #138 to refresh your memory. Then, in post #229 I asked you to support your statement.
You made the statement first - a false statement - you support it.
LOL!!! Sure I don't. And your very statement also shows me you never read the Wolfson report. Let's look at Scalia's statement in context?
Justice Scalia has admonished us to rely upon and accept the role of state lawmakers and laws to address issues of this very nature. Though his point of reference was Missouri law relative to an evidentiary standard, his message remains that it is up to states to establish the rules and guidelines in these matters.Tell you what. Go find 9 people in Pinellas County that will set the standard for you in Florida. Because Scalia was clear in Cruzan. It is not, nor was it ever, the business of the national government to get involved with issues such as this. Of course I suppose that could be one small reason they refused to hear the case time and again.I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide - including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable. (emphasis added) Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)
And while he might not agree with a particular state's method for addressing a matter – he not only defers to the states – but further admonishes us to avoid the politicization of legislation in these matters:
I am concerned, from the tenor of today's opinions, that we are poised to confuse that [497 U.S. 261, 293] enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortion - requiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from Term to Term. That would be a great misfortune. Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)
But I don't understand Scalia's decision in Cruzan. Right.....
Got it? One more time, she had the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment.
The court found that previous statements made by her provided "clear and convincing" evidence that she did not want to live in her present condition and ordered the feeding tube removed.
We're not talking about hunger strikes, or suicide, or anything else. I thought I asked you to keep your eye on the ball -- it's everywhere but.
Next time you go off-topic, I will not respond to your post. Just so you know.
Then what business did the judges in Florida have in overruling the Congress and declaring that the law that was passed by the Florida Congress, Terri's Law, was unconstitutional? They did not like the law enacted by the Florida Congress so they declared it unconstitutional and in so doing made there own law, which resulted in the eventual death of Terri.
The court found that previous statements made by her provided "clear and convincing" evidence that she did not want to live in her present condition and ordered the feeding tube removed.
We're not talking about hunger strikes, or suicide, or anything else. I thought I asked you to keep your eye on the ball -- it's everywhere but.
Read my lips, she did not die because medical treatment was removed.
Got it? One more time, she died because the judge ordered that her guardian shall remove all hydration and nutrition. She did not die because medical treatment for her ailments or injuries but was dehydrated/starved to death. Unless you count requiring hydration and nutrition as a disease, disfunction, or ailment.
We're not talking about life-saving medical devices like a respirator. We're not talking about a "vegetable" that was hooked to machines, tubes, and wires that were keeping her alive. She had a constitutional right to have her life protected and to not be denied her right to life.
The next time you go off-topic, I will continue to tell the truth about what happened in Pinellas, Florida where a woman was killed by court ordered dehydration/starvation.
Listen very carefully. I'm going to say this one last time. I don't care what Florida's Congress, Supreme Court, or governor chose to do. The main point was that the issue remained within the state, which is what Scalia was pointing out. How Floridians hammer it out is their business, not mine as a North Carolinian, nor that of the US Congress. You want to go stand in Pinellas County and shout Ich bin ein Floridian be my guest. But plan to live there or stay out of the state business of Florida
SCHIAVO
THERESA MARIE
BELOVED WIFE
BORN DECEMBER 3, 1963
DEPARTED THIS EARTH
FEBRUARY 25, 1990
AT PEACE MARCH 31, 2005
[image of a dove]
I KEPT MY PROMISE
And if a person has a Living Will or Power of Attorney and requests in writing that they not live in a brain damaged state, with no hope of recovery, supported by artificial means, that's euthanasia also?
If someone says they don't want to live in a brain damaged state and someone actively KILLS them (through dehydration/starvation, suffocation, lethal injection, gunshot wound, etc) it is euthanasia which is another word for murder.
Here's the original court order to which I was referring:(see page 10, second to the last paragraph)
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
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.