Romney says government was wrong in Schiavo case

St. Petersburg Times ^ | March 11, 2007 | Adam C. Smith

[EternalVigilance]

TAMPA -- He's campaigning hard for support from Republican social conservatives, but presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Saturday he disagreed with the government's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.

"I think it's probably best to leave these kinds of matters in the hands of the courts," Romney said in a television interview airing today.

[supercat]

Sorry, supercat, but as much as would love to hear it I'm no expert on sounds/movies.
I did hower found the lyrics and I would post here for others to read if it's ok with you.

I've posted the lyrics enough times, I think, but thanks for the offer. If you can find a computer that can play those files, give them a listen. Even the low-bit-rate one sounds pretty good.

[retMD]

Read the guardian-ad-litem's report. She had three swallowing tests and failed them all. Some people in PVS can tolerate small amounts of saliva, but they can't take water or other liquids. Also, IIRC, the autopsy report confirmed that she would not have been able to swallow.

[George W. Bush]

From Wikipedia:

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution says: “No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....”

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says: “No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....”

The Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process is applicable only to actions of the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment contains virtually the same phrase, but expressly applied to the states. The Supreme Court has basically interpreted the two clauses identically, as Justice Felix Frankfurter once explained in a concurring opinion: "To suppose that 'due process of law' meant one thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth is too frivolous to require elaborate rejection."

Romney, a Harvard attorney/MBA, appears to know his Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Schiavo was simply the wrong test case for the pro-life crowd. This misstep was damaging to the anti-euthanasia movement and, I think, played a role in our '06 defeats. The voters decided the GOP had been in Washington too long if they were getting involved in something like the Schiavo case.

[EternalVigilance]

You can't deny it EV! If he was just an empty panderer then he would have either avoided the topic or he would taken a different position.

It is hard for me to imagine a more shameless panderer than Mitt Romney.

[IIntense]

You're a liberal.to Buck W.

Obviously you and I got a totally different understanding of "...our government's main job is PROTECTING EACH CITIZEN." For example, I believe the government has the responsibility to protect us from foreign attacks. Therefore, they are charged with using all available defense technology, plus worldwide diplomacy to insure the safety of U.S. citizens.

I don't read in this statement a demand for government to support us in our daily lives.

[EternalVigilance]

So, "Doc", do you recommend dehydrating to death your patients who can't swallow?

[baubau]

This one, too, got me tears rolling down my cheeks and sides of my nose.

She's got a smile that it seems to me
Reminds me of childhood memories
Where everything
Was as fresh as the bright blue sky
Now and then when I see her face
She takes me away to that
special place
And if I stared too long
I'd probably break down and cry
Sweet child o' mine
Sweet love of mine
She's got eyes of the bluest skies
As if they thought of rain
I hate to look into those eyes
And see an ounce of pain
Her hair reminds me
of a warm safe place
Where as a child I'd hide
And pray for the thunder
And the rain
To quietly pass me by
Sweet child o' mine
Sweet love of mine
Where do we go
Where do we go now
Where do we go
Sweet child o' mine
~ "Sweet Child O' Mine" -Copyright Guns N' Roses 1988

[supercat]

Schiavo was simply the wrong test case for the pro-life crowd. This misstep was damaging to the anti-euthanasia movement and, I think, played a role in our '06 defeats. The voters decided the GOP had been in Washington too long if they were getting involved in something like the Schiavo case.

Can you offer any remotely plausible explanation as to how Terri may have come to be incapacitated without Michael Schiavo having grievously injured her?

The case against Scott Peterson was circumstantial as well, but I suspect he's probably rather jealous of Michael Schiavo.

[EternalVigilance]

The Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process is applicable only to actions of the federal government.

A ridiculous assertion, foolishly applied. No one, the federal government, the states, or any individual, has the right to alienate the God-given rights to life, liberty or private property...of which the right to life is first and preeminent.

Never, in the founders' worst nightmares, did they ever dream that in America, otherwise intelligent people would argue that murder could be constitutional.

[retMD]

So, "Doc", do you recommend dehydrating to death your patients who can't swallow?

Foolish question. There's a big difference between "just can't swallow" and no higher brain function. If I had no higher brain function, had only brainstem reflexes, I would not want to be kept alive, and have so directed in writing. And if I were in that state, I wouldn't know the difference as to how I died.

[BykrBayb]

Apparently that can be said for a few folks around here. Did anybody count up how many posts there are on this thread from people who don't know the judicial branch is a branch of the government? How many have never heard of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the Dred Scott decision that inspired it? Those few detractors who have heard of it, seem to believe there is an implied exception of any citizen incapable of standing up in court to assert those rights, due to age (too young or too old), or infirmity. I find that especially ironic, when reading the following from Justis Curtis' dissenting argument:

But it is insisted, that whatever other powers Congress may have respecting the territory of the United States, the subject of negro slavery forms an exception.

The Constitution declares that Congress shall have power to make 'all needful rules and regulations' respecting the territory belonging to the United States.

The assertion is, though the Constitution says all, it does not mean all-though it says all, without qualification, it means all except such as allow or prohibit slavery. It cannot be doubted that it is incumbent on those who would thus introduce an exception not found in the language of the instrument, to exhibit some solid and satisfactory reason, drawn from the subject-matter or the purposes and objects of the clause, the context, or from other provisions of the Constitution, showing that the words employed in this clause are not to be understood according to their clear, plain, and natural signification.

If you replace the words and phrases related to slavery, with words and phrases related to abortion and euthanasia, you have an accurate and up-to-date assessment of today's deniers of Constitutional Rights.

[IIntense]

...to keep the girl's parents from giving her a drink of water?

And in America. Who can imagine that a court would enforce this?

Then again, we don't have to look too far for other examples of court-ordered or court-sanctioned evils. As long as most of us who are outraged by many of the destructive decisions some of them make just wring our hands in frustration and anger, who's left to stand up to them?

[retMD]

Can you offer any remotely plausible explanation as to how Terri may have come to be incapacitated without Michael Schiavo having grievously injured her?

Yes. arrhythmias.

[George W. Bush]

Terri's husband was despicable, a man who wanted her to die so he could get some insurance money. It's one reason why this case became so emotionally charged.

Even so, we're constitutionalists supposedly. This is exactly what is meant by being a textual originalist on the Court.

Now, if you want to pass laws to apply to these issues as a whole and spell out all the criteria, then fine. But unless you do, keep Congress off the bench and keep the judges from legislating.

Still, you have to feel badly for Terri's parents. But there is little reason to believe she was really still with us at the time of her death.

One of the problems with the intervention in the Schiavo case is that once we start doing this, we're opening the door for outside parties and the government deciding these matters for us, not the immediate family. And Terri's immediate family was her despicable husband. Legally, that's what happens when you marry someone. When you marry them, they become the person who decides this for you if you are too incapacitated to speak up. If you want something else then you'd better leave a very specific document spelling out your wishes.

[supercat]

Yes. arrhythmias.

And what would have caused them to occur once and never again?

[EternalVigilance]

She had plenty of "function." She responded to, and enjoyed the company of, her family and friends. Anyone who tells you otherwise is pushing a pro-death agenda. I personally interviewed a number of people who all told me the same things about her responses.

But, in any case, mere men have no right to play God and determine when another should exit this vale of tears.

[EternalVigilance]

Great post, and amen.

[BykrBayb]

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

The Bill of Rights lists rights that The People have. There is no exception allowing the State's to deprive citizens of their rights.

[Gelato]

Dear Mr. Shelton,

As a way of introduction, I am Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo's brother. I am writing you regarding your article, 'Her soul had gone, her body was ready', which contains many inaccuracies. It is my understanding that the substance for this article was obtained from your interview with Mr. Schiavo. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2006/10/30/hschiavo30.xml

My family no longer pays attention to Mr. Schiavo's self promotion or do we wish to engage in resurrecting old disputes. Our present efforts are dedicated, via Terri's Foundation, to aid and protect the disabled and elderly from experiencing the same horrific abuse that my sister experienced.

However, whenever an article is published that endorses Mr. Schiavo's total disregard for honesty, it is incumbent upon us to provide an accurate accounting of the facts, which can be substantiated by court documents or by simply researching Mr. Schiavo's own words.

In your column, Mr. Schiavo's assertion that the money awarded to Terri only enabled him to pay her medical bills is patently false. At a 1992 medical malpractice trial, Mr. Schiavo testified that he believed Terri would live a normal lifespan and that he not only fully intended to care for my sister the rest of her life, but that he also intended to bring Terri home and afford her lifelong care and rehabilitation.

Part of Mr. Schiavo's 1992 testimony:


Q: You're a young man. Your life is ahead of you. When you look up the road, what do you see for yourself?
MS: I see myself hopefully finishing school and taking care of my wife.

Q: Where do you want to take care of your wife?
MS: I want to bring her home.

Q: If you had the resources available to you, if you had the equipment and the people, would you do that?
MS: Yes, I would, in a heartbeat.

Q: How do you feel about being married to Terri now.
MS: I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my marriage vows.

Q: You believe in your wedding vows, what do you mean by that?
MS: I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that.


The jury agreed and close to $800,000 net was earmarked for Terri's lifelong therapy and rehabilitation. Sadly, as soon as the money was in the bank, Mr. Schiavo had a change of heart and began refusing my sister treatment. That is what caused the rift between Mr. Schiavo and my family. And it was just a few months subsequent to this breach that he effectively abandoned my sister by committing to another woman and eventually having children by her. Medical documents will verify that none of the award money was used for Terri's rehabilitation as he promised; instead more than $600,000 of this money was paid to Mr. Schiavo's attorney in his pursuit to end my sister's life. This all can be validated in court records.

I also find it offensive for Mr. Schiavo to claim that Terri had no hope of recovery, and that somehow he was able to conclude that my sister's "soul was gone", leading one to falsely believe that Mr. Schiavo is an expert in theology.

Mr. Schiavo apparently has forgotten what he wrote in his 1991 diary commenting on how encouraged he was; not only that Terri was improving, but that she was showing signs of awareness. This was also confirmed in Terri's medical records by Terri's nurses noting that she was beginning to speak, saying words such as "mommy" and "stop".

Mr. Schiavo also fails to disclose that there were over 40 medical professionals, many being distinguished neurologists that believed Terri should have had been provided the chance to improve from the new medical technology that is currently available. Most importantly however, was that many of these doctors believed Terri was not in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) and could have benefited significantly from rehabilitation. Nonetheless, contrary to the doctors willingness to help, all rehabilitation was denied by Mr. Schiavo for more than 13 years without any credible explanation.

Additionally, I would like to remark on Mr. Schiavo's comments regarding Terri's autopsy. It seems to me that Mr. Schiavo uses the autopsy to justify Terri's death by deliberately mischaracterizing and omitting facts of the report.

I urge you to read the autopsy report issued by the Independent Medical Examiner, Dr. Jon Thogmartin. (Find Law - Terri Schiavo: Autopsy Report)

First, Dr. Thogmartin clearly stated that he was unable to conclude whether Terri was in a PVS because PVS is a clinical diagnosis (person must be alive), and cannot be confirmed by autopsy. Moreover, the consulting doctor to Dr. Thogmartin, Neuropathologist Dr. Stephen Nelson, could not even rule out that Terri could have been in a minimally conscience state (MSC), which is a higher level of consciousness then the PVS diagnosis. Even more important however, was that Terri's frontal and temporal poles and insular-cortex demonstrated relative preservation. This meant that Terri's cortex retained function and that her brain was more normal in the area that controls higher-level thinking.

And subsequent to the autopsy there were doctors that refuted many of the key findings made by the IME, including the suggestion that the autopsy proved that my sister suffered irreversible brain damage and would not have benefited from rehabilitation. Furthermore, medical literature adduces evidence that a substantial portion of the "loss in Terri's brain weight" observed postmortem, and that Terri's much-vaunted "total cortical blindness" may have been due to the dehydration to which she was subjected.

Finally, Mr. Schiavo's falsely claims that my sister had an eating disorder, but fails to mention that there was never any evidence of this allegation. To the contrary, the autopsy concluded that there were no signs that my sister suffered from any kind of eating disorder. In fact, the IME is dumbfounded as to what caused Terri's collapse while she was home alone with Mr. Schiavo at such a young age of 26.

Furthermore, it is significant to note one of the doctors sued by Mr. Schiavo for medical malpractice was later exonerated of any malpractice by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. The Agency found that the doctor was correct in his assessment that Terri did not suffer from an eating disorder prior to her collapse.

Terri was not dying. She was physically as healthy as you or I, only Terri received food and water via a feeding tube. Nonetheless, the court ruled to kill my sister based on the hearsay evidence provided by Mr. Schiavo, when in a timely fashion, just prior to a 2000 court hearing, Mr. Schiavo suddenly remembered Terri allegedly made end of life wishes. Keep in mind, Mr. Schiavo's revelation came 8 years after Terri collapsed and, as already stated, while he was living with the woman he asked to marry.

Sadly, it appears that Mr. Schiavo, and a growing number of people in our society have misplaced their true compassion. Every reason Mr. Schiavo and others use to somehow justify killing the disabled, feeling they've become some type of "burden", is every reason why we should be doing everything in our power to protect and love them unconditionally.

From the beginning, my family's only intention was to care for and give my sister the love and affection she deserved for the rest of her life. My family still mourns that the court refused this simple, humane and decent request.

Sincerely,

Bobby Schindler
11-06-06

[George W. Bush]

A ridiculous assertion, foolishly applied. No one, the federal government, the states, or any individual, has the right to alienate the God-given rights to life, liberty or private property...of which the right to life is first and preeminent.

Never, in the founders' worst nightmares, did they ever dream that in America, otherwise intelligent people would argue that murder could be constitutional.

The Founders lived in a time when medicine was little better than a morass of superstitions and often harmful practices. Like leeching poor George Washington to death.

But the Founders did specifically prohibit imposing death without due process which means the courts. They wanted a separation of powers between the branches. And the Founders did not believe in an unconditional right-to-life. They all supported the death penalty.

It was up to the courts to determine the matter. If the people disagree with the courts, they should elect state and federal legislators to define the law more specifically to suit their wishes.

This case was a perfect example of 'hard cases make bad law'. And although test cases are important, you should never let any branch of government run wild over the outcome of a single individual's case. Particularly if that individual had entrusted these decisions to a scumbag husband and left no other documents to guide the courts.