Terri Schiavo has passed away

CNN ^ | 3/31 1005 | CNN

[Eurotwit]

Breaking now on CNN

[gardencatz]

That doesn't discount anything I said. I wasn't disputing she got Easter Communion and last rites, but said they were different from viaticum. Her priest should have been able to have daily visits with her as she was dying. Nor does it mention the way in which she received the Eucharist from her priest. Her brother was talking about being "assisted" by the hospice chaplain with (I think) Sean Hannity. However, MS "granting" her communion on Easter hardly qualifies as being able to practice her religion freely.

Cindie

[general_re]

Novel argument, but novelty is not a virtue in law. You're basically asking the court to ignore the language of the bill, which plainly makes injunctive relief discretionary, ignore the legislative history, which clearly indicates that Congress was aware of their ability to mandate relief but specifically rejected it, ignore the standards for injunctive relief that have served pretty well for about seventy years now, and instead invent a whole new standard for injunctions that is somehow based on what Congress and/or the Constitution really meant. Right. And this is our new "conservative" judiciary, is it?

[general_re]

I'm familiar with viaticum, thanks. Nevertheless, it's a nonstarter from a legal standpoint - her husband is plainly empowered to make those decisions on her behalf.

[AndrewC]

Novel argument, but novelty is not a virtue in law. You're basically asking the court to ignore the language of the bill, which plainly makes injunctive relief discretionary, ignore the legislative history, which clearly indicates that Congress was aware of their ability to mandate relief but specifically rejected it, ignore the standards for injunctive relief that have served pretty well for about seventy years now, and instead invent a whole new standard for injunctions that is somehow based on what Congress and/or the Constitution really meant. Right. And this is our new "conservative" judiciary, is it?

Following the clear words of the Constitution is not a novel argument. We have judges for a reason, whenever there is an apparent conflict within the law they should resolve it. As I said due process is required. The sanctity of injunctions are not. There is no inventing of a new right. It is the functioning of the government that must be adjusted to fit the law. That includes the judiciary. They were given a new jurisdiction. TADA. They have to be judges. TADA. They are supposed to use blindfolds and scales. TADA. The Constitution outweighs their damned procedures. TADA. They failed to uphold the Constitution. BRRRRAAAP.

[NYCVirago]

There is an alternate explanation, of course - he honestly wished for and hoped for her recovery at first, and he did apparently take steps in the early years to promote her recovery. Then as time passed and it became clear that she was not going to recover, he began considering what she might have wanted in such an event. Obviously, I don't read minds, and hence cannot say what was really going through his head at any given moment, but some process like that that would seem to explain the sequence of events fairly plausibly.

The problem with that is that his and his attorney's spin has been that she's essentially been brain-dead for 15 years, not 8. Why not try to pull the feeding tube 15 years ago? After all, since Schiavo claims that's what Terri would have wanted, why the wait?

As for your "reading minds" comment, isn't that essentially what the judge in this case did? Read Terri's mind via her what her husband alleged she commented, and assume that an alleged remark about ventilators meant that she would prefer to be starved to death? And as disability activists have pointed out repeatedly, even those who claim they "wouldn't want to live that way" when it comes to being disabled often change their minds if they actually do become disabled.

[Proud Conservative2]

"I guess blaming Jeb and the President is the easiest thing to do..........even if it's not the right thing to do.
Solving the problem is much more complex than sitting at a computer bashing Bushes is."


Isn't this a little presumptuous of you to think that those of us who find fault with the Bush boys have done nothing to help Terri? Tell me, what have you done other than sit at the computer and defend two men who failed miserably to do their jobs....

We are calling this as we see it. Perhaps you might pray a little on your attitude towards those who disagree with you.

[general_re]

Following the clear words of the Constitution is not a novel argument.

Fine, but "injunction" isn't one of those words. Even worse for you, the Constitution doesn't specify what "due process" is - it leaves it to Congress to define it, and frankly if they want to define "due process" as the dunking test to see if she floats, so be it. So how about, rather than finding injunctive relief emanating from some penumbra somewhere, we get Congress to do its damn job? You know, it's just crazy enough to work...

[Randy Papadoo]

A Catholic priest has spoken on Fox News, stating that those who were involved in the feeding tube removal and Terri's subsequent passing were "murderers". As have many of the posters in FR.

It hs been my belief all along that these posters were following their Catholic beliefs, and that's understandable, within a Catholic framework.

However, we are a secular nation,as is FR, and, in the Schiavo case, the huge uproar from the Catholics stemmed from a "definitional" belief, that sustaining a life by means of a feeding tube was entirely different from other "life support" measures.

No religion takes precedence over any other, nor over the secular laws, rules, marital sanctions, et al. Under long-established procedures, removing a feeding tube from a PVS patient and allowing death to occur is moral and acceptable.

The Catholic "feeding tube" position could never prevail.
And they all knew it, but in utter frustration, they lashed out and accused everyone else of being "murderers".

In doing so, they have deliberately sinned, for they have BORNE FALSE WITNESS.

There is nothing in the Catholic religion that says non-Catholics must abide by Catholic rules. Therefore the secular people are not murderers in any way, shape, or form. That's just a Catholic outcry, and applies to no one but other Catholics.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks, ya'll. :)

Not a problem here. I won't link there again.

I didn't see anything on the link other than Terri's pic when I posted it here ..... that is, not until a while later I found out it was removed because of other unacceptable content there. If I had noticed the other stuff on the site there, I also would have simply hosted and posted the pic instead.

It's been an extremely busy day trying to keep up with all the threads.

I can imagine! I don't know how ya'll do it. :)

Dubya: Meek, you're right! FreeRepublic.com IS the "Best site on the 'Net!"

[HiTech RedNeck]

In doing so, they have deliberately sinned, for they have BORNE FALSE WITNESS.

There is nothing in the Catholic religion that says non-Catholics must abide by Catholic rules. Therefore the secular people are not murderers in any way, shape, or form. That's just a Catholic outcry, and applies to no one but other Catholics.

Stuff it. God makes the rules on what is a murder. Not society.

[Proud Conservative2]

I am not familiar with that particular case, but I have first hand knowledge of a case in St. Louis a few years ago.

A man named Robert Urbin was in a coma for over 20 years due to a poor diagnosis after and auto accident on a rainy night. The police said he staggered and his speech was slurred, so they assumed he had been drinking. Instead, he had suffered brain damage. By the time this was realized he had drifted into a coma. His wife kept him at home as much as possible. She had lifts installed in the home and was proud of the fact that the only time he ever got bedsores was when he had to be hospitalized for any length of time. In one of his hospital trips, Bob woke up after over 20 years. He was coherant, though speech was difficult. Doris said they were able to get his children and grandchildren there . His kids were very young when this happened. She said he spent all of that day and part of the next with them, he told her that he was aware of the care she gave him. Sadly he slipped back into the coma again. I have since moved away and do not know if he ever came out of it again.

Terri never had a chance with that monster in charge of her care.

[Mudboy Slim]

The Leftist Judiciary is DEAD...MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

I don't think money was the reasoning behind Michael's refusal to give up Terri to her parents, I think it was spite...I saw the transcript where Mikey said he wouldn't give up Terri becuz her parents had been a pain in his butt...MUD

[bandleader]

I couldn't agree MORE!When I heard that SCUM-BAG lawyer(Michael Schiavo's)answer the first question"How Can You Say She Died Peacefully When She Was Starved To Death",I started SCREAMING at my radio!!If I had been there(press conference),I would have had to be physically restrained from pummeling him senseless!!!

[general_re]

The problem with that is that his and his attorney's spin has been that she's essentially been brain-dead for 15 years, not 8.

Why assume that he realized that from the beginning? His actions would seem consistent with a later realization that she wasn't getting better.

As for your "reading minds" comment, isn't that essentially what the judge in this case did?

In a sense, I suppose, although he had a bit more to go on that I do - we may not find the husband's testimony believable, but it does exist. Evaluating the veracity and worth of such things is pretty much why we have judges. Obviously, a lot of folks disagree with his decision, but it appears to me that the laws were followed in substantial part, and the law is how we're supposed to go about getting justice. If there was no justice in this case, then the thing to do is change the law so this outcome doesn't happen again.

[eeevil conservative]

Her name is Sarah Scantlin

[eeevil conservative]

You are NOT going to believe this story I found!!!!



On Monday, February 20th, my grandmother was admitted to a local Catholic hospital with a fracture above the left knee. She was alert and orientated upon admission but became unresponsive after 48 hours and was transferred to hospice on the fourth day and died upon arrival.

I was in Mexico City conducting a pilgrimage and unable to be at her side so there were many questions upon my return. The doctors could not tell me the cause of her death so I began to search for the answers and was fortunate to obtain the hospital chart. It then became very clear that my grandmother had been targeted for euthanasia!

Carefully tracing the events it was evident that my grandmother became lethargic and unresponsive after each pain medication. She would awaken between times saying “I don’t want to die, I want to live to see Johnny ordained”; “I want to see Greta walk.” Johnny was her grandson studying in Rome to be a priest and Greta was her new great-grandchild. Even though over-sedation is one of the most common problems with the elderly she was immediately diagnosed as having a stroke. When she became comatose a completely hopeless picture of recovery was portrayed by the nurses and doctors who reported that she had a stroke, was having seizures, going in and out of a coma, and was in renal failure.

The truth however can be found in the hospital chart which indicates that everything was normal! The CAT scan was negative for stroke or obstruction, the EEG states “no seizure activity” and all blood work was normal indicating that she was not in renal failure! How were we to know that the coma was drug induced and that all the tests were normal? Why would they lie?

Looking over the chart it is clear that obtaining a “no code” status was the next essential step in executing her death. This is an order denying medical intervention in emergency situations. The “no code” was aggressively sought by the medical profession from the moment of her admission but was not granted by my family until it appeared that she was dying and there was no hope. Minutes after obtaining the “no code” a lethal dose of Dilantin (an anti-seizure medication) was administered intravenously over an 18-hour period. It put her into a deeper coma, slowing the respiratory rate and compromising the cardiovascular system leading to severe hemodynamic instability. The following day she was transferred to hospice and died upon arrival. The death certificate reads “Death by natural causes.”

My grandmother had no terminal diagnosis but the hospice admitting record indicates two doctors signed their name stating that she was terminally ill and would die within six months. How was this determined? The first doctor, who was the director of hospice, never came to evaluate her or even read the chart. More interesting is the fact that the second doctor was on vacation and returned three days after her death! Obviously these signatures were not obtained before or even upon her admission to hospice. How can this be professionally, morally or even legally acceptable? Can anyone therefore be admitted to hospice to die? It certainly seems possible especially if sedated or unresponsive. In fact, this hospice has recently been under investigation for accepting hundreds of patients who had no terminal illness.


THERE'S MORE!!! YOU HAVE TO READ IT ALL!!!

http://straightupwsherri.blogspot.com/