Posted on 01/29/2006 10:06:22 AM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who took a leading role in the Terry Schiavo case, said Sunday it taught him that Americans do not want the government involved in such end-of-life decisions.
Frist, considered a presidential hopeful for 2008, defended his call for further examinations of the brain-damaged Florida woman during the last days of a bitter family feud over her treatment. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state.
The case became a rallying point for right-to-life advocates, an important segment of the Republican Party. It also drew interest from those supporting the right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment and led to charges that the GOP was using a family tragedy for political gain.
Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he had any regrets regarding the Schiavo case, Frist said: "Well, I'll tell you what I learned from it, which is obvious. The American people don't want you involved in these decisions."
Schiavo, 41, died March 31, nearly two weeks after her feeding tube was removed and 15 years after her initial collapse and hospitalization. Courts in Florida had supported her husband's contention that she would not want to live in such a state. Her parents and siblings disagreed and for years fought efforts to remove her feeding tube.
An autopsy later showed that Schiavo had suffered severe, irreversible brain damage and was blind.
Frist, R-Tenn., said in the full Senate that he supported what he called "an opportunity to save Mrs. Schiavo's life." A heart surgeon, Frist had viewed video ordered by a court and taken by a board-certified neurologist who had concluded she was not in a persistent vegetative state.
Congress passed a bill to allow a federal court to review the case, and President Bush quickly returned from his Texas ranch to sign the bill into law. But a federal judge refused to order the tube reinserted, a decision upheld by a federal appeals court and the Supreme Court.
Frist was later mocked as having made a diagnosis from his office using a video screen. "I didn't make the diagnosis," Frist said Sunday. "I raised the question of whether or not she was in a persistent vegetative state."
Looking back, Frist said, "When you're taking innocent life, with parents who want that life preserved, you've got to make sure, and therefore stepping in to say, let's take one more review, that's what we did."
He added: "I accept the outcome. I don't agree with the moral sense of it."
Frist plans to leave the Senate when his second term expires in January 2007. He said Sunday he will return to his home in Tennessee and decide whether to seek the Republican nomination for president.
Gee, ya think?
Unfortunately, some aging parents are being made to feel they are "burdens."
Devaluing life in one group devalues it in all groups.
Playing God, by killing those with "poor quality of life" is the ultimate slippery slope.
The Schindlers BEGGED congress to get involved.
Her next of kin, according to long standing law, was her husband. Most of the time, family members and doctors can work out these decisions without the intervention of anyone else. In the event they can't, the local court was there to hear all sides and make a decision.
You can disagree with what was done, but we don't write law for each individual case. The question is was the process a fair one or do you want to change it? If you would change it how?
Congress was interfering only because her parents wanted them to "interfere"
But laws are often quite specific about varying situations.
Saying "the government should not be involved" is too general.
The court erred in that they should have severed the relationship with the "husband" who at that point had another family.
Her parents should have been given guardianship. Starving someone to death while her family is grieving is inhuman. There was never any proof that this is what she wanted, only the words of a "husband" who was living with and having children with another woman.
I'm a nurse, and I'm not so young. I recently lost my mother, and she did stop eating several days before her death; but she did take water up until the time she became comatose.
We have sent home severely brain damaged babies with feeding tubes, and their parents lovingly take care of them.
Using logic, if the definition of death is the absence of brain waves and a heart beat, they the definition of life is the presence of brain waves and a heart beat.
I don't see anyone protecting the most innocent of all.
I agree it was a heartbreaking situation. I don't know all the details because I didn't follow it as intently as many, but it must count for something that whenever a court was asked to decide, they ruled in favor of what MS wanted to do. I know all that means to you is that everyone involved was evil, but I don't believe it's that simple. I think it was clear to most that she would never recover any consciousness.
OK - so when and where then, do you want the government to have more power than they had? The law was followed in her case. The court of jurisdiction ruled, and was affirmed over many many appeals. She got more 'process' than any other case ever. And the husband's case still prevailed. What would you change?
Anyone who could deny a living human being food and water for WEEKS and sit and watch them die is a monster.
And her family wanted her to be fed.
The law was NOT followed. MS should have been removed as guardian when he continually broke the rules guardians should have to follow. Greer let him do whatever the heck he wanted to.
I never said everyone involved was evil, just the husband... he was spiteful... her put the date of death on her gravestone the date of her collapse to get back at the parents, and did other things to hurt them... very unnecessary to hurt people that were already grieving.
A court perhaps...but some 20 other courts reviewed and judges affirmed this case and decision. As does common law stretching back hundreds of years. But the zealots here must defame any court or anyone who doesn't agree.
The date is in line with his belief, and in truth, he listed both the date of her collapse and the date of her death. In her case, I think that makes a lot of sense.
Anyone can have a monument made if they wish. We had a falling out with one uncle that caused him to not disclose the burial place of one of my aunts. My grandparents made and placed their own marker in our family plot to remember her by.
As I am sure you know, the other court reviews on this case onny looked that the evidence that the first court accepted into the record. Judge Greer refused much evidence that reflected the parents and other doctors evidence.
That's not the half of it. They're also creating rights that can be "exercised" on their "behalf" whether they want to or not. So if you go into a coma, your heirs or your insurance company can decide that you didn't "really" want to live as a vegitable.....
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.