Posted on 11/07/2007 7:41:35 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
On the matter of Terri Schiavo’s right to life, which occupied the attention of the media and Congress in 2005, Thompson called that a family decision, “in consultation with their doctor,” and “the federal government should not be involved.” Thompson added, “the less government the better.” ...
In the case of Terri Schiavo, a severely disabled person, there was a family dispute. Her estranged husband wanted her to die and he eventually succeeded in starving her to death. Her parents had wanted her to live. ...
There was no moral justification for killing Terri because she had an inherent right to life and there was no clear evidence that she wanted food and water withdrawn. The morally correct course of action would have been to let her family take care of her. Nobody would have been harmed by that.
“Meet the Press” host Tim Russert brought up the death of Thompson’s daughter, who reportedly suffered a brain injury and a heart attack after an accidental overdose of prescription drugs. Apparently Thompson and members of his family made some decisions affecting her life and death. Thompson described it as an “end-of-life” issue.
Bobby Schindler says he doesn’t know what the circumstances precisely were in that case and that he sympathizes with what Thompson went through. However, he says that it is not comparable at all to his sister’s case.
“What no one is recognizing,” he told me, “is that my sister’s case was not an end-of-life issue. She was simply and merely disabled. Terri wasn’t dying. She was only being sustained by food and water. She had no terminal illness. She wasn’t on any machines. All she needed was a wheelchair and she could have been taken anywhere. She didn’t even need to be confined to a bed.”
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
Lost in this whole ordeal is the fact that, early on, two physicians had their reputations ruined and possibly their careers come to a halt -- after years of study and practice -- because of a family full of ambulance-chasing gold-diggers who were looking for some deep pockets to go after.
People in Terry Shiavo's condition have recovered.
Some people in comas have recovered. I don't think there has been a single case of someone who had brain damage as extensive as Terri's who has ever recovered.
And it doesn't mean the federal government shouldn't step in if a state is denying a citizen her right-to-life.
The state determined (after lengthy court hearings) that, prior to the incident that brought her to her PVS, she had made a verbal request to her -- then husband -- that she would never want her life to be continued if she found herself incapacitated with slim chance of recovery. Does having the liberty to life also give one the liberty to choose not to continue living if there is no dignity attached with it? I say yes. What is your view on the matter?
It is appalling that you think it's just politics.
I didn't find the politics of the issue as appalling as I found the emotional pandering of the pundits...particularly Glenn Beck.
Frankly I don't think states should get to say an unborn baby is not a person. We have the technology to actually see the baby in the womb and we all know it is a live human being. That child should also have a federal right-to-life just like the rest of us.
These points, too, will eventually become moot. Any potential future legislation making it unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn fetus can easily be skirted by the effectiveness of the 'morning after' pill.
What Thompson wants to do is have it both ways.
What he's probably doing is pandering to pro-lifers because he knows there is not a chance in hell of doing anything about this issue while being a sitting president. So, he takes an interesting approach by extolling the virtues of federalism, skirting having to say that he cannot affect the issue as a president, and minimizing the ill will of the narrow-minded Values-Voter.
what does that have to do with the basic right to life guaranteed by our constitution? You are going along with a judgement about my agruement and me that is a bit looney.
There was plenty of 'due process of law' in Florida as I recall. The results were not to your liking, but the law was served.
No, only the lawyers are served. The rule of law has no more meaning, it went out the window long ago. Only money matters now.
I did a word search for “unruly child” in the King James, New King James, New American Standard, New International, American Standard, New Living Translation and even the Douay-Rheims Bible — and — I could not find that phrase anywhere in any of those translations of the Bible.
Perhaps you can give me a reference to the verse...
Regards,
Star Traveler
You might want to talk to Star Traveler, who insists the gov't must protect and defend life at all costs. That does mean insisting that I cannot refuse treatment.
This is all specified, by the way, in Florida law, including the definition that a caregiver who starves a dependent is guilty of criminal abuse/neglect.
It would be criminal for me to smother my husband with a pillow. But I can, if he is not conscious and has minimal brain function decide to turn off a respirator. There is law allowing that. Florida law allows for feeding tubes to be removed under certain conditions.
First of all, you can't mean that husbands have the right to kill their wives.
I mean that in the absence of conscious thought and decision-making by my husband, as his spouse, I have the legal right and responsibility to decide whether to continue life support. In marriage, that became my duty, no one else's.
The court ought to have taken the settlement money away from Michael Schiavo when he proved unwilling to use it for the stated purposes, and awarded it to a court-appointed guardian, who could have been her mother, father, or any other person committed to furthering Terri's health interest.
Perhaps they should have, but they didn't. That is irrelevant. He was left as the legal decision-maker.
In 1998, Michael Schiavo got Judge George Greer involved when he petitioned the Pinellas County Circuit Court to remove Terri's feeding tube.
I assume that this action was taken in accordance with the law in Florida, to make sure that there is oversight in these end of life decisions.
I further surmise that the request was granted. That should have been the end of the story, right there. Michael had the legal responsibility for the decision. Was he a good guy? Did he make the decision I would have made? Do I think it was right? All irrelevant. We allow spouses, and parents in the absence of a spouse, to make these decisions. Michael was the spouse. The end.
I don't construe ST's remarks that way (and it's up to ST to say yea or nay) but would swiftly and strongly reject that view.
"...if [my husband] is not conscious and has minimal brain function [I can] decide to turn off a respirator..."
Yes, that's right, if the respirator is found to be burdensome or futile, and especially if your husband is terminally ill or has specified that he does not want a respirator. A respirator is an "extraordinary" form of medical treatment.
"Florida law allows for feeding tubes to be removed under certain conditions."
Feeding tubes can be removed if the patient is no longer capable of assimilating food and fluids (e.g. if digestion and circulatuion are shutting down), or if there are tube-related complication (e.g. infection at the surgical os.) Feeding tubes are not to be removed for the purpose of killing the patient.
Nutrition and hydration are not "extraordinary" and are not "treatments." They are ordinary human needs, they are a fundamental element of palliative care even after medical treatment has been abandoned, and they are morally obligatory as long as the medically dependent person is capable of assimilating nutrients.
I mean that in the absence of conscious thought and decision-making by my husband, as his spouse, I have the legal right and responsibility to decide whether to continue life support.
That depends on what you mean by "life support." Even after all drugs, devices, and therapies have been stopped, palliative care --- nutrition, hydration, pain managment, hygienic and comfort care --- are obligatory, not optional. This does not include chemo, radiation therapy, surgery, ventilators, kidney dialysis and other interventions. These are optional.
No care-giver, whether spouse, parent, child, sibling, court-appointed gurdian or anyone else, is permitted to deliberately and intentionally cause the death of the patient by action or omission.
This does not mean that they cannot let nature take its course. Nature does, every time. It means that even a dying patient is morally and legally entitled to palliative care.
In 1998, Michael Schiavo got Judge George Greer involved when he petitioned the Pinellas County Circuit Court to remove Terri's feeding tube.
"I assume that this action was taken in accordance with the law in Florida..."
That's exactly what you can't assume. That's what the whole flippin' controversy was about.
"Michael had the legal responsibility for the decision. We allow spouses, and parents in the absence of a spouse, to make these decisions."
No. We do not allow any caregiver or kin to intentionally cause the death of a medically dependent person.
Mr. Schiavo's brief said that in 1990, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that an individual had the right to refuse medical treatment regardless of his or her medical condition. In the same year, the brief said, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that it was up to the judicial system to determine whether a terminally ill person intended to be kept alive artificially.
The legal standards in both cases were incorporated into Florida law, which has since allowed a patient's legal guardian or spouse or the courts to make decisions in the absence of a living will.
Terri is given food and water through tubes. Is disconnecting a feeding tube the same as ending life support?
Yes, under Florida law, which governs the ability of each person to determine, or to appoint someone to determine, whether each of us should receive what the Legislature terms "life-prolonging medical procedures." The Legislature has explained:
The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care.
§ 765.102(3), Florida Statutes.
The Legislature has also defined what is a "life-prolonging procedure": "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.
§ 765.101(10), Florida Statutes (italics added by author).
Nutrition is not a medical treatment. It is to be maintained as a fundamental part of palliative care even when all medical treatment has stopped.
Well, I don’t propose that anyone “decide when” to protect your life or anyone else’s. Not at all. There’s no “when” to it. It’s simply — protect life at all times at all costs. Nothing to decide...Regards,
Star TravelerP.S. — And, of course, if you have read some of what I’ve written, you’ll see that I am not talking about a “life for a life” in the case when someone murders someone else and their life is required or in the case when self-defense is required because of an imminent threat to one’s life (and that applies “nationally” too). In those cases, it’s one life for another life, and not merely protecting a life in absolute terms. I have to put that qualifier in there, because it’s also the same type of qualifier that the Bible has on life, too. ~ from post # 293
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
But let's not stop there. How about explaining Exodus 35:2-3 and tell me of its "protect life at all times at all costs" message.
That image looks to me as a violation of HIPAA.
To "permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life" is forbidden by Florida Statute (withholding natural nutrition and liquids) §765.309(1). Greer not only permitted it, he ordered it. That's spelled out very clearly in Florida statute HERE
Disturbingly, George Greer and George Felos (Michael Schiavo's attorney), aided by others in the euthanasia movement, lobbied the Legislature to enact specific changes to the Chapter 765, tailoring it as closely as they could to what they said was Terri Schiavo's condition by adding two other conditions for the protocol. The patient had to have an “end-stage condition” and be in a “persistent vegetative state”.
The specially amended legislation became effective Oct. 1, 1999 and Felos declared that the provision to end her life was “the law in Florida” although at the time he had filed the petition to end her life by removing her feeding tube in May, 1998, the artificial provision of sustenance had not been considered medical treatment.
In March 2000, Schiavo and Felos secretively and illegally relocated her from the Palm Gardens Nursing Home to the hospice without court order and without notifying her parents.
Felos also conveniently forgot to give notice to the court and her parents that he was chairman of the Hospice board of directors at the time.
The transfer was fraudulent because Terri was not in fact terminally ill and ineligible to be admitted to the Hospice under Medicare.
Terri Schiavo was admitted into the hospice without the required medical evaluation, without the required written certification, without the diagnosis of a terminal illness and at a time when the chairman of the Hospice Board, George Felos, was part of the administration refusing to pay back the monies illegally received. Only Judge George Greer’s death order issued Feb. 11, 2000, made Terri Schiavo terminal, not Terri’s medical condition.You can read more about that HERE.
In addition, Judge Greer ignored the evidence of responsiveness which would have precluded a clinical diagnosis of PVS, and forbade the PET scan and other tests which could have challenged such a diagnosis.
The whole thing was a blatant violation of Mrs. Schiavo's rights and constitutes a clear and present danger to all medically vulnerable people in the State of Florida and beyond.
It sounds good at first, but read it again...
Is Mr. Kincaid stating as essentially fact that Conservatism is centered solely on right to life issues? A good portion of the Republican Party would disagree. Taxes, defense, spending, foreign policy, personal responsibility, and limited government come to mind when I think of conservatism.
While RTL is certainly a key issue for many conservatives - this statement is little more than a redefinition of conservatism to support the position of the RTL one-issue crowd. I am becoming more and more convinced that if Hillary Clinton herself held a press conference, claimed a personal revelation, and espoused RTL as her primary goal in life that a good many one-issue voters would flock to be the first to kiss the hem of the grande dame. Ridiculous you say? Read carefully the words of the one-issue RTL types - nothing else matters. Another point to consider ... How can we expect to keep the government out of our churches if our churches won't stay out of the government?
Politically this may be brilliant move, but for those of who despise it when the left simply redefines words and issues to support their position this is nothing more than political chicanery of the lowest order. From the left, or from the right, I still despise it.
And... Mr Kincaid, in his writing, has all but endorsed Gov. Huckabee, going so far as to posit whether or not he might be the next Reagan. Huckabee as the next Reagan? Seriously, he said it.
So what we have here, IMLTHO, is a partisan media member taking a cheap shot at an opponent, seemingly from outside the campaign. But then again, would we expect any less from the AR political machine? Perhaps we should let the Clinton's keep their copyright on that tactic. (Interesting that the ARRA endorsed not Huckabee, but Thompson. When the locals eschew the one they know best - shouldn't the rest of at least listen?)
There’s an absolute, vast and overwhelming difference and distinction between God and man (all of mankind). Also, there is an absolute distinction between national Israel, as chosen by God for His purposes, and the Gentiles (the rest of the world). That’s where you go wrong.
God sets the rules and laws, for one thing. Mankind does not. And, God sets the rules and laws differently for national Israel, as compared to the rest of the world, and as His chosen people, and for being the guiding light among the nations (as is God’s plan for the world), and the example to the world (which they failed to do, as the Bible shows and tells us, but they will fulfill it during the Millennium), and for bringing the Scriptures to the world, and for bringing the Messiah to the world.
And those are the laws that He set for national Israel, for the purposes (and plan) He has set out for them (but not for the rest of mankind). Those violations of God’s law that God specifically set up for national Israel had those which were to be punished with death. They were chosen for God’s good reasons, from His complete and unlimited knowledge and knowing all things from the past, present and into the future, and according to His will and His plan for Israel and for mankind.
And since God is the one who is the life-giver (and absolutely no one else is), absolutely all life is in His hands — with all life and death matters — and in no one else’s hands. He shows this by what He says about Himself and how we see the examples of Job, in that Satan had to ask permission from God and God set limits, not allowing Job’s death, but allowing his kids’ death (at Satan’s hands, as Satan wanted to do).
These are things which are *not* in the province of mankind to set for themselves. They are only in the province of God to command or not allow, according to His full knowledge and his knowing the end from the beginning (i.e., all things past, present and future).
Very early, right after the Garden of Eden, God made clear that it was a violation for anyone else to take life, of their own will and at their own hands. But, God, being the Supreme Judge of the Universe and being all-knowing and being the life-giver, has that completely, totally and fully in His own hands, by *absolute right*. No one else does. Only God does.
God has allowed for the corporate punishment of one who takes the life of another at that person’s own hands. And also, self-defense is allowed (if that’s the situation).
Evil and the disobedience of God’s law always has the punishment of death. That was the original judgement in the Garden of Eden — *death* — for violation of God’s command(s). And every last single person on this earth is currently under the *death sentence* by God’s judgement (for violation of HIs laws). Death is already the sentence, by His judgement — but not by mankind’s judgement, except for that which has been delegated to mankind, corporately (as in capital punishment, for taking life). Also, the exception of self-defense, when a life is about to be taken, unjustly.
So, where you totally miss it, is that God has everyone *already* sentenced to death. It’s only by God’s “grace” that you or anyone else is still alive at this moment. You have the death sentence already pronounced on you. The timing of your death is of no consequence to that death sentence you are under, right now, for violation of HIs laws.
Mankind, itself, has no ability, no right and no justification for giving any kind of death sentence — at all — except in the cases noted above. God, on the other hand, has already pronounced that death sentence upon every last single human being on this planet — and your life or death is totally in God’s hands (but not mankind’s hands).
And so, mankind, itself, protects life at all costs, as that is what it is required to do. Mankind has no right to take another life, but only acting under God’s explicit commands, and in no other way. And for us today, as we are Gentiles and as national sovereign Israel (as chosen by God) no longer exists (but will once again in the Millennium), none of those things commanded of national Israel even apply today.
I trust that makes the situation clear for you.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Since I'm not at a computer [I'm using a smart-phone that's too dumb to cut & paste and open up separate browsers, I can't respond how I'd like to.
Wrong. The only intervention by “the feds” was to tell the Florida Supreme Court it didn’t have the jurisdiction to overturn the state legislatures laws (and county laws) on elections. Once the state of Florida certified the votes it was over.
Gore moved to overturn that in the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court, in three decisions (first 9-0, second 7-2 and the last 5-4), asked “what the heck do you think you are doing”.
Presidential elections and how they are conducted is a clear federal issue that’s in the Constitution. It clearly leaves the process to the state legislatures and NOT THE COURTS!
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.