Schiavo - Judges and The People

[Dr. Shane]

My personal opinion is that if Terri Schiavo is brain dead they should let her die. Even if she is starved to death she won't know it if she is brain dead. However, that said, if she isn't brain dead there is no way her husband (who is living in adultry and has two illegitamte children with his new lover) should have the right to end her life.

The most recent act of Congress makes it clear that the will of the people is that Terri Schiavo deserves the right to have her case reviewed to make sure her Constitutional rights are not being violated. If the judge that heard the case today decides not to give the case the investigation the people want it will be another example of a judge twarting the will of the people.

A California judge recently twarted the will of the people. California had a law making gay marriage illegal and a judge threw the law out the window. A different Califorina judge tossed out another ballot measure that denied medial treatment to illegal aliens. Judges in Mass. also over ruled the will of the people in regard to gay marriage.

It seems this type of judicial activism is wearing on the American people. It is coming to the point where the people are starting to ask themselves why they should vote when judges just overrule the will of the people.

I don't know where it is going but I think if it continues the people may support Ammendments or extreamely conservative judges that will put an end to it - and possibly start fulfilling prophecy.

[Bravus]

I'm not picking a fight here Shane, honest: but apparently pretty well every poll shows, with margins close to 90%, that 'the people' want Terry Schiavo to be allowed to die. So which 'people' would the ruling of the judge be thwarting that the act of congress hasn't already thwarted?

[bevin]

Quote:

---

It seems this type of judicial activism is wearing on the American people.

---

The polls show 65%+ of American's think that Congress should have stayed out of it, and more than that think Congress is just grandstanding, and not basing their decision on their (non-existent) principals.

Court appointed unbiased doctors have declared repeatedly she has no chance of getting better.

And, from where I sit, many more American's are really annoyed at the Bushite's incompetence and disregard of the will of the people than are concerned about judges.

/Bevin

[Neil D]

There are a couple of issues here that need to be clarified....

The courts have looked at Terry, and have appointed doctors to make independant reviews of the records and do physical exams. Nineteen judges in 6 courts have studied the case at length and concurred that Michael is indeed acting on Terry's best interest. Michael has claimed that he and Terry have talked about this and it was her wish that she be allowed to die.

That said, there are some extenuating circumstances that have brought her to this point.

Terry Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 following a heart attack. The brain damage left her unable to care for herself so for the last 13 years she’s had a feeding tube in her for nutrients and fluids.

Terry was awarded a substantial malpractice settlement for the improperly diagnosed potassium deficiency that led to the heart attack and collapse which damaged her brain. The settlement was for continuation of her care and rehabilitation, among other things.

The malpractice award is part of the controversy. If Terry dies, her husband Michael will then receive the balance of the remaining money, though there is little left. Nevertheless, if Michael stands a significant financial gain, does he really have Terry’s true interests at heart? Is his role as guardian suspect because he stands to profit from her death? Terry's parents say so, but Michael points out that he's willing to donate Terry's money to charity.

Thirteen years of rehiblitative care is a sizable cost. What the amout of the award is, how much is spent, and what is left is unknown to me at this time...

I agree that she should be allowed to die.

There are other constitutional aspects to this case that are upsetting . Does Jeb Bush have the right to upsurp the courts? Does state legislature have the right to upsurp the courts? Does a federal legislative quarum have the right to upsurp the state courts?

Frankly, when I see a personal matter as this make it to the national or even to the state level, there has been some illegal politics played out and only the victim suffers. Someone is making political hay out of this, and quite frankly should be, politcally speaking, cut and quarted and hung out to dry,

And yes, I am angry over this. Somewhere, someone is doing something illegal and upsurping the powers of the constitution. You should be upset too, as your rights under the constitution are threatened.

[Ron Lambert]

The law does not spell out any specific level of incapacity at which a person should no longer have the right to life. Unless the person has left something like a living will, stating in writing his or her wishes not to be kept alive under certain circumstances, the legal presumption must be that as long as he or she is still alive, that life should not be taken away arbitarily, as would be the case in denying someone food for however long it takes for them to starve to death.

Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, claims she told him verbally she did not want to be maintained in the kind of state she is in now; but who can believe him, when his credibility is so compromised by his refusal to divorce her and marry his girlfriend with whom he has already had two kids, all apparently so he will still qualify to receive the balance of the insurance settlement money? He may have said he "is willing" to donate the money to charity, but he has not firmly, legally committed to doing that, so again his credibility is such that who can believe him?

Aside from the law, the issue that would matter to me is whether she has any consciousness. Does she still exist as a sentient being? Is there any mind there?

Some doctors claim that her brain has been damaged and much of it has died and wasted away. I don't know if this has been confirmed. But even if this is true, there has been one case I remember reading about of a man who lived a normal life, no difference detectable from anyone else, even though later an autopsy after an accident revealed that the person was apparently born lacking about 90% of the cerebrum. The ability of the brain to reroute many of its functions and utilize reserve capacities is truly amazing.

If there is a mind still there, I hope that at some point some seeming miracle will occur, and her brain will heal or reroute its functions enough to enable her to speak, even if only a few words.

Deliberately killing her by starving her to death is obviously final and irreversible. Since she left no written word whether she would want to have the chance for life taken away from her at this point, I think society should err on the side of life in deciding what to do about her.

[_david]

something about starving someone to death seems out of place don't you think.

She's not on aritifial respiration and anything that if immediatly taken away she will die.

isn't that illegal to deny food to a person with disabilities.

Of course i can see bot side and agree. what really is the determining factor is which value gets more importance.

of course we like to talk about God being the author of life and only He has jurisdiction over it (unless when it's the governments role to do so). But when we see so much suffering we tend to back down from that statment.

Reminds me a the devotional book some years ago from the writings of Ellen White, that when adam had seen what sin had brought into the world after so many years, he long for death (something to that extent, no where near accuracy to do a search on it lol)

I wonder if it's almost the same thing as suicide if you have the necessary equipment to maintain life (especially non-artifically) to just decide that you don't want it or really one person cuts of the necessity for life from a person

I don't know.

[Bravus]

http://afr.com/articles/2005/03/22/1111253986130.html

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Thirteen years of rehiblitative care is a sizable cost. What the amout of the award is, how much is spent, and what is left is unknown to me at this time...

---

Less than $40,000 - Terri's care is largely now a burden on the not-for-profit institution she is in, and the tax-payer

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, claims she told him verbally she did not want to be maintained in the kind of state she is in now; but who can believe him

---

It is not just his word. This fact has been established in the courts already. There were enough witnesses of her having said it.

Quote:

---

, when his credibility is so compromised by his refusal to divorce her and marry his girlfriend with whom he has already had two kids, all apparently so he will still qualify to receive the balance of the insurance settlement money?

---

By not divorcing her, he has keep his vow to be cherish her. If he divorced her. those irrational nonsense-spouting parents of hers would have become the guardians - and they CERTAINLY don't have her best wishes at heart.

They are deeply in denial.

I am told her brother didn't even bother visiting her in hospital for the first 13 years of her internment.

Quote:

---

Some doctors claim that her brain has been damaged and much of it has died and wasted away. I don't know if this has been confirmed.

---

There seems to be no doubt about this in the court system - just in the minds of her irrational parents.

/Bevin

[Neil D]

To be honest, I should not have given my opinion on this matter. Being a part of the goverment, I don't believe I have a say in this matter, nor do I believe the nation should be involved in this. This is nOT a national matter. ..Having said that, if I were in a persistant vegetative state, I would hope my wife would allow me to die.

Outcomes of persistant vegetative state-

[:"green"]What is the prognosis?

The outcome for coma and persistent vegetative state depends on the cause, severity, and site of neurological damage. Individuals may emerge from coma with a combination of physical, intellectual, and psychological difficulties that need special attention. Recovery usually occurs gradually, with some acquiring more and more ability to respond. Some individuals never progress beyond very basic responses, but many recover full awareness. Individuals recovering from coma require close medical supervision. A coma rarely lasts more than 2 to 4 weeks. Some patients may regain a degree of awareness after persistent vegetative state. Others may remain in that state for years or even decades. The most common cause of death for someone in a persistent vegetative state is infection, such as pneumonia. [/]

It has been the better part of 15 YEARS since Terry went into a coma...Any hope of recovery is pretty much null. And it may be Michael's last duty to fulfill his wife wishes and allow her to die.

[Neil D]

You might find this interesting-

[:"green"]

Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. [/]

It was the court, not Terry's husband who decided that she would not want these extraordinary measure taken to extend her life....

[Dr. Shane]

I do not really have an opinion on if she should live or die. I don't know enough about her case to say.

However if the polls favor like those in this forum are saying, Congress must not have seen them. There has been an outpouring of people calling thier congressmen and senators in regard to this issue and that is why they worked over the weekend and late into the night. Those calling congressmen were overwelmingly in favor of saving Terri's life. The bill was passed by both Democrats and Republicans - it was not a partisan bill.

Now Terri Schiavo's case may have already been reviewed by doctors and judges and a new federal review may not change anything. That is true. But what I don't like is that so many people called their congressmen and Congress went into a special session, passed a bill and the President signs it a 1:00 in the morning only to have some guy dressed in black say, "Nope, doesn't apply". Why should we even vote if the judges are just going to strike down the will of the people?

[Dr. Shane]

Before you defend Micheal Schiavo too much you should get a little better informed. There was a gag order placed on Terri's health care providers until recently. I heard two different nurses today that took care of her during two different time periods say the Micheal would come in and ask "When is that b**ch going to die?" He also denied her any rehabilition even when she was able to talk in short sentences.

Again I don't know enough to say if she should live and die but I certainly wouldn't jump on any band wagon to defend her husband's doubious motives.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Why should we even vote if the judges are just going to strike down the will of the people?

---

ONE: Congress did NOT vote to put the tube back in. Terri's family got their law. The law enabled them to take the case to the judge. IT DID NOT SPECIFY HOW THE JUDGE HAD TO RULE.

TWO: The judge ruled on LAW, not on EMOTION. The doctors work on fact, not on emotion. Only a handful of fundamentalist christians are out being stupid and emotional in public.

And what a shameful view of God they are portraying. "It is a mortal sin for Terri to die this way". What kind of idiot does that portray God as?

THREE: The polls all report that American's are 2:1 against putting the tube back in, 3:1 against Congress etc. having gotten involved, and 4:1 that the Bushites are grand-standing to the fundamentalist fools who are emoting all over this case.

FOUR: Go check the voting record. How many for, how many against, AND HOW MANY ABSTAINED.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

The law was passed so that Terri would get a federal court review of whether or not her rights had been violated. The judge that ruled went against the intent of the law which is why the Justice Department is now getting involved.

This issue is bigger than just Terri Shiavo. The issue is about judges ignoring the will of the people. Seems we still need to beware of men in black.

You have to remember something about polls. Outside of election periods, only about 10% of Americans are actually informed. Most Americans don't care enough to get informed unless there is an election near. However in this case enough people cared enough to make a lot of phone calls to their congressman to make things happen. But one man in black overules the will of the people.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Again I don't know enough to say if she should live and die but I certainly wouldn't jump on any band wagon to defend her husband's doubious motives.

---

My information comes directly from the court.

Where is YOURs coming from?

You have jumped all over me for "gossip" and yet here you do this slandering of a man who has taken care of his wife. And he has "annoyed" nurses so that she can recieve the best care. That is the attentiveness of a concerned spouse. Your information comes from hospital gossip???

Becareful Shane...you are coming close to a libal suit here....

Quote:

---

The law was passed so that Terri would get a federal court review of whether or not her rights had been violated. The judge that ruled went against the intent of the law which is why the Justice Department is now getting involved.

---

And what of those other 6 state judges who carefully went over the petitions of the court for Terry?

The court has precedence to rule in favor of life unless evidence shows otherwise. The burden of proof was upon Micheal and Terry's friends to show the contrary evidence. They sucessfully did so. The court, acting as the surrigote decision maker, ruled to pull the feeding tube. It wasnt Micheal that made that decision. But he did argue and present evidence that Terry wanted no 'prolonging of life' in these circumstances. The court was convinced that was Terry's wish.

Quote:

---

This issue is bigger than just Terri Shiavo. The issue is about judges ignoring the will of the people. Seems we still need to beware of men in black.

---

I don't think so. There were several judges involved and evidences from doctors and many others whose purpose was to do what was best for Terry. What is scary is that the legislative and executive branches of goverment have now set a precidence to invade our lives. You now have no choice as to when you will die. Instead, you have congress telling you that you must live regardless. Not a pretty aspect, if you ask me...

Quote:

---

You have to remember something about polls. Outside of election periods, only about 10% of Americans are actually informed. Most Americans don't care enough to get informed unless there is an election near. However in this case enough people cared enough to make a lot of phone calls to their congressman to make things happen. But one man in black overules the will of the people.

---

Hmmmm....not according to all the blogs that I have perused today. They are all 'informed'....Got a neurolgist who says that a CT is a "blured picture" and that you cant tell if a head has a brain or whether it just has fluid in it...Well, all my colleagues can tell whether there is abrain in a skull or fluid in it. We can't tell if there is cancer in the brain or not, but we can definately tell the differce between fluid and tissue.

[David_McQueen]

The government should but out actually.

If she wants to die let the women die, dammit.

Funny some of those vocal on this issue are not so quick to question the death penalty.

[Tom Wetmore]

Good point! They happily elected Dubbya, who as Texas gov never saw much value in the life of any on death row...

And it seems that this same "pro-life" contingiency seeking to keep someone technically alive seem to be untroubled by the killing of 100,000 innocent and healthy Iraqis, or the wanton destruction of thousands in Sudan...

This whole case confirms that those who often shout the loudest and offer up the most commentary and opinion are most usually among those who know the least...

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

You have jumped all over me for "gossip" and yet here you do this slandering of a man who has taken care of his wife.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Actually I think the issue with your posts were hearsay not gossip. Gossip is defined differently by different people. The test I use is "what good will it do?" If by repeating a story I am doing good than I don't consider it gossip - certainly not malicious.

Hearsay and gossip often go hand and hand but not always. Hearsay is something we hear from a second or third party. Normally that doesn't include news networks but usually includes tabloids like The Enquirer or The Star, etc.

The statements I have heard about Micheal Schiavo I heard from news networks and while, of course, they could be wrong, I wouldn't go as far as to say they are hearsay and not to be repeated. So then I ask, by repeating them do I do good? First I ask myself if the news network reporting them did any good. Well, in this case such stories impacted public opinion to the point that Congress went into special session. In the end perhaps no good was done by them. It seems Terry is going to be starved to death anyway and her family just had to ride a little longer on their emotional roller coaster. Do I think I was gossiping by repeating the reported news? Perhaps I was, that is easy to slip into.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

My information comes directly from the court.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

If you have sat around reading the court transcripts on this case you have way too much time on your hands.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

what of those other 6 state judges who carefully went over the petitions of the court for Terry?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You seem to miss Congress' intent. Congress knew about the state courts however Congress felt that the case needed a "fresh look" or another review. Now I am not saying Congress was right. What I am saying is that Congress expressed the will of the people that were calling their congressmen on this issue. But the will of the people didn't matter because men in black tossed it out. The whole story here is beyond Terry Schiavo. The story is that judges flush the will of the people down the toilet.

I know some may be taking Micheal's side just because they hate Bush so much that they feel they need to oppose everything Bush does. I hope that is not the case here.

[Dr. Shane]

Now Brother McQueen, why do those against the death penalty constantly compare it to the taking of innocent life? Remember God started the death penelty. The wages of sin isn't a life sentence in prison. The wages of sin is death. Of course God is the perfect judge and we are not, right? However in the nation of Israel God placed imperfect judges over the people and gave them the death penalty.

I am only in favor of the death penalty in first degree murder and hire for murder cases. I think when we place a high value on life, the one that delibertly takes another's must pay with his or her own. So in that presepective the death penalty is actually placing greater value on life not less.

[Neil D]

Double standard, Shane...Double standard.

[Dr. Shane]

Please show me the double standard you refer to.

[Dr. Shane]

OK, I did my homework. This is my quote to Brother Neil regarding gossip:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

This isn't just for Brother Neil. The above quote is what is known as gossip and those repeating it are what the Bible calls talebears. I suspect each one of us is guilty of doing this from time to time - I know I am. And we should be ashamed of ourselves when we do it.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Notice that I admitted that even I sometimes am guilty of the same thing. I don't see a double standard. It is wrong for others and wrong for me.

Now Brother Neil was talking about Pastor John Carter and here I was talking about a news story reported on network news.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

It is a serious thing to accuse a Christian brother of a such a great sin based purely on hearsay, especially when the Christian brother is an ordained servant of God.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[Ron Lambert]

The lead editorial published today in the Daily Oakland Press of Oakland County, Michigan, makes some extremely telling, factual points. Here are some excerpts:

Quote:

---

Schiavo's condition doesn't meet right-to-die litmus test

.

If ever a publicly discussed conflict were more deeply mired in misinformation, faulty assumptions and general confusion than the case of Terri Schiavo, it is impossible to imagine what it might have been.

.

Many people, on both sides of the issue, seem to have simply imposed the right-to-die, right-to-live format on it and then taken their usual sides, complete with the bluster and indignation that typically accompany the topic.

.

But the Schiavo case is not about whether people who are "brain-dead" and/or whose heartbeats literally depend on outside assistance should be allowed to die. There has been plenty of support for that, including in this space, through the years.

.

Schiavo certainly does not appear to be in a condition that meets the right-to-die test.

.

A medical affidavit signed Wednesday by William Cheshire, M.D., certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, confirms the difference.

.

He also is an appointed member of the Florida Adult Protective Services agency and was asked to evaluate Schiavo.

.

Cheshire is a "right-to-die" advocate. He says he believes it is ethical to remove food and water from a person in a "permanent vegetative state" but that she is not in that condition.

.

....

.

Cheshire states that the new diagnosis of "minimally conscious" was fully defined only after Schiavo was examined by the doctors who convinced a court she was in a permanent vegetative state.

.

Keep in mind that the doctors and other experts who've been opining in the media have not seen what Cheshire has seen. And no one has seen the results of imaging studies of her brain, beyond a CT scan, because none ever has been done!

.

He has seen her in person, though. And he has concluded that she is aware of her surroundings and reacts to them by expressing dislike or pleasure with appropriate expressions and sounds. She can maintain eye contact for as much as 30 seconds, he reports, and sometimes has at least appeared to follow simple instructions.

.

In addition, she clearly can feel pain when inflicted, the affidavit says.

.

The American Academy of Neurology defines a permanent vegetative state as one in which a person does not feel pain and cannot suffer....

.

As noted, he concludes that Schiavo is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that to initiate her death would be wrong.

.

Setting aside for a moment all of the legal maneuverings through the years, to assume the woman wants to die is a big assumption. And the question is whether she wants to, or doesn't, now - not what she might have said when she was healthy.

.

Given her apparent condition and the fact that her parents say they are willing and financially able to care for her, what on earth gives any judge or group of judges the power to demand that Schiavo's nutrition be removed?.

....

---

The whole editorial may be read at: http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/032805/opi_20050328001.shtml

Many people have been reading their own position on the right-to-die issue into the Terri Schiavo case, and neglecting the actual facts. Dr. Cheshire's recent findings should be noted, and his conclusion that it would be wrong to initiate Terri Schiavo's death should be heeded.

It is probably too late to save Terri's life now. But eventually those who were so quick to pile on the "let her have her right to die" bandwagon are going to realize that they may actually have given in to a virtual lynch mob mentality, because most of the things they assumed were not true. Look again at what Dr. Chesire concluded after actual examination of Terri recently:

"...she is aware of her surroundings and reacts to them by expressing dislike or pleasure with appropriate expressions and sounds. She can maintain eye contact for as much as 30 seconds...and sometimes has at least appeared to follow simple instructions....In addition, she clearly can feel pain when inflicted....The American Academy of Neurology defines a permanent vegetative state as one in which a person does not feel pain and cannot suffer."

The decision to withhold nutrition and water from Terri Schiavo, thus intentially making her die, was wrong.

[bevin]

The experts, of whom Cheshire IS NOT ONE, say he is wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/national/24doctor.html

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7288728/

Quote:

---

“Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90-minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of some things around her,” Cheshire said in the affidavit.

But the first part of that sentence, in fact, “starts to meet the criteria for vegetative state,” said Dr. Gene Sung, director of the neurocritical care and stroke section of the University of Southern California.

[:"red"]Sung, who has not been involved with the case, said of Cheshire that “unfortunately his feelings, and possibly his religious beliefs, are affecting his medical decision.” The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, which notes on its Web site that it was founded by Christian bioethicists, lists Cheshire as its director of biotech ethics.[/]

Sung said [:"red"]the original diagnosis was based on repeated examinations by “very distinguished neurologists” and he called himself as comfortable with that diagnosis as he can be without examining Schiavo himself[/].

[:"red"]Dr. Roger Albin, a professor of neurology at the University of Michigan who also was not involved in the Schiavo case, agreed. “I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt the diagnosis... I don’t think her evaluation could have been done better.”[/]

He also said he’s not aware of any evidence that a person could emerge from years in a persistent vegetative state and enter a minimally conscious state, especially in a case like Schiavo’s, where blood flow to the brain had been temporarily cut off in 1990.

---