'Cruel and unusual'

[BigBadBrian]

'Cruel and unusual'
Thomas Sowell


March 22, 2005


If the tragic case of Terri Schiavo shows nothing else, it shows how easily "the right to die" can become the right to kill. It is hard to believe that anyone, regardless of their position on euthanasia, would have chosen the agony of starvation and dehydration as the way to end someone's life.

A New York Times headline on March 20th tried to assure us: "Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death" but you can find experts to say anything. In a December 2, 2002 story in the same New York Times, people starving in India were reported as dying, "often clutching pained stomachs."

No murderer would be allowed to be killed this way, which would almost certainly be declared "cruel and unusual punishment," in violation of the Constitution, by virtually any court.

Terri Schiavo's only crime is that she has become an inconvenience -- and is caught in the merciless machinery of the law. Those who think law is the answer to our problems need to face the reality that law is a crude and blunt instrument.

Make no mistake about it, Terri Schiavo is being killed. She is not being "allowed to die."

She is not like someone whose breathing, blood circulation, kidney function, or other vital work of the body is being performed by machines. What she is getting by machine is what all of us get otherwise every day -- food and water. Depriving any of us of food and water would kill us just as surely, and just as agonizingly, as it is killing Terri Schiavo.

Would I want to be kept alive in Terri Schiavo's condition? No. Would I want to be killed so slowly and painfully? No. Would anyone? I doubt it.

Every member of Terri Schiavo's family wants her kept alive -- except the one person who has a vested interest in her death, her husband. Her death will allow him to marry the woman he has been living with, and having children by, for years.

Legally, he is Terri's guardian and that legal technicality is all that gives him the right to starve her to death. Courts cannot remove guardians without serious reasons. But neither should they refuse to remove guardians with a clear conflict of interest.

There are no good solutions to this wrenching situation. It is the tragedy of the human condition in its most stark form.

The extraordinary session of Congress, calling members back from around the country, with the President flying back from his home in Texas in order to be ready to sign legislation dealing with Terri Schiavo, are things that do us credit as a nation.

Even if critics who claim that this is being done for political or ideological reasons are partially or even wholly correct, they still miss the point. It is the public's sense of concern -- in some cases, outrage -- that is reflected by their elected representatives.

What can Congress do -- and what effect will it have? We do not know and Congress does not know. Those who are pushing for legislation to save Terri Schiavo are obviously trying to avoid setting a precedent or upsetting the Constitutional balance.

It is an old truism that hard cases make bad law. No one wants all such cases to end up in either Congress or the federal courts. But neither do decent people want an innocent woman killed because she was inconvenient and a court refused to recognize the conflict of interests in her legal guardian.

The fervor of those who want to save Terri Schiavo's life is understandable and should be respected, even by those who disagree. What is harder to understand is the fervor and even venom of those liberals who have gone ballistic -- ostensibly over state's rights, over the Constitutional separation of powers, and even over the sanctity of family decisions.

These are not things that liberals have any track record of caring about. Is what really bothers them the idea of the sanctity of life and what that implies for their abortion issue? Or do they hate any challenge to the supremacy of judges -- on which the whole liberal agenda depends -- a supremacy that the Constitution never gave the judiciary?

If nothing else comes out of all this, there needs to be a national discussion of some humane way to end life in those cases when it has to be ended -- and this may not be one of those cases.

[BigBadBrian]

If you starved your dog to death, you would be locked up. There needs to be a better way to end this woman's life if that's the way this Judge/god/executioner has determined it. :gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
If you starved your dog to death, you would be locked up. There needs to be a better way to end this woman's life if that's the way this Judge/god/executioner has determined it. :gulp:

Why don't run over her with a bulldozer you tool?

[kentuckyklira]

How many kids in the third world could be kept from starving with the money spent to keep that vegetable alive?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
If you starved your dog to death, you would be locked up. There needs to be a better way to end this woman's life if that's the way this Judge/god/executioner has determined it. :gulp:

She can't feel anything since HER BRAIN IS FUCKING LIQUID.

Besides, wasn't she bulimic? Maybe they can leave the feeding tube in, and then just stick their fingers down her throat to make her vomit.

[academic punk]

She has no brain function. The only thng cruel and unusual about this is the extent to which the branches of government other than the courts has been involved.

Is it sad? Of course. But it's been over for years.

The bizarre thing is that Bill Hicks used to joke if anti-abortionists are so pro-life, why don't they form blockades around cemetaries.

Turns out that wasn't a joke....it was a slice of prophecy!

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
How many kids in the third world could be kept from starving with the money spent to keep that vegetable alive?

Hmm.....I don't know. But I forgot, in Germany they would probably eat her. ;)

What kind of vegetable is she anyway? Would she go well with a cheese sauce?

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
She can't feel anything since HER BRAIN IS FUCKING LIQUID.

Besides, wasn't she bulimic? Maybe they can leave the feeding tube in, and then just stick their fingers down her throat to make her vomit.

Nick has no compassion for those who are being starved to death.

Like Brian said, you would get put in the patty wagon if you did that to your dog.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
She can't feel anything since HER BRAIN IS FUCKING LIQUID.

Besides, wasn't she bulimic? Maybe they can leave the feeding tube in, and then just stick their fingers down her throat to make her vomit.

I'm not debating the WHY, I'm debating the HOW.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Warham
Nick has no compassion for those who are being starved to death.

Like Brian said, you would get put in the patty wagon if you did that to your dog.

My point exactly. Bingo.....right on the nose.


The title of the thread says it all.

[Warham]

Originally posted by academic punk
She has no brain function. The only thng cruel and unusual about this is the extent to which the branches of government other than the courts has been involved.

Is it sad? Of course. But it's been over for years.

The bizarre thing is that Bill Hicks used to joke if anti-abortionists are so pro-life, why don't they form blockades around cemetaries.

Turns out that wasn't a joke....it was a slice of prophecy!

No brain function, eh?

I wonder how she's able to breath on her own with 0% brain function.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Warham
No brain function, eh?

I wonder how she's able to breath on her own with 0% brain function.

AUTOPILOT.

[Warham]

Just be right out front about it. They are killing her. It ain't pulling any plug here, since she can breathe on her own.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Nick has no compassion for those who are being starved to death.

Like Brian said, you would get put in the patty wagon if you did that to your dog.

Like the thousands of kids starving in this country every day? Do they get a special Sunday edition (for Christian Fundamentalist morons) of Congress? I have more compassion for this girl than any of you hypocrite fucks using her as a political football. Put her out of the misery of her own stasis and those around and put her beyond the reach of all the ghoulish phonies exploiting her.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Just be right out front about it. They are killing her. It ain't pulling any plug here, since she can breathe on her own.

Then send her home. Always feed every baby born with no brain function.

[Warham]

If a baby was born with no brain function, they'd be a stillborn.

I suspect that Schiavo's civil rights may have been violated.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Like the thousands of kids starving in this country every day? Do they get a special Sunday edition (for Christian Fundamentalist morons) of Congress? I have more compassion for this girl than any of you hypocrite fucks using her as a political football. Put her out of the misery of her own stasis and those around and put her beyond the reach of all the ghoulish phonies exploiting her.

Well, Nick, if those kids are starving, that doesn't bother you too much, since this doesn't, right?

Give those poor kids a morphine drip...they'll never feel a thing.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No brain function, eh?

I wonder how she's able to breath on her own with 0% brain function.

The autonomic response of the medulla located at her brain stem. The part that controls the most basic of functions, and the last part of the brain to die. The rest of her brain turned to mush, LITERALLY!

Her husband spent much of the settlement award (you know, the awards that Bush is trying to limit?) to try new therapies and worked with her parents initially. But when the money became involved, that's when they turned on him.

[Warham]

Actually he's spent most of the settlement so far paying his lawyer to finish her off.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, Nick, if those kids are starving, that doesn't bother you too much, since this doesn't, right?

What the hell are you talking about? Their poverty is often the result of resources being wasted on cases such as this


Give those poor kids a morphine drip...they'll never feel a thing.

Yes they will, since they have higher level brain functions.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Actually he spent most of the settlement so far paying his lawyer to finish her off.

No, he didn't.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
If a baby was born with no brain function, they'd be a stillborn.

I suspect that Schiavo's civil rights may have been violated.

No, they can often breath on their own.

I suspect her civil rights were violated also, by cynical ghoulish partisans.
http://www.dmoma.org/lobby/exhibitions/presidentially_speaking/images/wizards.jpeg

[Warham]

Oh, so she's a waste of money now, is she?

No, her civil rights were NOT violated by Congress.

If anything, it's a good thing that her civil rights are to decided by a federal judge(s).

Her husband waited seven fucking years to finally remember that she told him she didn't want to live this way...I wonder why he waited until after the settlement came through?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Oh, so she's a waste of money now, is she?

Yes.

[Warham]

OK, how much is a human life worth Nick?

Let's play the Price is Right.

Shalll we start with $5 and work from there?

[Warham]

Suspicious Circumstances: The Strange Case Of Terri Shiavo
November 24, 2003
By Jennifer King, The American Partisan


As the case of Terri Shiavo slips away from the front pages, it is worth revisiting the odd twists and tangles of this bizarre case. There are mysterious connections and odd characters which, so far, have failed to elicit the curiosity of the mainstream media. To recap the case, Terri Shiavo collapsed at home in 1990, under suspicious circumstances. Her lapse into a vigorously debated “vegetative” state is usually blamed on a potassium deficiency, but hospital admittance records also show evidence of trauma to her neck.

Further questions arise from testimony of one of her friends, who allege that Terri was unhappy and contemplating a divorce from her husband, Michael. Michael is alleged to have been possessive and jealous, at one point falling into a rage when Terri spent $80 on a haircut.

After the accident, Michael became Terri’s guardian, and he used that position to seek a hefty malpractice award. A sympathetic jury took the seemingly distraught Michael at his word, awarding him 1.2 million, earmarked for Terri’s rehabilitation, with an additional $300,000 going directly to him for “loss of consortium”. After receiving the award, however, Michael seemingly lost all interest in Terri’s rehabilitation.

Several nurses who worked with Terri in the early 1990s filed affidavits which detail some very troubling events. Nurse Carolyn Johnson alleges that Michael Schiavo was adamant about not providing any rehabilitation at all for Terri - including common therapies such as placing a towel in her hands to keep them from seizing up. Nurse Heidi Law testified that she would feed Terri with a wet washcloth. Terri was able to swallow then without trouble. Nurse Law also testified that Michael refused to allow any therapy whatsoever, including the usual range of motion exercises.

Nurse Carla Saver Iyer had the most damning testimony. Iyer alleged that Michael would enter Terri’s room, saying, “Has the bitch died yet?” Iyer says that Michael was “elated” each time Terri’s condition worsened, telling her that when Terri died he was “going to be rich” and that he planned on buying a car, a boat, and traveling to Europe. Law and Iyer both allege that they heard Terri speak, saying, “Help me” and “Momma”.

Michael Shiavo clearly has some explaining to do. A supposedly “loving” husband, only carrying out his disabled wife’s medical orders, surely wouldn’t behave this way. The Schindlers, Terri’s parents, further allege that Michael withheld antibiotics when Terri developed an infection, refused to clean her teeth for seven years, and has kept her family and friends from visiting her. Most outrageously, when the feeding tube was disconnected and Terri lay dying, Michael also denied her last Communion - on the basis that the Host could be considered food.

Another oddity enters the case in the personage of Shiavo’s lawyer, George Felos. Felos is a noted “right to die” lawyer, who has written a book on how he “communicates” with the souls of disabled people. Felos asserts that he can “hear their screams” and that they “want to be released.” Felos was infuriated when Terri’s feeding tube was replaced. He angrily denounced the action, saying bizarrely that Terri’s “deathbed experience was unlawfully stopped.” Felos, a past member of the Hemlock Society, clearly hopes to advance along the Crusade of Death, with maybe a book and/or movie deal thrown in for good measure. Felos was Chairman of the Board of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, when Terri was secretly whisked out of the hospital and taken there to die.

What does Michael Shiavo gain from killing his wife? Both he and Felos have said that there is only about $60,000 left from the malpractice award monies, but they refuse to make bank account information available to either the Schindlers or the public.

Michael’s professed reasons for ending Terri’s life ring particularly hollow in light of the fact that he has been living with his girlfriend since 1995. They have one child, and another is on the way. The Schindlers allegedly offered to let him keep the malpractice money if he would just divorce Terri and move on. So why won’t he?

Several possible incentives exist. One is the insurance money. None was used as mandated on Terri’s rehabilitation, and it could have been invested. By now the sum could be substantially higher, even with his legal fees. Fr. Robert Johansen has also theorized that, by divorcing Terri in a community property state, Michael stands to lose half of his possessions and other monies. Better just to kill her off and keep what’s left of the insurance money and all of his worldly goods.

Terri’s family believes that Michael is intent upon killing her for the same reason he denied her rehabilitation - he’s got something to hide and he doesn’t want Terri waking up and talking about it. Several medical documents in their possession lend credence to this theory.

Michael must be made to answer some very serious questions. If he isn’t trying to end Terri’s life for nefarious reasons, there must be another answer. At the very least he should be called to account for why he spent money earmarked for Terri’s recovery on lawyers instead, who are trying mightily to have her killed.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
No brain function, eh?

I wonder how she's able to breath on her own with 0% brain function.


Well, since you have some experience with these matters, you tell me. ;)

[Nickdfresh]

Delay Hypocrisy: The GOP Using The Schiavo Case For Political Gain. Who Cries for Sun Hudson?

By Anthony Wade

March 19, 2005

www.OpEdNews.com


This is a story of two people who could not be more different, while at the same time, be so alike. More importantly, it is a story about a whore of a politician who genuinely does not care about either, but shows it in completely different ways. This is a story about hypocrisy and how Tom Delay and the Republican Party embody that principle.

The first person in this sad story is named Terry Schiavo. Most people have heard about Mrs. Schiavo because she has been in the headlines on several occasions, for her current predicament. Fifteen years ago, Mrs. Schiavo suffered a heart attack and fell into a coma, at the shockingly young age of 26. Today, Mrs. Schiavo is 41, still alive due to medical advances that sustain her through machinery. On one side of this story about Mrs. Schiavo is her husband and legal guardian, Michael. Michael Schiavo insists that Terri would never want to live this way, kept alive only by machinery. He has been fighting the legal battle to have her feeding tube removed, which would ensure her passing away. On the other side of this battle is the family of Terri Schiavo, who do not wish to see their daughter/sister die, and in fact view Michael as wishing to essentially “starve her to death.”

Recently, Michael Schiavo won a court battle that allowed the removal of the feeding tube for his wife. Since the starvation process would take some time, Terri’s family immediately went back to try and fight the legality of this decision. What they got, was support from an unexpected source. Tom Delay and the GOP have now seized upon this story and are using it to further their own agenda and to paint their opponents, the democrats, in an awkward position. In a feeble attempt to stop the removal of the feeding tube, Delay tried to subpoena Terri to appear and testify before Congress. An obvious publicity stunt, since Terri Schiavo has not spoken in 15 years, the attempt failed and the tube was removed. Undeterred, Delay vowed to continue to fight this fight, declaring the court’s decision a “moral and legal tragedy” and accusing the judge of “trying to kill Terri for 4 1/2 years."

Delay of course has no idea what he is talking about since he has only been involved in this case for a few weeks, when it gained some political legs for him. There is a word for that where I come from. It is called hypocrisy. To further this allegation, ABC News obtained a GOP talking points memo which explained to Senate republicans why their involvement in the Schiavo case would be important. The talking points stated that the Schiavo case was an important moral issue and that the "pro-life base will be excited," and that it is a "great political issue -- this is a tough issue for Democrats."

Did you notice that there was nothing about Terri Schiavo in their rationale for taking up this cause? Instead, the GOP has outlined that they need to align themselves on the side of Terri Schiavo because:

1) It will excite the pro-life base
2) It is a great political issue
3) It is a tough issue for democrats

Is anyone else disgusted? When asked about the talking points, Delay denied they were GOP related and denounced them. Sure Tom, we believe you. After all, you have never been involved in anything unethical, right? Oh wait a minute, there were a couple of problems weren’t there? Let’s take a quick look at the ethics of Mr. Delay:

1) Delay’s Political Action Committee is under criminal investigation for using corporate monies to finance political campaigns.
2) Delay tried to bribe another congressman to vote for the Medicare Bill. He earned a public admonishment from the House Ethics Committee for this.
3) Delay used taxpayer monies to fuel a partisan hunt for missing democrats in Texas. He was rebuked by the House Ethics Panel for this.
4) Delay set up a children’s charity as a front to collect soft money from anonymous donors. Some of this money was then used for “dinners, a golf tournament, and rock concerts.” This allowed companies who wanted to win favor with Delay to do so without revealing themselves as campaign donors.
5) In another rebuke by the House Ethics Committee, we saw executives at Westar Energy state that they believed their $56,500 contribution to the Delay PAC would get them a “seat at the table” when key energy legislation was going to be drafted. Delay also played in the Westar golf fundraiser, just as the 2002 House-Senate conference on major energy legislation was getting underway,
6) Delay took $100,000 from a Texas prison company as a bill was pending that dealt with the privatization of Texas prisons.
7) Delay received a “private rebuke” in 1999 for misusing his power to payback a trade group that had named a democrat to head their Washington operation. Delay had stopped two uncontroversial trade bills which hurt the trade group in question and told them that they would lose all GOP access unless they hired a republican instead.
8) Delay accepted donations to his own defense fund from two individuals he then named to the very House Ethics Committee that had already been so critical of him. Did you get that America? The House Ethics Committee correctly rebuked Delay three separate times. In response, Delay removed those that would dare be critical of him, and replaced them with people who had already donated money to his defense fund.
9) Delay took an opulent vacation in 2000, paid for by an Indian tribe and a gambling services company, both of which opposed legislation which Delay then voted against, two months later.
10) Delay accepted a trip to South Korea, which was paid for by a South Korean lobbying group, a violation of House rules. The cost of this trip was in excess of $100,000.
11) Delay proposed changes to the House Ethics Committee which “would prevent the committee from launching any investigation without the support of at least one republican – a restriction designed to protect the majority leader.”
12) Delay tried to convince House leaders to abandon an 11 year old rule which required leaders to step aside temporarily if indicted. Delay was facing possible indictment at the time. The idea was dropped because it “sent the wrong message.” Do you think?

Not content to mangle the ethics of the House of Representatives, Mr. Delay has now decided to venture into the realm of the ethics of social consciousness. The problem for him is ethics are ethics and if you do not have any, it will become apparent regardless of the forum. He expects us to believe that he has taken up the Schiavo cause for a reason he does not comprehend, ethics. The talking points reveal all we need to know, this is not about Terry Schiavo for Tom Delay. It is another opportunity to use someone for his own advantage. Michael Schiavo referred to it as a mockery and he is correct. He stated this week, “These people in Congress are walking all over my personal and private life. I'm telling you, the United States citizens, you better start speaking up, because these people are going to trample into your personal, private affairs." On this point, Michael Schiavo is right. He is right because Tom Delay could care less about Terry Schiavo. She is only a political weapon for him to wield. You can be sure of this because for every Terry Schiavo, there is a Sun Hudson, who never gets the attention of the Tom Delay’s of the world. Therein lies their hypocrisy.

Sun Hudson is the second person in our story. Sun was 17 pounds and six months old when the staff at Texas Children's Hospital removed his breathing tube and allowed him to die this week. Sun was born with a fatal form of dwarfism characterized by short arms, short legs and lungs too small. This condition is often found in utero, but Sun’s mother had no pre-natal care, so the condition went undiagnosed. Placed on a ventilator, doctors eventually recommended withdrawing treatment but Sun’s mother, Wanda, refused. Unfortunately for Wanda Hudson, Tom Delay’s home state of Texas has a law which allows hospitals to discontinue life-sustaining care, even if a patient's family members disagree. Where was the self-righteous Tom Delay in the case of Sun Hudson? His silence is deafening in its hypocrisy.

I do not pretend to have the answers to what is moral or correct in either of these situations. I just prefer to be consistent. If you believe all life is life and must be protected at all cost, then stand up for it at all times, not just when it is politically beneficial. In the battle over Terri Schiavo both sides claim things are not as the other side claims. Terri’s family says she is responsive to stimuli. Michael, her husband insists that his wife would not want to live like this and that this is about mercy.

In the case of little Sun Hudson, the doctors paid to defend the hospital’s decision to end his life said, “This isn't murder. It's mercy, and it's appropriate to be merciful in that way. It's not killing, it's stopping pointless treatment." It sounds like Michael Schiavo and these doctors can agree about a lot. Wanda Hudson had this to say after finally getting some media coverage, “I wanted y'all to see my son for yourself. So you could see he was actually moving around. He was conscious." It sounds like Wanda Hudson and the family of Terri Schiavo could agree about a lot as well.

That is the point isn’t it? There are two sides to these heart-wrenching stories. Both sides have their valid points and are deserving of their rights and privacy. Both sides are legitimate in their defense of what they truly believe in. The ethically bankrupt Tom Delay on the other hand, should be ashamed to politicize the issue of life and death. He should be embarrassed to drag his own hypocrisy into the arena of public opinion, just to “excite the pro-life base” or to give the democrats a “tough political issue to handle.”

Terri Schiavo is a real person and deserves better than to be treated as a political football to further the cause of the GOP. That is hypocrisy. This is the same hypocrisy that says that George Bush believes in a “culture of life” while waging war to no end. It is the same hypocrisy that sees so many people in the right-to-life movement cross-enrolled in the National Rifle Association supporting armor piercing bullets for “hunters”. It is the same hypocrisy that sees a man such as Tom Delay, devoid of ethics; decrying the ethical state of affairs in the Terri Schiavo case at the very same instant they are removing the tube from Sun Hudson, killing him.

Where is the outrage for Sun Hudson? Who cries for Sun Hudson? Wasn’t the life of Sun Hudson as important as the life of Terri Schiavo? The easy answer is yes. Unfortunately, the truthful answer is the life of Sun Hudson was just not as politically valuable. That should cause us all to at least pause for a moment and realize that the value of life should never be measured politically.

[Warham]

It was a valid question, punk.

Care to answer?

[Warham]

I'm sick of this Tom Delay shit...

Tell me why 50 Democrats voted with the Republicans...what crimes are they being investigated for?

::crickets chirping::

[academic punk]

okay, so why DID MS wait seven years to beign the process of pulling the plug?

Could he have been initially hopeful of a breakthrough/recovery? Was he hoping stem cell research might provide some clues as to rehabilitation? Was he initially being respectful towards her parents and saying, well, let's hold out for a little while, better to hedge on caution, and then realizing more and more that THE MEDICAL ASSESSMENTS and terri's (potenital, but likely, as multiple witnesses attested to her words) wishes were to be honored, and then the wheels began to turn from there, b/c of the legal entanglements (which I'm sure at first they tried to deal with amicably before it went to the courts).

Dude, she IS brain dead. Like thousands of people EVERY DAY, her life has run its natural course. Let her go.

Besdies, religion is on my side here. Ask any Christian Scientist.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
It was a valid question, punk.

Care to answer?

Ever hear the phrase "no chance of a meaningful recovery", ham?

[Warham]

Michael Shiavo, that scumbag on Larry King the other night...

Shortly after saying his determination to end Terri's life was about her wishes, Schiavo changed his story in the King interview. Asked if he understood her family's feelings, he said: "Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want. ..."

Read that last sentence.

[academic punk]

Let's agree to disagree. And that you never be my doctor.

[Nickdfresh]

A lack of brain activity in Congress

By PHILIP GAILEY, Times Editor of Editorials
Published March 20, 2005

Terri Schiavo has been in a "persistent vegetative state" for 15 years, kept alive by a feeding tube her husband has waged a long legal battle to remove. Medical experts say the thinking side of her brain shows no activity. A lack of brain activity in the U.S. Congress last week only partially explains why lawmakers behaved so disgracefully in Terri Schiavo's name. Most lacking were political courage, honesty about the facts and respect for the courts.

It was a cynical political spectacle that should disturb all Americans, regardless of which side of the Schiavo case they are on, who believe that politicians should not meddle in a family's end-of-life decisions. Sadly, Democrats, including Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, went along with the Republican uprising against state courts and expert medical opinion. Some lawmakers voted for the legislation even though they said they believed it was unconstitutional.

To no one's surprise, the U.S. House approved the most dangerous legislation. It would apply to thousands of incapacitated people on life support, giving federal courts the power to weigh in on the withdrawal of life support from patients who left no written instructions. The Senate limited federal court review to Terri Schiavo's case.

When the House and the Senate couldn't agree, Republicans, led by Florida Republican Sen. Mel Martinez, decided to turn a tragic situation into absurd theater. The Senate Health Committee "invited" Terri Schiavo and her husband Michael to come to Washington to testify. In the House, Republican leaders were in no mood to send out invitations. They issued subpoenas commanding Terri Schiavo, her husband and hospice officials to appear at a congressional hearing later this month. It is not clear exactly what they expect to hear from Terri Schiavo, who cannot speak.

Next to the demagoguery, the most appalling aspect of the floor debate in both chambers was the ignorance of - and indifference to - the medical facts in the Schiavo case. The worst offender was Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist, a Harvard-trained physician who, of all people, should know better. Frist ignored the testimony of independent medical experts who have examined Schiavo and said he could tell from watching a video that she is not in a persistent vegetative state. He also said she had not undergone a CAT scan. Wrong again. Brain scans show that parts of her brain have atrophied and been replaced by spinal fluid. (Remind me not to call Dr. Frist in the event of a medical emergency.)

It was obvious that Frist and his colleagues had not bothered to read a lengthy letter that George J. Felos, the lawyer representing Michael Schiavo, sent to every senator explaining the medical facts in this case. It included this description of persistent vegetative state written by the Multi-Society Task Force on PVS and published, after peer review, in the New England Journal of Medicine:

"The vegetative state is a clinical condition of complete unawareness of the self and the environment, accompanied by sleep-wake cycles with either complete or partial preservation of hypothalamic and brain-stem autonomic functions. Patients in a vegetative state are usually not immobile. They may move the trunk or limbs in meaningless ways. They may occasionally smile, and a few may even shed tears; some utter grunts or, on rare occasions, moan or scream."

Florida courts have ruled repeatedly that Michael Schiavo has the legal right to carry out what they concluded was the expressed will of his wife. Terri Schiavo's parents have fought him all the way. When they lost in state courts, they asked federal courts to intervene. None has. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take their appeal. No one's right to due process has been violated.

The real issue is not the removal of the feeding tube. If the parents had agreed with their son-in-law that it was what Terri would have wanted, it would have been done years ago and there would have been no protests, no court battles, no calls for political intervention in Tallahassee and in Washington. Pro-life activists would not have screamed "murder." What this fight is really about is whether Michael Schiavo, acting as his wife's legal guardian, has the right to carry out her wishes over the parents' objections. The courts have ruled that he does.

Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed Friday afternoon. But that only intensified the political scramble in Tallahassee and Washington to override the courts.

Philip Gailey's e-mail address is gailey@sptimes.com

[Warham]

Originally posted by academic punk
Let's agree to disagree. And that you never be my doctor.

Did you read his quote? Or are you just glossing over that?

[Warham]

I'm still waiting on Nick to tell me how much a human life is worth.

Probably what an abortion costs, I'd guess.

[academic punk]

"we" is husband and wife. if this happened to him, she would be his caretaker. and I guarantee this smear campaign wouldn't be waged against her if she were the one trying to let him go on the strength of his expressed wishes.

(plus I'll give him this: he - like the schindlers - has gotta be EXHAUSTED. I'm impressed by both sides ability to speak coherently at this point.)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Did you read his quote? Or are you just glossing over that?

Why don't you get me the transcript from the show. There are just a few lies surrounding this case I noticed. And who the fuck are you to call him a scumbag after what he has been through. I think her parents are nothing but money grubbing scumbags exploiting what's left of her daughter.

[Warham]

It's funny that only after he won that malpractice suit that he finally remembers that she doesn't want to go through all that. Such timing, eh?

[academic punk]

I've actually gotta run. (talk later)(Provided I'm not called by the lord - and then blocked from my passage by man-made means)

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Why don't you get me the transcript from the show. There are just a few lies surrounding this case I noticed. And who the fuck are you to call him a scumbag after what he has been through. I think her parents are nothing but money grubbing scumbags exploiting what's left of her daughter.

Yeah, Nick.

All parents are moneygrubbing scumbags.

Do you have kids, Nick?

Is Michael still by her bedside every night like they are, or is he living with his common law wife and two kids now?

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
It's funny that only after he won that malpractice suit that he finally remembers that she doesn't want to go through all that. Such timing, eh?

I'm sure he could have brought and won that suit either way.

maybe even moreso if she had been dead at the time.

or, you know, not BREATHING.

[Warham]

You don't find that odd, punk?

Especially since he's used most of that money to pay his lawyer to finish her off since then?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm still waiting on Nick to tell me how much a human life is worth.

Probably what an abortion costs, I'd guess.

I havn't answered because I find your self-flattering, morally vain question to be obtuse and useless. I guess if it's an Iraqi child killed by a US bombing raid, it's not worth shit in your view, huh Warham. But he's a muslim right? An infidal good for slaughter. Or is it that just God's plan when children are killed by US bombs?

But, okay...Lying in a hospital bed with a skull full of spinal fluid isn't life. So it's not worth anything in this case. She's already essentially dead.

Say Warham, do you believe in the death penalty?

[Warham]

Here's the whole show's transcript...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/18/lkl.01.html

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, Nick.

All parents are moneygrubbing scumbags.

Do you have kids, Nick?

Is Michael still by her bedside every night like they are, or is he living with his common law wife and two kids now?

Get off your bullshit high-horse Warham, I SAID HER FUCKING PARENTS! Not all parents. Breaking commandments by lying are we?

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I havn't answered because I find your self-flattering, morally vain question to be obtuse and useless. I guess if it's an Iraqi child killed by a US bombing raid, it's not worth shit in your view, huh Warham. But he's a muslim right? An infidal good for slaughter. Or is it that just God's plan when children are killed by US bombs?

But, okay...Lying in a hospital bed with a skull full of spinal fluid isn't life. So it's not worth anything in this case. She's already essentially dead.

Say Warham, do you believe in the death penalty?

Iraqi children are JUST as valuable as any other child, Nick.

Why did you bring up Iraqi kids? I'm not for the killing of innocent civilians. Do you think I jump up and down when I see pics of that?

I do believe in the death penalty.

I know liberals don't. They'd rather have Shiavo die than John Couey, who's a confessed child molester and murderer.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Get off your bullshit high-horse Warham, I SAID HER FUCKING PARENTS! Not all parents. Breaking commandments by lying are we?

So you think the two people who brought her into the world are in it for the money, Nick?

Is that what you really believe? Quite delusional.

Unreal.

I would suggest you have some kids, if you don't, and we'll talk about this in thirty years.

That'll straighten out those wacked out thoughts of yours.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Iraqi children are JUST as valuable as any other child, Nick.

Why did you bring up Iraqi kids? I'm not for the killing of innocent civilians. Do you think I jump up and down when I see pics of that?

It doesn't matter what YOU'RE FOR! I didn't ask your motivation. The result is the same, they're dead and poor.


I do believe in the death penalty.

So we can selectively decide who dies? It's not all in God's hands eh?


I know liberals don't. They'd rather have Shiavo die than John Couey, who's a confessed child molester and murderer.

It's not an either or choice. Schiavo's brain dead with no consciousness. This is about the rights of a husband to decide the fate of his tragically brain damaged wife.

Personally, I'd rather see Couey live, in the general prison population with no special protections and a large, angry cell mate rather than linger on death row isolated and protected, with full health coverage and three square meals a day.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Warham


I know liberals don't. They'd rather have Shiavo die than John Couey, who's a confessed child molester and murderer.

Yup. :gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
So you think the two people who brought her into the world are in it for the money, Nick?


Is that what you really believe? Quite delusional.

Unreal.

I would suggest you have some kids, if you don't, and we'll talk about this in thirty years.

That'll straighten out those wacked out thoughts of yours.

Why not, you think the man that was her husband wants to dispose of her after she's been a vegetable for 15 years. He's following the medical opinions and the wishes of his wife. Oh and btw, Warham, you may be a good father, but that doesn't mean every other parent feels the same way. There are plenty examples of that.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh


Personally, I'd rather see Couey live, in the general prison population with no special protections and a large, angry cell mate rather than linger on death row isolated and protected, with full health coverage and three square meals a day.

Ah, so you'd allow tax payer dollars to be spent on a child molester to stay alive but Shiavo's not worth it.

A real insight into the liberal mind.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Yup. :gulp:

Or assholes who think it's funny when kids get crushed to death by a bulldozer.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Why not, you think the man that was her husband wants to dispose of her after she's been a vegetable for 15 years. He's following the medical opinions and the wishes of his wife. Oh and btw, Warham, you may be a good father, but that doesn't mean every other parent feels the same way. There are plenty examples of that.

He said on Larry King he didn't know her wishes. He only wanted her disposed of after he won that malpractice case. Let's remember, the guy said a few years ago, before the settlement, that he was going to become a nurse and take care of her at home. Guess that didn't pan out.

Are we going on just his word? The word of his family isn't considered?

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Or assholes who think it's funny when kids get crushed to death by a bulldozer.

How old was she? 20+?

Is that considered a child to a liberal?

I think the voting age for liberals should be raised to 24, since younger than that is a child.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Ah, so you'd allow tax payer dollars to be spent on a child molester to stay alive but Shiavo's not worth it.

A real insight into the liberal mind.

Who said he'd stay alive? If he did, he'd be raped in the ass every day for the rest of his pathetic fucking life, which wouldn't last long. Death row costs more in taxpayer dollars. Having a child killer sodomized and beaten to death by his fellow inmates, priceless!

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Or assholes who think it's funny when kids get crushed to death by a bulldozer.

Never did think it was funny, but I will continue to throw it in your face.

But then again Rachel Corrie was no kid either, was she?

She was 22 or 23...of legal age. She was no kid.

She did a stupid thing.....she was weeded out via her OWN stupidity by falling asleep behind a berm of dirt.



http://civilwarclipart.com/Clipartgallery/images/smileys/bulldozer3.gif

[Warham]

It'd take some inmate five minutes to kill that guy with a broomstick.

She's gotta wait two weeks.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
How old was she? 20+?

Is that considered a child to a liberal?

It is to me! She was stupid, but so was Terri when she became a bulimic! They both made bad decisions, only you guys seem to relish the fact that a "liberal" got killed as the result of her personal irresponsibility. You're 'Christian' colors are beginning to show.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
It'd take some inmate five minutes to kill that guy with a broomstick.

She's gotta wait two weeks.

She'll have morphine to start out. Then the delirium will put whatever is left of her brain into a coma. She'll feel what she feels now, little or nothing.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You're 'Christian' colors are beginning to show.

So is your "intolerance." The virtue you liberals hold near and dear to your heart. Oh, that's right, you only tolerate certain virtues, creeds, and beliefs, correct?

[Warham]

I don't relish anything. I just find her actions indefensible.

If I opposed car pollution, would it be a good idea to run into rush hour traffic on I-95?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't relish anything. I just find her actions indefensible.

If I opposed car pollution, would it be a good idea to run into rush hour traffic on I-95?

If you think you're fat, should you eat good food, then stick your fingers down your throat, ultimately causing severe, irreversible brain damage resulting in $100,000's to be spent on futile therapies?

[Warham]

Perhaps those bruises that were found on her body had something to do with it, eh?

He's spent more money paying his lawyer than he has trying to pay for her therapy.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Perhaps those bruises that were found on her body had something to do with it, eh?

He's spent more money paying his lawyer than he has trying to pay for her therapy.

Which bruises, the one's specualted by her family? He spent the money on lawyers when several brain specialists told him recovery was impossible.

[academic punk]

Once again, smear tactics.

Look, warham, EVERY doctor agrees that her condition is basically living dead and irrersible. You also have - at this point - 20 judges who have ruled on this case. How many does it take? Aree you at all aware of how hard you'd be cackling at nick right now if he was going on and on like this about, say, the 2000 election results?

The Schindlers would have definitely gone after MS about abuses and whatnot already rather than this continuous governmental and legal uphill losing battle if there were anything there. What you're doing is tantamount to slander, and it's all for getting your side to feel like its won.

it hasn't. yet. I for one hope it doesn't.

[tomballin]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The autonomic response of the medulla located at her brain stem. The part that controls the most basic of functions, and the last part of the brain to die. The rest of her brain turned to mush, LITERALLY!

Her husband spent much of the settlement award (you know, the awards that Bush is trying to limit?) to try new therapies and worked with her parents initially. But when the money became involved, that's when they turned on him.

I am sorry, some great members I respect here, but you don’t know shit on this subject, because you don't know the Schiavo case in detail. As I have stated when I waded in on this whole issue, I've followed Terri’s case closely for 4 straight years because I have a PVS in my non-immediate family.

NDF, most of Terri's medical malpractice money went to Michael’s attorney's et. al. trying to end Terri's life. In fact the Schindler's paid for most of Terri's therapy during the early years, because Michael was broke. The guy was so broke he lived at the Schindler's home. Michael was supposed to pay them back with the award money, but never did.

Also custody of Terri when she collapsed was in joint between her maggot Scott Peterson clone husband, and her parents. Terri also wanted to divorce the maggot when she collapsed, according to sworn affidavits from several of her best friends. Her parent didn’t know this at the time, over even until later in this situation.

Terri’s parents only signed full guardian control to Michael, at the advice of the attorney that MS and Terri’s parents were using to facilitate in the malpractice case, because of Florida’s screwed up laws. NO OTHER REASON! Terri’s parents never realized at the time, MS would fuck them bad over the deal.

This is what started the ball rolling on this distasteful personal war between Terri’s father and Michael.

I am not going to wade in on anymore of this TS garbage, as there is no utility at this juncture, but I know more about PVS's than anyone here, PERIOD, unless someone else here has a female PVS in their family.

I hate to burst everyone’s bubble, but the brain does not control the entire body, memory cells throughout the body are highly involved, and Terri still has them, and can feel pain, emotion, among many other things. PVS’s in Terri’s state, can shock the shit out of you as to what they feel and understand. It’s very weird.

U.S. doctor's don't know fucking SHITE about all this, or even about this arena of medicine, because of the lack of qualified long-term neuro-endocrine research studies. The best studies and experts in the world are from Italy, Germany, and Japan, and they well dismiss a lot of this worthless shite the U.S. Medical establishment has to say here.

Just my 3 cents. Nothing personal intended again anyone.

Roth On

[academic punk]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=6&u=/ap/20050322/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman_texas_law

enjoy.

and, yes, I would appreciate your trying to explain this.

[Warham]

Originally posted by academic punk
Once again, smear tactics.

Look, warham, EVERY doctor agrees that her condition is basically living dead and irrersible. You also have - at this point - 20 judges who have ruled on this case. How many does it take? Aree you at all aware of how hard you'd be cackling at nick right now if he was going on and on like this about, say, the 2000 election results?

The Schindlers would have definitely gone after MS about abuses and whatnot already rather than this continuous governmental and legal uphill losing battle if there were anything there. What you're doing is tantamount to slander, and it's all for getting your side to feel like its won.

it hasn't. yet. I for one hope it doesn't.

20 judges have NOT ruled on the case.

The Supreme Court is considered as 9 of those judges, and they never bothered to look at it the last time it came around, because they didn't want to at the time. That's not considered a ruling, although the media would like to portray it that way.

[tomballin]

Originally posted by Warham
Michael Shiavo, that scumbag on Larry King the other night...

Shortly after saying his determination to end Terri's life was about her wishes, Schiavo changed his story in the King interview. Asked if he understood her family's feelings, he said: "Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want. ..."

Read that last sentence.

Point of Reference: Warham, you are reciting the transcript of the show which is in error on this comment, based on the actual video. Michael never said this, he was refering to Terri's parents saying that they didn't actually know Terri's wishes when she collasped, which is accurate.

[Warham]

He never said it? Then all these people who said he said it are lying?

[Warham]

KING: Have you had any contact with the family today? This is a sad day all the way around, Michael. We know of your dispute.

M. SCHIAVO: I've had no contact with them.

KING: No contact at all?

M. SCHIAVO: No.

KING: Do you understand how they feel?

M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...

[Warham]

I don't see how you can read that any other way than the way he said it.

[Guitar Shark]

It's an error in the transcription, Warham. Watch the video.

[Warham]

Really, so CNN's website made an error in their transcription?

It doesn't really matter in the long run. The guy has already made conflicting statements over the years.

[Guitar Shark]

I don't have access to the video right now, but I watched the interview and my memory is consistent with tomballin's recollection. I could be wrong though. Either way, I wouldn't read anything into that particular statement. Who knows what kind of blunder any of us would make under the bright lights of Larry King Live. Those suspenders have GOT to affect people's concentration. ;)

[tomballin]

Originally posted by Warham
KING: Have you had any contact with the family today? This is a sad day all the way around, Michael. We know of your dispute.

M. SCHIAVO: I've had no contact with them.

KING: No contact at all?

M. SCHIAVO: No.

KING: Do you understand how they feel?

M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...

Let's debate the facts, not the bullshit. The transcript is wrong. I hate the Scott Peterson clone like you War but not everything the man says it total bullshit.

Terri's father is just as full of shit as MS a lot of times, and it gets REAL old.

[Warham]

Oh, he's made enough contradictory statements over the years to debate other than this one.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by academic punk
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=6&u=/ap/20050322/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman_texas_law

enjoy.

and, yes, I would appreciate your trying to explain this.

can't help but notice no one has preached on this one.

c'mon, ham, preach it to me. you're going to give MS a hiding for his contradictory statements, let's see how you spin this.

[FORD]

But.... but..... but..... Junior is incapable of errors, because God speaks through him :rolleyes:

[Warham]

Quote from said article:

The Texas law does not include a provision for dealing with conflicts among family members who disagree with the surrogate decision-maker — as has happened in the Schiavo case — although in practice hospital ethics committees would try to resolve such disputes, he said.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Oh, he's made enough contradictory statements over the years to debate other than this one.

But I'm sure her parents never have!

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
Quote from said article:

The Texas law does not include a provision for dealing with conflicts among family members who disagree with the surrogate decision-maker — as has happened in the Schiavo case — although in practice hospital ethics committees would try to resolve such disputes, he said.


uh-uh. not letting you off the hook on a technicality. This law gives the hospital - not the spouse, not the parents - jurisdiction to ends someones life, regardless of that persons wishes, whether written, stated, or otherwise.

what about everything you're saying here? that life should be preserved so long as there is life?

[Warham]

I've been saying since I got into this...as long as there's a will, then it's indisputable.

This is different.

[FORD]

And let's not forget that the law Junior signed allows the hospital to end treatment because of inability to pay

Another fine example of BCE "compassionate conservatism"? :mad:

[tomballin]

Originally posted by FORD
And let's not forget that the law Junior signed allows the hospital to end treatment because of inability to pay

Another fine example of BCE "compassionate conservatism"? :mad:

Nailed that one Ford. It was totally a money deal.

The Texas Medical Center, largest medical center in the world, and other hospital organizations were getting slammed bad on excess cost overruns because of the Clinton induced '97 medical cost containment act.

So the hospitals were looking for ways to cut costs, and stop treating inability to pay patients, and Bush always helps his corporate buddies.

Same reason MD Anderson started turning out terminal cancer patients on the street, left and right. Of course, if you are Eddie Van Halen, come on in.