Interesting angle. I'm sure at that age most children don't really understand what's going on, but allegations that your dad is trying to kill his wife probably don't earn you too much street cred at the school playground.

Not having known Terri - and still having their biological mother (as opposed to divorce/stepmom scenario) - probably removes a lot of the personal aspect for the children. BUt they'll always be known as the kids Michael Schiavo had while his wife was veggie - and that could have some traumatic implications in the future. I just hope Schiavo is being honest with a) his children, and b) the rest of the world.

The husband has not moved on with his life. He is fighting to let his wife die as any good American would. FL law and simple common sense says the spouse - not the parent - must have the decision. He is defending Terri's rights and Terri's wishes - at great expense to himself.

What appalls me with Wolf's post is that it demonstrates how the right wing propaganda machine is so powerful. Long after the doctors said too much has already been tried, Michael Shiavo kept trying to revive his wife including a special trip to CA for some experimental treatment. Did your news service forget to mention that CA trip; as Fox News must do to promote their propaganda? Any responsible news source would be saying how much he did beyond what he should have done. But since he represents his wife's civil rights in direct opposition to religious right extremist edicts, then even Wolf has recevied a distorted summary of the facts.

Good people should be calling for the needle. Terri Schiavo has a brain of oatmeal. What we are doing to Schiavo is called torture - if not just a violation of her civil rights and her court acknowledged wishes. (But then the George Jr administration authorized torture meaning what we do to Terri is good and legal.) What we do to Michael Schiavo is just as appalling. We let Fox News lie about everything he did for his wife - and we don't start a post recommending civil disobedience in all Fox Newsrooms - to corrupt the operations of that propagandist.

No, we need not trash the Fox Newsroom. We need a public who is not listening to the same propaganda that promoted WMD, the illegal invasion of Iraq, those mythical aluminum tubes, and will soon advocate the invasion of Iran. A right wing propaganda machine so good that they now hire journalists to ask the questions they want asked. Just another way to promote propaganda. Many of us now think it is good to violate Terri and Michael's civil rights because of that propaganda machine; to impose a religious extremist viewpoint at the expense of civil rights.

When religion was imposed on others, well, nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. We have that today. A Spanish Inquisition is being imposed upon the rights of Terri and Michael Schiavo. We are suppose to learn from history. Once religion goes beyond a relationship only between a man and his gods, then we end up even with the world's most deadliest wars. This one is simple. May of us who have posted in this topic hate the civil rights of Terri Schiavo. We do this by not learning the facts. Michael Schiavo has done more than anyone should ever be expected, to defend both the rights and the desires of Terri Schiavo - Fox News and Rush Limbaugh propaganda be damned for promoting religious concepts in violation of civil rights.

I think that, ultimately, this is part of the larger neocon agenda of removing the judiciary as a check on the executive and legislature. Find a case in which the law is absolutely on one side (and so the judges can be relied upon to rule one way), but which can be spun as a moral outrage. The many completely unsubstantiated rumors about Michael's moral turpitude are par for the course for this type of campaign, an attempt to get people to care more about the personalities involved than the facts of the case.

Luckily, it doesn't seem to be working[pdf] so far.

you know, i really don't care a lot about this whole issue, as it should have been over a very long time ago. spouse says DNR, then DNR. the problem is that she has to starve to death.

i can't believe i'm going to say this, but i agree with TW. they should give her the needle. it would be more humane, by a long shot.

where is Dr. Jack when we need him?

But could that happen? Could the emotional impact of the needle - euthanasia like she was some kind of animal - be overcome by logical thinking?

Yes, I do have reservations about the use of a needle for the same reasons I have reservations about capital punishment. The legal system has proven quite incompetant in execution of the capital punishment procedure. Could it be trusted to decide when euthanasia should and should not be applied?

Unfortunately the consequences are appalling - Terri Schiavo is said to be one of but hundreds of ongoing similar cases.

We should be moving on from the religious aspect and trying to find out how better to honor a person's civil rights in similar situations. Unfortunately, with Dr Jack imprisoned, we have instead gone backwards.

That's another underreported aspect of this case. Removing life support, including feeding tubes, is the current accepted procedure when there is no hope of recovery, with the consent of the next of kin (In Texas, the hospital can make the decision if the next of kin can't pay). This is literally happening all the time. But suddenly this particular case gets hyped beyond all reason, and pundits start acting as if it is some sort of barbaric execution that judges have sentenced her to. I'm certain that many of the other cases include disagreement between different relatives over when to give up. The only thing that separates this case from all the rest is that Jeb Bush got himself involved, and opened the door to the rest of his party.

a large part of this, i think, is that many people who are pushing an agenda aren't completely stupid. they know they need the perfect case to further their cause. in this one they have a man who they can cast in an unfavorable light (new family, etc.) and a set of parents who will get in front of cameras and draw sympathy.

I think Michael Schiavo's actions are downright heroic. Delay, yet again, reveals himself to be the slime of the earth.

Bingo! :thumbsup:

I'm too busy at the moment to read all the posts in this thread, so this may have been addressed already. Political persuasion, congress getting involved with uncongressional things, and armchair neurology aside, what's the problem with continuing to feed the woman?

We don't know her wishes, and Michael Schiavo's assertion (seven years too late) that she wants to die rings false to my ears. If her parents and supporters want to feed her, let em. MS can be free of the worry by divorcing her, and delusional or not, her parents have invested far more in her well-being than he has. I think he abdicated his spousal rights when he established a common-law marriage with his current partner.

Seven years too late for what?

to suddenly remember, "oh yeah, by the way, she wanted to be taken off life-support."

No no, he's been fighting this in court for the full seven years, ever since it happened. He has maintained from the beginning that she told him she would never want to be kept alive artificially, and he feels he should honor that wish.

Did he say that she wouldn't want to be on life support ever, or that she wouldn't want to have her body kept alive after all hope of recovery was lost? Because the two dates are considerably different, and most people wouldn't want to end life support while hope for a cure remains. But at some point you have to face facts, and Michael has done so long before her parents.

And Michael is the one whose decision it is, no matter how many ghouls want to armchair quarterback, and judge his life, or advance their political agendas. The parents are to be pitied, and it is too bad they couldn't come to an agreement with their daughter's husband, but it's not their call, no matter how many more morality points they have than him. I don't care whether they keep Terri's body alive, and I don't think Terri currently cares either, but Michael does, and it's not my call. It's his.

After reading the description of the condition of Terri's brain, I have tried and tried to understand why her parents refuse to let her body die, and I can't even come close to understanding it. They say that "She could possibly get better??? Her brain will not grow back! I understand going through the denial phase, but they should've passed that a long time ago. And whatever her husband did or didn't do, should've done or shouldn't have done.......at THIS POINT IN TIME, I just cannot see why anyone would disagree about it being time to let her go.

http://cellar.org/2005/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg

Apparently the dark areas are where spinal fluid has replaced brain matter.

They started the lawsuit process immediately after the initial decision was made which is understandable but, once started, a lawsuit tends to cement your position, even if you would otherwise have changed your mind.

Mmm. It's that holding onto the past thing again, isn't it?

Not when Terri is still "with" them. Her eyes are open, her skin is warm. They can still run their fingers through her hair. They think she's still in there and can't bear the thought of her dying of thirst. I feel very sorry for her parents and think it would be merciful for all involved if she would just pass on naturally.

In a sad kind of way, this situation reminds me of an Edgar Allen Poe story (The Case of Mr. Valdemar) that was made into a movie starring Vincent Price. In the story, Price "died" while under hypnosis and found himself trapped in a nether region between life and hell. He was witness to the scale of the unspeakable horror of Hell as well as the tranquil beauty of life but unable to engage/escape from either. And there was nothing anyone could do to free him.

Mmm, this is the problem. How do we know she is brain-dead. She might be able to understand everything around her - and more - and is it really right to end her life for her? I think that film would describe my greatest fear.

like, for example, when someone is under anaesthesia and the "make-you-unconscious" component wears off before the paralyzing component. I think they now add a shot of something that takes away your memory, just in case.

but anyway. there's obviously no clean answer to this question. it would be a blessing for everyone involved if she died of a heart attack today and rendered the whole argument moot.

How do we know she is brain-dead. She might be able to understand everything around her - and more - and is it really right to end her life for her?

She has no cerebral cortex at all -- the only thing left of her brain is the brain stem. The cerebral cortex died of oxygen starvation, was replaced by fluid, and the remaining parts of her brain were smashed against her skull by the pressure buildup. When they place electrodes on her head to measure brain activity the graph is nothing but flat lines. She is, without a doubt, brain dead.

My new favorite conservative blogger, Hugh Hewitt, wrote this today:
I have no legal expertise, so I don't know whether or not Hewitt is blowing smoke out his ass. But I do know that injunctive relief has been granted in the context of the Endangered Species Act -- why should Terri Schiavo be any different?

OK, most of that was lost on my non-legal termanese speaking self.

What I'm getting is that

There was a bill in front of the 11th Circuit Court to put the feeding tube back into Terri so that Congress could make a new law to protect her.

Is that right?

And then the 11th Court decided no, we're not putting the feeding tube back into Terri, so any law Congress makes better be damn quick.

Is that right?

And everyone is pissed because (1) Congress shouldn't be making laws for one person and (2) The law in Florida says Michael is the last say so, being her husband, and (3) All of the appeals that can be filed in Florida have been and the parents lost, so they went to Congress to...what?

Wouldn't this be up to the Supreme Court, and not Congress?? I thought Congress makes federal law, the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of the law, and the president breaks the law?

Here's the whole timeline

an excerpt:

The judge decided against reinsertion (because of some faulty wording in the argument). Hewitt thinks that the judicial branch is showing great disrespect for the other branches in this matter. Congress wants a de novo (brand new) trial, but they didn't get it, so now there's a petition for an en banc review (French for "in the bench," it signifies a decision by the full court of all the appeals judges in jurisdictions where there is more than one three- or four-judge panel. The larger number sit in judgment when the court feels there is a particularly significant issue at stake or when requested by one or both parties to the case and agreed to by the court. -- definition from law.com). All this to keep the feeding tube in until the case is re-examined....again.

In contrast, if the rare pan-mexican jumping ratdog is going to lose its hidey-hole because someone wants to build a mall, injunctive relief is granted almost immediately. That's my point.

Injunctive relief is granted only if there is a substantial chance that the case will go that way in the end. This is one of the most tried cases in Florida history, always decided the same way, and it is essentially open and shut - the husband has the final say.

All my life, whenever I have asked a doctor what causes a medical condition or to explain in detail its progress etc. The stock answer is "we don't really know". Yet, they really are sure about Terri's condition. Somethings not right with the medical profession period.

And Liz, I'm sure that will cause you to avoid the docs next time you get sick, right?

http://cellar.org/2005/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg

Apparently the dark areas are where spinal fluid has replaced brain matter.

There's no "we don't really know" here.

Think Terri might revive or really be "in there"? There is just as much of a chance that a person that has been dead for fifteen years will come back to life, or that a decapitated arm will magically re-grow itself.

UT, the healthy brain clearly has a squinty smiley face in it. See? Happy brain. :D

Whether or not her brain is utterly fubar isn't being questioned, at least not by me. I'm just wondering why they won't let the parents feed her if they want to. She's obviously still alive, even if in a severely diminished state. She doesn't need help breathing, just eating. Let them continue to feed her if they want, and the rest of us can all go home. She's probably not aware of what's going on, so it won't hurt her any. Michael Schiavo can go marry his new girl, the parents can live the rest of their lives at her bedside. Who does it hurt?

If they decide that she shouldn't live out her days with a feeding tube, fine. Euthanize her. But if you had a sick dog that needed to be put to sleep, and you decided to let it starve to death, you'd have cops at your door in nothing flat. Why is it ok to starve Terri?

I'm going in circles on this. I just don't know, to be honest.

Let Terri GO. I've seen minions like Terri. Let her go. That is the only humane thing to do.

I'm just wondering why they won't let the parents feed her if they want to.

Because it isn't their decision. They no longer had any say in the matter the day Terri said "I do" and the papers got signed with the state. It is just as questionable for a random person on the street to make this decision as it would be for her parents to say the tube should be re-inserted because they would be willing to care for her. Until her husband dies, they have zero say in this matter.

If they decide that she shouldn't live out her days with a feeding tube, fine. Euthanize her.

The same people that want this shell of a person to do nothing other than continue processing food pumped into her for years to come are the same ones that made that option entirely illegal.

If you look here you'll see where that is part true, part travesty.

The focus, right now, is on Terri Schindler-Schiavo.

Lets step back from this one emotionally laden case for a moment, and deal with the larger issue. What impact does this have on other right-to-life/death cases?

This is particularly an issue for Florida, at least by anecdotal evidence, because of the large numbers of old people they have ...

If someone is so advanced in their senility that they require tubal feedings for nutrition, have no awareness of themselves or their surroundings, can we starve grandma to death? What about a profoundly mentally retarded child? Can we expose him on a hillside like our forebears?

According to that bill Bush signed in Texass, yes you can.

If the patient runs out of money...

Federal Medicare law says you have to treat to the point of stabilizing, regardless of insurance status. (no, I haven't read the whole law, just parts of EMTALA relevant to what I do, so I don't actually know what medicare has to say about continuing care of this kind. And yes, medicare law does apply even when the patient is not covered by medicare.)

Kevorkian's in prison (or is he out by now? either way).

Removal of life support is the only legal way to let a human die. It happens all the time. The only unique aspect to this case is that Jeb Bush interfered. Would I prefer that euthanasia were available for cases similar to this? Sure. But it isn't.
Of course, dog comparisons are meaningless, but this one is not just meaningless - it's wrong. If your dog loses consciousness and stops eating, no cops would show up with a feeding tube and a poison needle and force you to choose. You are well within your rights to let a dog in a coma die with no medical intervention. But no matter what the laws are for dogs, they are completely irrelevant to this case.

The law is more clear on dogs than it is on people.

If someone is so advanced in their senility that they require tubal feedings for nutrition, have no awareness of themselves or their surroundings, can we starve grandma to death?

Yes. It happens every single day all over the country and is considered normal. Everything from a yellow "DNR" band on the wrist, simply pulling the plug, or turning off assisted breathing is just as much a part of life as the previous years of the person who passes from this world once it happens.

Can we expose him on a hillside like our forebears?

This is a bit of a stretch -- we might as well equate removing the feeding tube with tieing the sick down in a wooden boat and pushing them out to sea after we set it on fire while we're at it. All indications from those concious after the feeding tube has been pulled report that it is not a painful way to expire, nor is it cruel. It is a method a lot of people decide is okay. It is a method a lot of spouses decide is okay.

If I end up this way at some point in my life and am beyond recovery, I sure as hell want to be removed from life support. Should the government deny me, or my next of kin, that right, then the thousands of people who elect to die that way every day are going to be placed into question.

For a moment, put aside the emotional aspect of this case, which should have remained within the families to begin with before the media blew it up, and think about the legal side that could affect all of our families in the future.

Like I said, dog comparisons are meaningless, but I've seen the comparison made in several places, including on the "news", so I felt it ought to be addressed.

No one should have to suffer what Terri is suffering. leave her alone and let her be. Those who would "save" her have no idea of her day-to-day life. They should be sentanced to live a day of her life. Things would then change.

and that's probably the only lesson that anyone will learn from this. make a living will -- this stuff doesn't just happen to 'other people.'

I don't think it's fair to throw this back in Bush's face, though. What appears to be hypocrisy might be a change of heart. There's no one involved in this case (or the discussion of it) who really knows what to do. They've picked sides, because that's what people do. But I don't think anybody is intending evil. To demonize Bush for being pro-life while simultaneously demonizing him for being the opposite is disingenuous. There are a multitude of easy targets in this situation, and maybe they all deserve a shot across the bow; but I'm no longer certain that there is a "right" answer in the Terri Schiavo case.


although my mom babysat Tommy DeLay and his brothers when he was a 5-year old in Laredo TX, and he was apparently a little brat then, too. :D

I tried it last night... slept 8 hours, didn't recall any dreams. That's a third of her day right there.

but I'm no longer certain that there is a "right" answer in the Terri Schiavo case.

There is, and its this simple:

Terri is married to Michael Shiavo.
Terri has been braindead for fifteen years and is unable to live unassisted.
Michael, being legal next-of-kin, is having her life support removed.
End of story.

There are no legal questions in this what-so-ever. As to why this has ended up in court repeatedly and is currently in federal hands at the consideration of the f'ing president of the United States, I have no idea. The media and other groups have done a very nice job of twisting this case into "her rights are being denied" when the only right clearly being blocked in this case is her husband's in what he has intended to do what is legally right for years: let her pass away as she wanted.

It doesn't matter what the parents say.
It doesn't matter that the method she passes away with is starvation.
It doesn't matter that some people who have little understanding of Terri's condition think she might miraculously recover or that she might somehow be concious.

Just as there shouldn't be any question in her condition, there is no question of what is "right" in this case.

The president of the United States and Congress should, by all means, be facing a lawsuit for their involvement and their attempts to remove the rights of a married couple.

:lol:
Criticising someone for hypocracy is disingenuous?

lol I know. But this is a pretty unique situation, and whatever you think about Bush, he's been nothing but forthcoming about his views and beliefs. That's one reason why people hate him so much.

I loathed everything about Bill Clinton and his posse of ass-lickers, but even I had to admit that there were times that he appeared genuinely moved by certain things (9/11 for one), and I didn't try to find a way to make him the root of all evil.

Look, it's only 3 1/2 more years, just get over it.

I would still feel more comfortable if a blood relation made the decision. Not a perfect world or answer - just my opinion.

I would still feel more comfortable if a blood relation made the decision.

What if her parents wanted to pull the tube? Would you still think that? What if the situation were reversed?

The only unique thing about this situation is that Bush's brother stuck himself into the process, and invited the rest of the Republicans in.

That and the patient's husband decided to go off and make a new life for himself without yielding any rights as next-of-kin. Oh, and he's estranged from the parents. And the Fla. Supreme Court was involved long before JB - there were something like 7 petitions before his involvement.

And there are Republicans who are against reinserting the tube, and Democrats who are for it. Once again, get over the right vs. left thing. This is beyond that.

If her parents made the decision Michael Schiavo made I would be OK with it.

A friend of mine posted this elsewhere.

Not right v left?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How Did Local Lawmakers Vote In Schiavo Case?
Survey: Agree With House Decision?
Discuss: Locals Share Their Views

Below is the the 203-58 roll call Monday by which the House passed a bill to give Terri Schiavo's parents the right to file suit in federal court over the withdrawal of food and medical treatment needed to sustain her life.

A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill.

Voting yes were 47 Democrats, 156 Republicans and no Independents.

Voting no were 53 Democrats, 5 Republicans and no Independents.

He made a new life for himself years after the incident. He became estranged from the parents in response to the lawsuits. Desperate people take meritless cases to state supreme courts all the time. None of that is unusual. This case became a circus when Jeb Bush attempted to use his political power to force the courts to rule a certain way, and Delay hopped on board because his name was in the news for the wrong reasons.Among the rank and file, there is a general consensus in favor of Michael Schiavo. Among the politicians, it is hugely lopsided in a partisan way. The only thing that brought the case to national attention is the partisan aspect.

You're high. This has been a national story for 15 years. I defer to your statistics as far as partisanship goes, though. Although, when was the last time 47 Democrats sided with Bush on anything? That's practically a mandate.

Oh yeah, they agreed on going to war *duck*

If her parents made the decision Michael Schiavo made I would be OK with it.

In our society, your parents don't have any rights over your life or property once you are married or explicity state it in (as in a living will). Why do you not agree with that? You would rather everyone's parents had the ability to null out their spouse's will when they are not able to communicate their wishes? Just because of a blood relation?

The Democrats reflected the general consensus of the nation, while the Republicans voted as a partisan bloc. Though I wish the Democrats had reflected the 70-30 consensus against Congress intervening, rather than the 60-40 split against reinserting the feeding tube.

I used the term "circus", not "national story". A quick mention on CNN can make something a "national story". This case became a circus when Jeb Bush involved himself. Until that point, it was two parties exercising all available options to the extent available by law. Then Jeb jumps in and says "I'll override the judicial system in this case!" That's what separated this case from any other dispute over guardianship status.

"Impose religion on all people" is now the litmus test. Your question was answered 18 Mar and later Religious extremists have made this a litmus test of who they will take out. Remember, the religious vote religiously. The majority don't vote. This is not about Terri Schiavo' oatmeal brain. This is about forcing religious beliefs on all other people. The rights that Terri Schiavo and her husband once had have been long since destroyed by a right wing religious agenda. An agenda to find build an enemies list.

The courts have repeatedly rejected every issue put forth by religious extremists. You would never know that from the posts by mrnoodle. The courts are solidly honoring Terri and Michael's rights.

No this is not about Terri. She is to be screwed. Right wing religion has declared Terri the battle cry to deny all the right of euthanasia. George Jr knows where he gets his votes. George Jr has decided he knows what is right - without even learning the facts. He has been told what the Christian party line is. Screw Terri and her husband to the max. Only religious rhetoric is important here.

Appreciate why even Democrats are on the band wagon. The religious voter. You (plural) the majority do not vote. Well over 90% of religous extremists do vote. "Screw human rights", say even Democrats. "I want to get reelected. Screw Terri Schiavo. She does not have enough brain to survive let alone vote."

It’s called rape by politics. OK. The courts are foolishly representing American principles of human rights. But don't worry. We will fix government so that you can be saved. No one expects a Spanish Inquisition - especially the Schiavos. And yes, that is why even Democrats voted to condenm Terri Schiavo. Religion must be imposed on all infidels. Terri Schiavo is simply a targetting manuever. The litmus test will identify which Congressman and Judges are to be attacked next - to save you from your rights.

Its no accident that one lawyer said Terri's death would be a mortal sin. Screw the law. They are testing each judge and congressman to define their enemies - as even the Pope has encouraged.

Let me see if I have this right. The reason why anyone wants to keep Terri Schiavo alive is because to do so imposes government-mandated religion on those who don't vote. This group comprises at least 51% of the populace and, while obviously superior in intelligence (they don't believe in God), are so unmotivated that they can't leave the house once every four years to pull a lever.

My brain is fried from work, but I'm pretty sure I got the gist of it.

How about an alternative. "Since we don't really know her wishes (dammit, get a living will people) and her husband's motivation is equally cloudy, let's keep her alive until we can review the whole issue again."

Damn Jesus freaks.

How many "again"s? The issue has been reviewed and rereviewed since 2000, and the same conclusion has been reached each time.

Wait until Jeb tries to take her into protective custody with family services powers...