Terri Schiavo's Parents Seek Divorce on Her Behalf

[Undertoad]

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

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Brett's Honey

I understand going through the denial phase, but they should've passed that a long time ago.

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.

[Catwoman]

Originally Posted by Brett's Honey

... 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.

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

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Brett's Honey

I understand going through the denial phase, but they should've passed that a long time ago.

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.

[Catwoman]

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.

[mrnoodle]

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.

[Kitsune]

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.

[mrnoodle]

My new favorite conservative blogger, Hugh Hewitt, wrote this today:

Will Justice Kennedy Cite the Gronigen Protocol?

With the astonishing decision of the 11th Circuit to deny injunctive relief to Terri Schiavo's parents during the course of these appeals, the urgent matter moves first to a petition for en banc review and then to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, only recently in the headlines for relying in part on foreign law in his ruling against the death penalty for juveniles. It is a false hope to believe that Justice Kennedy will act to stay Terri's death, or that there are five members of the Court willing to do so, despite the clear intent of Congress that hydration and nutrition be resumed until a de novo trial was held, and appeals from that trial exhausted.

Judge Charles Wilson "strongly dissented" from the decision of his two colleagues, and I have not been able to access online the opinion of the majority. Yesterday's District Court decision was silent on the intent of Congress regarding interim relief, as it had to be as there is no approaching the subject without running headlong into the clearly communicated intent of the Congress that the relief be granted pending trial on the merits. Howard Bashman suggests the deletion of Section 5 from the legislation gave the courts the authority to deny interim relief. That is simply wrong. Section 5 of the Senate Bill was deleted because it contained the word "may," and as Majority Leader DeLay communicated in the Sunday press conference, the Congress did not intend to leave discretion on the subject of interim relief with the courts, and thus the phrase was eliminated.

Here is what DeLay said on Sunday as he and other Congressmen outlined the bill, its meaning, and the procedures that would be followed to see it enacted: "We are confident this compromise will restore nutrition and hydration to Mrs. Schiavo as long as that appeal endures. Obviously, the judge will have to put the feeding tube back in or she could die before the case is heard."

Judicial contempt for the coordinate branches on this scale is simply staggering. Anyone defending this morning's majority or yesterday's ruling has to defend this disregard of Congressional action. Had either court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, that would have at least clothed the Pontius Pilate approach with some legal cover. But reciting irrelevant standards for granting injunctive relief in advance of trial in a case where Congress intended the injunction to issue is simple sophistry. As I wrote yesterday, there are many different standards governing the issuance of injunctive relief, and when Congress intends great caution --as with imminent harm to endangered plants and animals-- the trigger for injunctive relief is very sensitive. The 11th Circuit has now ruled that the Congress intended a higher standard of review in Terri's case than in the routine case of imminent harm to, say, Munz's Onion or the snail darter. Absurd, and obviously so.

I can only hope that four justices oblige the Supreme Court to take up the matter so we can at least get some opinions on this subject of Congressional intent from the dissenters, or at least an honest rejection of the right to Congress to act. At this point we have a robed charade: Two courts pretending that Congress had the power to order what it ordered, but ignoring the law that was passed.

Much of the rhetoric from the left on this matter has been angry and callous, especially towards Terri and those who are defending the dignity of her life even in her present condition. C.S. Lewis wrote, in The Weight of Glory, some lines that those commentators might want to consider as this drama seems to move towards Terri's death:

"There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations -- these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit --immortal horrors or everlasting splendors."

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?

[OnyxCougar]

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?

[mrnoodle]

Here's the whole timeline

an excerpt:

March 17: The U.S. Senate passes a “private bill” applying to the Schiavo case but differing from H.R. 1332. The U.S. Senate website, at www.senate.gov, explains a “private bill” as follows: “A private bill provides benefits to specified individuals (including corporate bodies). Individuals sometimes request relief through private legislation when administrative or legal remedies are exhausted. Many private bills deal with immigration–granting citizenship or permanent residency. Private bills may also be introduced for individuals who have claims again the government, veterans benefits claims, claims for military decorations, or taxation problems. The title of a private bill usually begins with the phrase, "For the relief of. . . ." If a private bill is passed in identical form by both houses of Congress and is signed by the President, it becomes a private law.”

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.

[Happy Monkey]

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.

[lizthefiz]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

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.

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.

[Undertoad]

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



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

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

[Kitsune]

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.

[mrnoodle]

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.