Redstate

I want you all to imagine for a moment a different scenario, and see if you would feel the same way about protecting an "innocent life" at all costs and regardless of her own wishes. Be honest now.

Suppose that Michael actually had hurt Terry and caused this condition. And suppose he were arrested for that. She's still alive, so for now he is only charged with aggravated battery. But if she dies, he's up for murder.

Now imagine that her parents decided that Terry would in fact not have wanted to hang on like this, and they want to see the bastard who did this to her face the needle. So they ask the court to be considered her guardian and to let her go peacefully.

But Michael remains married to her, and goes to court to testify that he had a conversation with her 10 or 15 years ago and she said she always held out hope for coma patients, and she would want to stay alive as long as possible. And he plays the video with the balloon and all the same evidence that the parents have used so far in the real case.

Honestly, would you be joining sides with this evil Michael, who obviously only wants to keep her alive to avoid a murder rap? After all, she is an "innocent life" who shouldn't be allowed to die no matter what.

I suspect that public reaction generally in such a scenario would be on the side of the parents still. And my point is that this case has taken on such an air not because of "innocent life" but because the mob has decided that the parents are good and Michael is evil.

I think it's bad for Republicans for 3 distinct reasons.

1> This is touched upon above -- it splits the base. There are lots of Libertarian leaning Republicans (including me) who thought this was handled correctly from the beginning in a courtroom in Florida. We have a right to refuse medical treatment, and spouses trump parents in helping a judge make that decision. Others, such as small government conservatives are aghast at the idea for the Congress of the US to get involved in a family court matter. Splitting the base factions against each other is never a good thing.

2> For many swing voters this is a confirmation of worse fears. For years Dems have made the case the Republicans want to be "in your bedroom", wanting to overrule the most private decisions a family makes. President Bush with Compassionate Conservatism, Faith Based Initiatives, and other ideas was able to settle that fear. But now, here we are -- Tom DeLay instead of George Bush is the face of the party and all of congress' power is arrayed against a local court in Florida. Against a single man with a heart rending decision. Not where the party needs to be.

3> A corollary to the above reasons, this adventure has showed the Democrats where they need to be. Many Democrats think they lost in 2004 on values. Republicans share the values of the broad middle class better than the Democrats. But this gives Democrats an opening in that battle. "We believe in families. We don't believe in government intervention into your most private, family decisions."

The event that I compare this to is the 1995 congressional shutdown of government. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but the swing voters thought it was extremist. In the end it rescued Clinton's failing presidency and presented him with another term and a fresh mandate. Clinton went from redundant to essential, the Republicans went from controlling the agenda to reacting to Clinton for the next 6 years.

parents were wrong, were such the case.  Life should trump death before the law.

That voters might note the heavy bipartisan support this particular measure got; and, more importantly, won't care.

Just because internet activists care deeply, doesn't mean everyone else will. Ask Howard Dean.

Sorry, Aziz.

And do you believe this would have swept through society as it has? Would Congress have stayed late and the President been woken up in the middle of the night if, in such a scenario, the parents had gotten a court order to remove the feeding tube and it was the killer Michael trying to reinsert it?

You say "The Evangelicals, many of whom feel they are owed for their active volunteerism on behalf of Bush, now have even more cause to lobby for judges who they view as pro-life -- judges who will not ignore evangelicals or their pet causes."

You can quibble with polling methodology (as some have on this site), butthe polls show Evangelicals as split pretty much down the middle, with a slight edge toward Michael Schavo and the courts.

Cold and crass.  And accurate.  There is almost no question what's going on here.  Schiavo as a token for religious conservatives, a sort of thank you card for working so hard in Ohio precincts.  Emblematic of the "whatever it takes mentality."  An abandonment of (former) traditional Republican principles of limited government and federalism.

Erick's post also underlies the realization there is no big picture here other than political mobilization.  No one has suggested this will redefine the way America looks at the decision to make living wills, other than to emphasize if you want to avoid 100 Republican members of Congress dancing by your bedside you might want to get that document signed.

Moreover, using this as a challenge to the judiciary seems quixotic, given that the it was an elected state judge who made the original decision.  Not to mention he was most recently re-elected in 2004 by a 50,000 vote margin.  But this wouldn't be the first time misrepresentations suggesting a false linkage or causality was put forth to persuade the public.

All in all it is shameful.  It underlies my abiding fear of what religious conservatives might do to this country if they firmly held the reigns.

And it was the straw that broke the camel's back and prompted my wife to leave the Republican party and become an independent.  Yeah, I know she's probably swimming against the stream these days, but it it something I can be thankful for.

internet activists, moderates and fiscally-conservative-but-socially-liberal types in the Republican base to cause this to happen.  And Michael Schiavo, whatever may be said about him, justly or unjustly, as the case may be, is simply not sympathetic enough to rally the nation to that side of the issue.  Not.  Going.  To.  Happen.

something they don't always teach in philosophy programs, but should.  

It is possible that the case would have aroused the same passions - parents willing to kill their daughter for the privilege of exacting revenge on her tormentor is a storyline amenable to tabloid hype.  Perhaps more so than the present story.

It is, however, impossible to state anything definitive with regard to such counterfactuals.

I disagree with the polling that has been done thus far.  I'd like to see polling that was conducted during the week, not the Friday to Sunday polling, which I think does not accurately capture sufficient polling data for evangelicals.

My question is whether there are enough of those folks in Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado and other points outside the Bible Belt.  Or in the major metros across the South.

All that said, much like the murder trial de jure or child kidnapping of the month, this will fascinate and titillate the American public like some reality TV show and then fade away after resolution.  Net effect is bonus to the GOP because it is a bone to the ones that care.  The Republican party takes another fateful step down that line, but actually, if you guys would hurry up and succeed at driving those quisling RINOs out it will be all the quicker route to put the donkeys back in charge :-).

Those of you who wish to keep her alive are playing god.  Here we have a woman, who is somewhat complicit in her current status.  By that  I mean, she was a bulemic.  She went out of her way to throw up after eating.  After the heart attack & brain damage, a "normal" christian practice would be to gladly take the last step & meet their maker.

I say you are playing god because you are preventing her from taking her last voyage.  & for those of you who call yourselves christian, you aren't practicing anything that Jesus preached.  

She has been kept alive artificially for 15 years.  How long is long enough?  If science can keep her body alive till she is 200 does that mandate we have to?

for the thousands of severly developmentally disabled and profoundly handicapped children who are incapable of feeding themselves?

Is feeding these kids "playing God" as well?

Or should we just put them out of their misery as well?

I think no one will care by the 2006 election.  However, this has two effects.  First, it should (be won't) silence the evangelical "what have you done for me lately" cry that keeps popping up.  Further, it allows that special interest group another opportunity to perpetuate the myth that they were the key to President Bush's re-election (rather than his foreign policy stances).

Second, it will re-affirm many independents fear that Republicans are all-talk on small government and are too willing to intervene in anything that catches their eye as "immoral," etc.  There may not be a lot of full fledged libertarians in the country, but there are a lot of stay out of my wallet and my bedroom types who swing back and forth between the parties.  They were excited by the 1994 Republican revolution and against Hillary-care.  There are many who may be leaning away from the Republicans now.  If the Democrats actually knew how to win them over, this would harm the party significantly.  Lucky for the elephants, Democrats have not figured out how to appeal to small government folk yet.

I'm playing God about 6 times every day when my wife and I feed our 8-month old, thereby keeping him alive artificially, as he is not able to feed himself.

Will no one absolve me of so wicked a blasphemy?!

Being fed is not artificial life support.

that can be wrung from this is a winning issue for the Dems.  At best, it will get us something like the abortion and sodomy polarizations.

Given the current situation i.e. she is not being sustained in any way. A person who believes deeply that the slow starvation of this woman is morally reprehensible gains access to her room and places a pillow over her head until she stops breathing.

Does that person get tried for murder for simply doing today what the court has sanctioned for tomorrow?

from voting for this than voted for this.  Is that what you call bi-partisan?

Since elected officials of two parties voted in favor, yes. I'm a silly pedant that way.

Complicity?  Maybe by marrying a man that was not the will of God for her to marry.  Better to remain single, than to marry the wrong person.

It is my belief that if God Almighty had requested the homecoming of Terri Schiavo, no man on earth could prevent that from happening.  Her spirit would just go home.

Of all that I've read, there's no concrete evidence to the rumor that Terri was actually bulemic, or had a heart-attack because of it.  

On the other hand, evidence shows that Terri's controlling husband had all the love and compassion of a Scott Peterson type, and probably strangled her, then panicked and gave her CPR, although too late.

And, I guess we're all being kept alive artificially by receiving food and water. Huh?

A feeding tube, in most cases, is just a "convience", a "money-saver".  My opinion would be different though, if Terri needed a lung machine to live.  

I think maybe you are limiting your vision of the party.  I suggest that in many states, the limited government, libertarian, fiscal conservative but social middle are the majority of the party.  I know that is true in the northeast & upper midwest.  Here in CA it is also true, although here the OC types are much louder & get more press.

Maybe you are surrounding yourself with yourself.  It's a big fishtank out there.

so if one elected official of both parties votes for a bill, it has "heavy bipartisan" support?

Whats interesting about this is that the republicans most upset with the foolishness of changing the rules to put this in the federal courts are the same ones that feel the most strongly about supporting republicans in the judicial nominations process.   The democrats simply do not have an avenue for peeling these disgruntled conservatives away from the party over this.  As pissed as I am by the blatant abuse of congressional power I have absoltely no outlet in the democratic party for my frustrations.  

that could appeal to them simply because they dislike politics of the sort I prefer.  Unless social libertarianism really does mean more to them than fiscal restraint, so much so that they would be willing to accept the former in return for bigger bigger government.

Let's start with the malpractice award that the parents and husband WON...  That clearly stated that she was bulemic & misdiagnosed.  Now, personally, I think that decision was wrong.  Don't blame the doctor because the patient knowingly did dumb things.

Also, likening the husband to Scot Peterson... C'mon now.  That isn't appropriate.

So how long is enough?  If they can keep peoples bodies alive till they are 200+, should they?  And where are you basing this moral imperative from?  It isn't in my bible.

I'm not saying these things to be devils advocate.  I'm saying them with my own moral beliefs.

And those of you who equated feeding your family to this poor woman, Please!  Let us converse in a reasonable manner.  You have to know that isn't what I said.  Exageration of my point doesn't show your own to be better.

But when it's more than one, you inch there.

I don't think you have enough inches to get to "heavy" bipartisan support here.

I don't expect a political windfall here.  But in the big picture it's a move not all current Republicans would care to take.

But I hope conservative Christianity extracts the largest pound of flesh from the body politic of the Republican Party they can.  You made the deal, now pay the piper.  And keep paying.  You can't keep them locked in the closet forever, you know.

As for us donkeys, you are right about the fact the national party isn't making a very good pitch for the "out of my wallet, out of my bedroom" types.  But this sort of thing will only make it easier.

until we find a cure.

unless they are willing to jettison the same principles they believe we've now violated.  Interesting that I'm now in the position to say this to those who like to say it about my part of the party.....

Democrats haven't understood the difference between this and interest group politics since 1968.

There really is no upside for Republicans or the larger conservative movement on this issue as it splits our base in half, marginalizes us from the political mainstream on a contentious social issue that is becoming increasingly important as the baby boom generation ages, hurts our credibility on issues of federalism and judicial nominees, and is going to rightfully be seen as Republicans spending time on high profile "social issues" to appease the fringe of their base rather than on doing substantive work on important issues like winning the war, reforming entitlements, balancing the budget, fixing health care, etc.

I say we dock the pay of every member of Congress who wasted time on this.

Re: Maybe by marrying a man that was not the will of God for her to marry.

How in the world can anyone have so much hubris that they can make such a statement about people they do not even know? Other than maybe the Pope (who claimd infallibility on rare occasion) I don't think any Christian ought claim to know God's will even in matters of their own life yet alone in the lives of strangers! We pray of course that we are doing God's will, but we have no certainty in such, and absolutely none of us has any business setting ourselves up as God's Oracle, pronouncing in his name. It would seem that my worst fears over the heresies of the Religious Right are confirmed here.

I mean, we're talking titanic fractures here. Call me a cynic, call me a fool, but I rather doubt this is the straw that breaks the Republican coalition.

[Begin gratuitous American self-congratulation]

And although I've agonized over certain aspects of this case, I've learned more about our society in the past few days than I had learned in some ways, up until this point.

And what I have found is disturbing to me in some cases, but I am very encouraged by the fact that we have people who are still capable of articulating their passionately-held beliefs, explaining them, and analyzing the grounds for those beliefs.  

I'm still conflicted over the case, but the idea that "democracy is dead" in America just lost an awful lot of air.  

[End gratuitous American self-congratulation.]

I don't disagree with the political analysis here.  In other words, I suspect a large number of Republicans on the Hill voted they way they did in order to earn points with the evangelical wing of the Party.  Yet, while that may be good politics (at least in the short term), I think that is a terrible result in this particular case.  Lets be frank, there are people of good will on both sides of this debate.  However, to use this particular situation to make a larger ideological point in favor of the "cultural of life" is bad policy at best.

There are three questions that I think are at issue here:

(1)  Is Ms. Schiavo alive in a sense other than having a heart that pumps blood and lungs that breath air?

(2)  If the answer to the first question is no, then the question arises would (a) she have the right, under those circumstances, to direct her agent or guardian to remove the feeding tubes and (b) if yes, has she expressed an intent to take out her feeding tubes?

(3)Who gets to find the facts as to nos. 1 and 2?

In this case, it seems that an independent trier of fact (the Florida trial court) based on evidence presented by all interested parties (including testimony of medical experts), determined that Ms. Schiavo  had no reasonable liklihood of ever living in a state other than that of a vegetable.  I am not aware of any legal errors that were committed in the course of the factual hearings on these matters.

If the court is correct in that determination, would a living will or power of attorney (lawfully executed by Ms. Schiavo prior to her incapacity) directing the feeding tube to be shut down upon her reaching a persistive vegatative state be respected.  I believe most of us agree that it should be respected, and she should have the right to shut off the tube.  In the absence of a living will or power of attorney, can the court take and accept evidence that indicates it was Ms. Shiavo's expressed intent to be taken off the feeding tube should she ever reach a persistive vegetative state.  It seems to me that a court should be allowed to take and accept such evidence and it is up to the court, which has seen and heard all testimony and is in a better position to weigh credibility than you, me or Congress, to believe Mr. Schiavo on that point.

So in short, my answers to the questions I posed are (1)  a court has determined, based on competent medical evidence, that there is no reasonable liklihood Ms. Schiavo will ever live in anything other than a persistent vegetative state;  (2)  Ms. Schiavo should be allowed to have her feeding tubes  clamped upon such a determination and a court determined that that was indeed Ms. Schiavo's expressed intent to have her tubes removed and (3)  an independent court that can hear all interested parties and weigh all testimony is in the best position to decide these facts.    

I guess what I am getting at is that Terri's case is a terrible tragedy for all concerned.  But I think we need to be very careful of using the complicated factual situation present in her case to make larger ideological points one way or the other.

That is morbidly hysterical!  Wish I had thought to say that.

I was kind of joking with you on the ABC Polling thread about this theory of yours that evangelicals are out of pocket from Fri-Sun and that it somehow skews the poll.    

Seriously tho, I do not find it so hard to believe that a fair percentage of, yes, even evangelicals, would side with Schiavo on this.   Why?  Because this type of heartwrenching situation is very easy for most people to empathize with, and one that many of us have actually had to deal with.

Plus, how many couples have had exactly this kind of conversation between themselves?   "Please, honey, promise me that you will not let me end up like that."    

Count me among them.

You are projecting your own opinion on Terry that her life is not worth living. The nazis did the same thing in the mid-30s.

I agree completely that intensity matters.  The evangelicals (including many here) are the only segment of society that will even remember this in 2006.  By that token, it is an obvious political winner.  Therein lies the potential downside for the GOP.  It is just really obvious that this is a political move to please the evangelical base.  The ABC News poll says as much, with people saying by 67% to 19% that political leaders were acting out of political advantage, not principles.  If the evangelical base were to believe they were just being played by the GOP leadership, that would be a negative.  As long as the evangelical base believe it was sincere, however, the moves by the GOP (and I'm with the 67% on this one) will be a political winner.

Here we have a woman, who is somewhat complicit in her current status.  By that  I mean, she was a bulemic.

Here we have a woman, who is somewhat complicit in her current status.  By that  I mean, she had a weak heart.

Bulimia is a disorder, not a lifestyle choice.

I'm not sure I agree with all the logic of the poster you are responding to, but I know I disagree with you.  First, a judge has determined, based on all the available evidence,  that in fact Terri did not want to continue living in the state she currently is in.  Second, to remotely compare the position of Mr. Schiavo, the courts and the poster you are responding to with the Nazis, is incredibly wrongheaded and ignorant.  In Ms. Schiavo's case we have strong evidence from licensed medical professionals, presented before an independent tribunal at which their testimony could be challenged, that Ms. Schiavo is no longer living in anything other than a vegatative state.  In contrast, the Nazis determined to put otherwise healthy people within a disfavored class to death en masse, because they did not deem them to be people, and there was no mechanism to challenge those determinations.  If you have read anything of Nazi death camps, you would realize the care Ms. Schiavo has received to date is nothing akin to the concentration camps.  I think we need to realize there are good people on both sides of this debate and its a complicated issue that won't be resolved by calling people Nazis.

I've always known that liberals and conservatives are far more alike than either would sometimes like to believe. And for all the conservatives like to wail against the big federal government or activist judiciaries substituting their own personal opinions for the law, a great number of them are really just upset that they are not getting their way; principle has little to do with it.

Compare the reaction of most conservatives to "liberal judges" constantly issuing stays of execution; the jury and the trial judge already ruled, so let's not listen to any more evidence and go ahead and execute the guy. We want FINALITY to those judgments. But the same issue comes up in a more family-friendly way, and all of a sudden it's forget the trial court, there's some tiny possibility that there's more evidence that could be presented, so let's throw out the results and start from scratch just one more time.

And conservatives get very upset when a liberal lumps them into the same category as nazis just because they both use the same arguments sometimes, though with very different ends in mind. Yet some of those same conservatives are quick to label anybody (Republican or Democrat) who disagrees with them on Schiavo as being part of a secular culture of death, one small step away from being willing to starve retarded babies to death and killing "useless people".

To me, the reaction to this case just emphasizes that most people, of any political persuasion, are mostly focused on getting the results they want at that moment rather than looking at all the future consequences that will necessarily follow from their actions.

Liberation = death

Marriage = adultery plus two kids

Evidence = hearsay

Judge's chamber = Constitutional Convention

I disagree and agree at the same time with what Congress did this past weekend. The appearance is that their actions were politically motivated given what they did during the 12th hour.

With that said, they acted in response to what thier constituents (be they evangelical or not) want. Isn't that their job? Don't we live in a country where the people have the power? It seems to me that the courts have the power. I don't believe the FL courts should have ruled the way they did based on the heresy of Michael Shiavo and his brother. In events where there is no living will, we should error on the side of life. Especially when the spouse has obviously moved on and perhaps doesn't have his wife's best interest at heart.

All that congress did this past weekend was give federal courts the jurisdiction to take a fresh look at the case and Terry the due process rights that convicted killers have. It seems to me that they have ignored that mandate (from the people) and looked at the case from an appellate point of view.

If Terry dies, what precedent does this set? Where does it end? Will people be allowed to kill autistic children who can't communicate? Severely retarded children who can't feed themselves nor communicate? Humans born without limbs to feed themselves? Human beings who don't have what someone feels is "good quality of life?" The Nazis had similar ideologies during the 30's and 40's.

This case doesn't fare well for either party as Republicans become activists and are criticized for fighting for Terry's rights and accused of entering peoples' bedrooms and Dems stand by in silence when they should be fighting for Terry's rights alongside us. I thought Dems were for peoples' rights... Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The only people that stand to benefit from this are lawyers as people flock to them for their living wills.

Here are the questions asked on the poll - http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/978a1Schiavo.pdf. You tell me if the questions are sound polling questions.

I am of the opinion that they misrepresent Terry's condition stating that Terry is on "life support" which she is not. It cites a doctor's opinion who assessed her condition a decade or so ago. You can get a poll to go in any direction you want to based on how you frame the questions and this one was designed to yield a specific result. What say you?

Christy and I have had this discussion to.  I practice Estate Planning and I can tell you I've got our Living Wills and DHCPOAs drawn up.

The point I would like to get accross is that we have to be careful how we classify "quality of life." Once we say it is okay not to keep Terry alive because she is in a vegetative state (which is debatable), where does it stop? Autism? Down syndrome? Deformation?

I was replying to the poster who said that those of us who support Terry's parents to get guardianship in order to keep her alive are playing god.

With regards to the FL courts' decision - what evidence is there that Terry doesn't want to live? As far as everything I have gathered from the case, the only evidence is heresy on the part of Michael Schiavo. Since when is that "evidence?" That alone sets a scary precedent. If you have more information on what evidence was used for their decision, please share.

Not.  Going.  To.  Happen.

Don't.  Count.  On. It.

She didn't have enough potassium in her bloodstream.  For those who don't know, potassium is an important electrolyte where muscle contraction is called for.  Not enough potassium (or ca++ for that matter) & not enough muscle contraction.

I was making an analogy to focus your attention on the manner in which you presented her condition. I don't think it's appropriate to state that she bears responsibility for her condition any more than I would if it were caused by a weak heart.

Dictionary.com: com·plic·it  

Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime; having complicity: newspapers complicit with the propaganda arm of a dictatorship.

where am I goign to go?  As appaled as I am by people here who want to completely jettison states rights on this issue what reason have the democrats given me to get my vote?   I am furious that the republicans senators are trying to step in on this but I still need those republican senators to confirm judges that I know the democrats will oppose.  At this point I really think that blacks and small government conservatives are the 2 groups in the country with less political clout than anyone else because neither of us see a viable alternative to the party we are currently supporting so we can be taken for granted.

responsible for practicing bulimia?  What ever happened to personal responsibility?  Bulimia isn't a contagious disease.

But those aren't really important to what it is we are trying to work out.  That is the ethics of allowing people a "right to die" and who gets to choose that right.

I guess I don't really understand what you are trying to convey.  Sorry.

Bulimia isn't a "practice," it's a psychological disorder.

And as such, it can be treated. Successfully.  BTDT.

where am I goign to go?

Wrong question.  Better, what are you going to do?  Start by "throwing the bums out."  Let them know why you'll not be supporting their re-election and support actual conservatives/libertarians who run against them.  Vote Democrat if you have to.  A House seat is up every 2 years, so it isn't like having to deal with a mistake like what Reagan did by nominating O'Connor.  

It is more important that the principled voices be heard.  If the Republican's won't act on their principles, they're no better than Democrats.

I have no desire to argue about Mrs. Schiavo's medical condition with you, as if you are not swayed by the multiple doctors who have testified as to her persistent vegetative state, the multiple courts who have ruled based on their diagnoses, and the gradual replacement of her brain with cerebrospinal fluid over time as shown in brain scans, I certainly am not going to influence your opinion.  You will probably agree yours is not a majority opinion in America.

The link to the ABC poll details is coming up blank, but I'll give you a few general comments.  It seems like any poll wording which is in agreement with the court verdicts can be accepted as reasonable.  It is not unreasonable to associate "life support" with any artificial means being used to keep someone alive in a vegetative state.  In general, though, how far off can a 67-19 poll opinion be?  That is a result far outside of any methodology error.

to the Karen Ann Quinlan case in the 70's than the world you are portraying where the weak &/or infirm will be exterminated.

This time, CBS News:

Why do you think Congress got involved?

They care about Terri Schiavo: 13%

Trying to advance a political agenda: 74%

Job approvals March 2005 (Feb 2005):

Bush 43% (49)

Congress 34% (41)

Again, the low approvals probably make no difference unless the evangelical base is among those who think Congress is full of it.

But it may help the Democrats quite a bit. Democrats have been trying to convince Americans that the Republicans would do just something like this for years--the public simply never believed.

Now, with the latest polls showing that the people who don't want to re-insert the tube feel even more strongly about it than those who side with the Schindlers. If intensity matters, this is something to pay attention to.

The most interesting finding: There are no partisan political differences on this issue: majorities of Democrats (89 percent), Republicans (72 percent), liberals (84 percent) and conservatives (76 percent) are in agreement that the government should not be involved. 68 percent of white evangelicals think that Congress and the President should stay out of the Schiavo case. And Congress' motives for being involved are seen as driven by political calculations, not compassion.

comparisons and worry about euthanasia and compare this case to Nazi euthanasia programs remember that we are have this debate because the technology to keep Terri Schiavo alive has only been available for the last 30 years or so.  For someone in her condition to have lived for even a month or two in 1965 would have been unheard of.  The ability to provide sustenance through a feeding tube just wasn't there.  Short term they would have been able to keep her alive with IV solutions and through nasal drips but she would have quickly succombed to complications or aspiration.  End of story.  We are talking about someone who has absolutely no functions other than those that sustain basic reflexive actions.  

PVS was not even a condition til the '70s because nobody lived long enough to suffer from it.

She should be thankful that she's managed to make it this far due to technological advances?

"In Ms. Schiavo's case we have strong evidence from licensed medical professionals, presented before an independent tribunal at which their testimony could be challenged, that Ms. Schiavo is no longer living in anything other than a vegatative state."

There are many neurologists who disagree with that diagnosis, one just examined her for 90 min. last week and wrote an affidavit. The testimony of Mr Schiavo's experts (the main one is a known euthanasia advocate) was challenged repeatedly, but the judge refused to listen. Her first GAL was dismissed by the judge when he objected to her conditions. As others have pointed out, her mental state is not worse than many elderly people with advanced Alzheimer's.

"In contrast, the Nazis determined to put otherwise healthy people within a disfavored class to death en masse, because they did not deem them to be people"

The Nazis specifically targeted people with mental and physical disabilities, along with all their other targets.

. . . are not the only group advocating for Terri. Disability rights activists - usually liberals - have been all over this, because it directly affects how they will be treated in this country. There are also liberals who realize this is a human rights issue, and understand that we have ample precedent or higher courts or legislatures intervening for reprieves or clemency.

What is most horrible is that this woman would be getting all sorts of reprieves and support from liberals if she had committed a crime and were on death row, but because she just happened to marry the wrong guy, got stuck under a lazy, possibly corrupt judge (who sits of the board of the hospice her husband put her in), she is being executed for nothing.

I say "executed" because her bodily and mental functions are not worse than many advanced Alzheimer's patients, or severely retarded, or CP patients, who can only eat through tubes and can't communicate.

"I say "executed" because her bodily and mental functions are not worse than many advanced Alzheimer's patients, or severely retarded, or CP patients, who can only eat through tubes and can't communicate."

The ignorance among so-called conservatives is astonishing.  I was hoping they could be trusted with power.  Obviously they cannot.

I can't stand the secular left, who are totalitarians at heart.  Yet, I cannot tolerate religious conservatives, when they go on to spout such ignorant nonsense.

There is a medical consensus that feeding tubes for end stage Alzheimer's patients is CONTRAINDICATED, and it is generally not recommended to have an advanced Alzheimer's patient to undergo the procedure.  Infection and pneumonia are some of the risks with tube feeding those who advanced Alzheimer's patients who cannot swallow.

All you have to do is download the free ebook by Chaplain Hank Dunn to see the research.

http://www.hardchoices.com/about_hc.html

The idea that a woman is being "executed" is absolutely scandalous, and those who repeat it should be ashamed. Nature is being allowed to take its course, so she may finally rest in peace.  

I don't see what good is accomplished by allowing this woman to linger in her current state.

As someone who works in the field of rehabilitation, comparisons to the mentally retarded are way off the mark.  She can't communicate any needs, she responds to no stimuli.  For all practical purposes, she is already dead, and has been for quite some time.

To say there has been a presumption against life is insane.  She has been kept alive for 15 years like this, as the U.S. courts try to sort this thing out.  

Conservatives who continue to plead for more hearings are the equivalent of liberals who incessantly try to have a new trial for murderer Mumia Abu Jamal.  

Don't you understand: so long as her starvation occurs at the hands of the state rather than by her own hand, it's good.

I am not a medical doctor,however,I suggest the following based on a

practice all young people used to use during my childhood.

Michael Schaivo could have attempted to murder his wife in 1990 by applying

the following .

If he were to apply a minimal amount of pressure to Terri's 2 main arteries

in her neck ,that allows the blood to flow into the brain, and maintains

that pressure to the arteries after she faints from lack of blood to that

organ;It will result in the brains function to cease thereby causing the

heart to also stop from lack of circulated blood.No evidence would be

visible in the neck due to the minimal pressure needed to accomplish this

action.

His only fear is in Terri becoming verbal and exposing him.Therefore his

fight to have our courts kill her.After her death;He could cremate

her,erasing all evidence.

How do I know this is possible??

I,along with others, use to do this method of rendering a person unconscous.

However,We use to release the pressure to the neck as the subject fell.This

allowed the blood to regain its flow.

Please,you who read this e mail,do not think me just a nut with an

idea.Investigate this thru your doctors.It is not only possible,but

probable.

Norman V. James, Jr.

Forked River,N.J.

Like many others you are unfamiliar with the facts.

Terri does indeed feel stimuli, and she does respond to it. She has never had an MRI nor a PET scan, which one board-certified neurologist calls 'criminal."

She is being murdered in front of our eyes, and a mountain of lies regarding her actual state surrounds her.

Were none of the other doctors who came to differnt conclusions "board-certified?"

First of all she is incapable of holding an opinion since she is incapable of concious thought.  

The point is that to argue about life issues as though medical and life saving technology has not blurred the line between life and death is silly.  The technology that allows us to deliver nourishment through a feeding tube is every bit a product of modern medicine as the ventilator or the heart-lung machine.  Unless you are arguing that we should keep every one alive with every piece of technology known to mankind for as long as humanly possible then we must be able to draw some kind of line where we say that further medical intervention, including continued artificial feeding and hydration, is pointless.  

There is no credible evidence that Terri Schiavo is in anything other than an irreversible Persistent Vegitative State.  Her brain is so severely damaged that there is no reasonable hope of recovery or improvement.  She lacks any cognitive functions and only the most primitive reflexes.  She is as close to brain death that a person can be.  To allow persons in PVS to die after a competent court has found by clear and convincing evidence that they would not want to continue to live in that state is not the first step to a Nazi style euthanasia program.

...are the religious yahoos who believe she responds to stimuli, or has any awareness of the environment.

The only ones who are not informed are the ones who accuse the husband of causing her condition by beating and abusing her.  There is not a shred of evidence to that slander, and mounds of evidence to refute it.

I read excerpts of the court documents.  They found that her reactions were random and not in specific response to anything specific. As someone who just might know a bit more about neurology than you, (I deal with this stuff on a daily basis), I have very little doubt that the experts who make these claims of random responses to stimuli are correct.

As for the MRI: why order a test to study an area of the brain that a CT has already shown doesn't exist?

She has almost NO cerebral cortex.  She is already dead as a person.  Medical science is only keeping her body alive.  Why?  

...tolerance to a new level of disgrace.

You know, the scurrilous remarks you make about people who have religious beliefs is really quite tiresome. Calling millions of people "religious yahoos" has reached the nadir point. It's the same as calling someone a nigger.

(As I recall, the original yahoos were smelly, stupid creatures from Gulliver's travels. So you are indeed describing people as being less than human. No wonder you don't mind killing one of them, as Terri Shiavo is a religious yahoo in your mind, being that she was/is a practicing Catholic.)  

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for stooping to that kind of trash talk.

So what if you've read the court documents? Dr. William Hammasphar spent TEN HOURS examining her.

The doctor who spent 45 minutes examining her is a known proponent of euthanasia. He believes that Alzheimer patients should have any civil rights! He is a doctor with an agenda of death.

Judge Greer has refused to even look at Hammasphar's findings. So spare me with the so called facts of yours.

Just kill another yahoo, and blame the yahoos for it.

He believes that Alzheimer patients should NOT have any civil rights!