The Schiavo case and the right to die or live: should a government intervene?

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

daveirl's link above also has a reference to that, sovtek.

Cheers...passed over it before.

Victor

sovtek wrote:

Horribly enough...(sorry don't have the link at the moment) it wasn't even questioned when a child was taken off life support, against the parents wishes, because the insurance company thought it costs too much. You didn't see Bush cancelling trips to intervene in that one.

But who would pay the bill? The state? Thats the slippery slope to communism. :eek:

sovtek

Victor wrote:

But who would pay the bill? The state? Thats the slippery slope to communism. :eek:

Egad!!! We don't want that now do we....no matter who it kills.

bonkey

Life at all costs, except profit?

Surely not.

mycroft

bonkey wrote:

I'm baffled how a show who's intended purpose is to satirise mainstream news can "sum up" anything about the US. Unless you're suggesting that the entirety of US mainstream media is - in fact - just a p1sstake

I was using to cite the absurd level that the debate has risen to, when a pundit can get away with calling a judge "evil" and a major program on the most watched new network feels fit to have a debunked psychic to talk about the aura and presence of Ms Schiavo, means the debate has just gotten, well stupid.

xm15e3

At face value, this looks like a simple case of a legal guardian following through with the (albeit, verbal) wishes of the ward. I think the polls reflect this point of view.

However, the issue here is that one Judge, George Greer, has had the opportunity to hear fact in a trial. In that trial he (IMO) cherry picked evidence to support his conclusions. He rejected testimony from neurologists, while accepting testimony from a physician active in the euthanasia movement. All contradictory testimony, from physicians, family, nurses ect was rejected. All subsequent trials have been appellate, and therefore do not re-consider fact.

Congress tried to remedy this, by exercising their power to set jurisdiction of the Federal Courts (at least this is my understanding of constitutional authority to do so). To allow fact de novo;

S.686 Sec 2: "….In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. …."

Apparently De Novo trial is the wording they were looking for, De Novo review is what they got. De Novo trial admits new fact and witnesses. De Novo review is procedural review common to a appellate court. Federal Dist. Court Judge Whitman took a pretty large leap of judicial discretion in order to re-evaluate fact. Bottom line, once Greer limited fact to support his conclusion (legally from what I understand), the Schivo family have never been able to contest those facts.

A couple of interesting things about Greer, specifically in areas that he has exercised his discretion under the law. He had placed a gag order on the nurses that had testified Terri was communicative, apparently that was lifted when this went to the federal courts. Florida state code allows DCF to take custody of neglected and or abused wards (by force and before judicial consent when the guardian is suspected to be a threat), however Greer halted this by filing an injunction against the Executive branch. DCF was enroute to collect her when Felos was notified by local law enforcement, Felos notified Greer and Greer acted. He has also rejected the Families claims that she is communicative when he would have been well within the law to allow for a hearing of the evidence. In short, he has continuously exercised his discretion under the law to deny any further hearing of fact in order to starve a woman against the wishes of her family.

The funny thing is that the US Senate, exercised their right to subpoena Terri to provide testimony/evidence congressional hearing today. ANY persons interfing with that witness/evidence is at risk of arrest, Greer specifically
Other points of interest

The doctor that testified she was PVS, Dr. Ronald Cranford. Apparently was "influential" in developing the criteria for diagnoses of PVS. He also actively campaigns for the euthanasia, and testified and advocated a similar death in several other cases. He spent 45 minutes diagnosing Terri.

In the mean time his criteria have come under question. (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/JohansenSchiavo.shtml).

Specifically that diagnosis takes skill and a fare amount of time (not just bedside visits), and that rates of misdiagnosis are high.

Several of Michael Shchivo's lawyers have made contributions to Greer's re-election campaign. http://www.theempirejournal.com/030105091_schiavo_judge_greer_su.htm

Two Criminal probes investigating alleged abuse, neglect, and exploitation were shut down despite the existence of credible evidence. One by the Florida department of Law Enforcement, and the other by DCF. Both investigation were shut down by agency superiors.
http://www.theempirejournal.com/56092_FDLE_agent_implicates_mccab.htm

Michael Schivo is pushing to prevent an autopsy, and pushing for immediate cremation (strange, they are Catholic). One of the nurses apparently testified under oath that this was due to a certain bone scan. http://www.earnedmedia.org/bonescan.htm.

The more you look into this, the stranger it gets.

MadsL

And why they want her to stay alive? They might love her.

This is loving??? Keeping her in a vegative state for another 12 years or more? If this were a suffering horse they'd shoot it.

Rock Climber

I thought all this was and is awfull.
They are giving her morphine today according to the news,so she must be in pain.
I guess its only one case and theres possibly tens or even 100's more that we dont get to hear about unfortunately.
What Sovtek says about the insurance company and the death of the child is awfull too, is there a link?
Someone should write to Bush about that :rolleyes:

paulcr

Living in the US I've seen this case evolve into the hysteria that now surrounds it.

It is much more complicated than it seems. Bush and the Right Wing Republican party owes a great deal to the Evangelical movement that put him into office. Even though the chances of having the court order overturned were never a real possibility it plays favorably to the zealots.

Jeb Bush, George's brother asked the courts to make her a ward of the state of Florida (of which he is governor). The courts ruled against that. Jeb has been mentioned as a possible canidate for president. Again putting him and the Republican party in good standing with the Evangelicans (this is there base).

They are becoming so out of touch that members of their own party are running from this issue as fast as they can.

Plain and simple it was never about Terry or her husband it was solely political.

Bush needs this distraction from the war in Iraq (number of dead soldiers mounting). Drilling for oil in a national reserve in Alaska (very unpopular). Revamping social security so his cornies on wall street can line their pockets with tax payer money. (also very, very unpopular) and the list goes on and on.

Say what you want but this has never been about saving anyones ass but Bush's.

xm15e3

paulcr wrote:

Living in the US I've seen this case evolve into the hysteria that now surrounds it.

It is much more complicated than it seems. Bush and the Right Wing Republican party owes a great deal to the Evangelical movement that put him into office. Even though the chances of having the court order overturned were never a real possibility it plays favorably to the zealots.

Jeb Bush, George's brother asked the courts to make her a ward of the state of Florida (of which he is governor). The courts ruled against that. Jeb has been mentioned as a possible canidate for president. Again putting him and the Republican party in good standing with the Evangelicans (this is there base).

They are becoming so out of touch that members of their own party are running from this issue as fast as they can.

Plain and simple it was never about Terry or her husband it was solely political.

Bush needs this distraction from the war in Iraq (number of dead soldiers mounting). Drilling for oil in a national reserve in Alaska (very unpopular). Revamping social security so his cornies on wall street can line their pockets with tax payer money. (also very, very unpopular) and the list goes on and on.

Say what you want but this has never been about saving anyones ass but Bush's.

And..can you back this up with fact, or is the wishful thinking of a cynic?

The Bush brothers have tanked in the polls over this, and more than likely did so over principle. They've lost the evangelical support for not pulling an executive over reach, and of course they lost the Dialectic Materialist's by having their name evoked. IMO, all they had to do is ignore the Judiciary and send in a fat a' with an MP-5 like Janet Reno did. No problemo, Florida is used to it.

bonkey

xm15e3 wrote:

IMO, all they had to do is ignore the Judiciary

Do you honestly believe they'd get away with that?

jc

bonkey

xm15e3 wrote:

Michael Schivo is pushing to prevent an autopsy, and pushing for immediate cremation (strange, they are Catholic).

news.google.com currently has several links to this morning's announcement that the family and husband have agreed to an autopsy at the husband's request.

Appears he's done an about-face on this one for whatever reason.

jc

xm15e3

bonkey wrote:

Do you honestly believe they'd get away with that?

jc

Probably not. Clinton and Janet Reno got away with it as far as not being impeached/arrested for it. However, It probably cost Gore the election. Too many Cuban refugees to tick off in Florida not to have a political fall out. Janet Reno also lost any chance at beating Jeb Bush for Gov., and the Elian Gonzales thing sure didn't help. The GOP base would split over it on the separations of powers question alone.

My opinion though, is that they voluntarily got themselves into a political no-win situation. They've ticked off the right to die groups (part of which GOP), they have an issue that makes for very bad sound bite politics, and they cannot legally please the wonks. It was either stupidity or principle. Popular opinion over here is that W is the former, however Jeb has never been considered anything but shrewd. I'm guessing they did what they thought was right.

It's important to note that this issue divides both parties. Judge Greer (who in my opinion isa Jerk) is GOP, and a Baptist ...although his Church kicked him out last week.

I'd bet the autopsy will be used to show that yes indeed, she had visible brain damage. They can parade it over the networks, and act like they've resolved that question. My understanding ist that the nuances of brain damage cannot be photographed. It's a nice Straw man and the evidence (her ability to become communicative) will be destroyed.

Now I'm being cynical. But it begs the question, why push to kill her and then use an autopsy to vindicate yourself when you could run a new CT, an MRI, and a PET now? I don't think they are confident in their position.

Codeblue is a pretty interesting medical blog that has been debating this, the 1996 CT scans, and the "bag of water" statements.

http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html

xm15e3

bonkey wrote:

news.google.com currently has several links to this morning's announcement that the family and husband have agreed to an autopsy at the husband's request.

Appears he's done an about-face on this one for whatever reason.

jc

It appears Florida State Law requires an autopsy if there is going to be a cremation. I have to admit, I tend to suspect corruption anytime there is a conflict of interest and local county governments are involved. I really don't trust this guy.

paulcr

xm15e3 wrote:

And..can you back this up with fact, or is the wishful thinking of a cynic?

The Bush brothers have tanked in the polls over this, and more than likely did so over principle. They've lost the evangelical support for not pulling an executive over reach, and of course they lost the Dialectic Materialist's by having their name evoked. IMO, all they had to do is ignore the Judiciary and send in a fat a' with an MP-5 like Janet Reno did. No problemo, Florida is used to it.

Are you kidding "principle"! Bush has done nothing but lie from day one. How much money is he requesting for making PERMANENT air bases in Iraq? The war was over when Bush flew onto the aircraft carrier and declared "Mission Accomplished". Yeah Right.

Are you kidding me They restructured the Bankruptcy Laws so working stiffs that find themselves in financial trouble (like medical catastrophe) are burdened for life. While soldiers fighting in Iraq are having their houses foreclosed on and will have no recourse.

Bush/Chaney are willing to talk tough but have either of them been in an armed conflict. They are willing to sacrifice your sons/daughters for their principles (oil). But not themselves or their families.

Give me a break....the list goes on and on. Terry Schiavo .... yeah right.

bonkey

xm15e3 wrote:

It appears Florida State Law requires an autopsy if there is going to be a cremation.

Which kinda questions the whole allegation that he was pushing for immediate cremation sans autopsy.

I have to admit, I tend to suspect corruption anytime there is a conflict of interest and local county governments are involved.

And if local county government only was involved, I'd be just as suspicious. But it isn't. This is a case which has gone from the bottom to the top and back again. Surely if there was solid grounds to believe any of the allegations of corruption (when looked at in detail by those involved, as opposed to whatever the media is choosing to tell us), then some part of the GOP would have slapped an injunction on the whole thing pending investigation?

I really don't trust this guy.

I'm not sure I do either, but again - its been from the bottom to the top, and back again. If there's something up, then as what is currently teh last post on the codeblueblog link you procided says :

Also, I find it very hard to believe that even if there is a conspiracy involving Judge Greer that it also involves the state appeals court, state supreme court, federal district court, federal circuit court and the Supreme Court to allow bogus medical testimony as the characterization of Mrs. Schiavo's condition. If there was any reason to doubt these findings one of those courts would have ordered a new trial.

Thats a hell of a lot of court systems to con with what is being portrayed by some aspects of the media as almost an open-and-shut case of underhandedness.

Indeed...I'd go further and suggest that if Michael Schiavo and his case is as crooked as some would make out, then Mr.Schiavo and his case are the least of the problems the US faces, as pretty much its entire legal system would be called into question and/or disrepute alongside him.

jc

xm15e3

bonkey wrote:

Which kinda questions the whole allegation that he was pushing for immediate cremation sans autopsy.

It appeard to be beyond allegation. Apperently he was going to move her body out of state before cremation.

http://www.theempirejournal.com/03080501_schiavo_judge_obstructs.htm

"Refused to block plans by Michael Schiavo to have his wife cremated and her ashes buried in her native Pennsylvania. The Schindlers want her buried in Florida and oppose cremation."

I have no idea why he's changed his mind. The scope of the autopsy would be telling.

bonkey wrote:

And if local county government only was involved, I'd be just as suspicious. But it isn't. This is a case which has gone from the bottom to the top and back again.


Also, I find it very hard to believe that even if there is a conspiracy involving Judge Greer that it also involves the state appeals court, state supreme court, federal district court, federal circuit court and the Supreme Court to allow bogus medical testimony as the characterization of Mrs. Schiavo's condition. If there was any reason to doubt these findings one of those courts would have ordered a new trial.

Thats a hell of a lot of court systems to con with

This is probably why Doctors aren't Lawyers. The above statement assumes the higher courts reconsiderd the merits of the case when they only consider adherence to procedure.

The key point is that only Greer has heard fact in this case. He only has to apply the law in a biased (rule of man) manner, yet still within the law, and he is safe from being overturnd on a higher appeal. In that sense, only the local circuit court has made a ruling on the merits of the case. No con nor conspiracy required.

He is, however, interfering with a Congressional Subpeona. If they don't enforce it, then they are allowing a break down in separation of powers.

Also, the District Court Judge, Whittmore, clearly violated the intent of Congress by holding a De Novo Review (no-reconsideration of fact) vs. a De Novo Trial (fact re-considered), so he could be found in violation of the law. Appealing either of these two Judges Rulling simply means their interpretation of procedure has been upheld by the Judiciary, Congress and the Executive can still act.

So, two errant Judges is all it takes.

This is an interesting take from a lawyers point of view. Findlaw, like most attournys NEVER faults the system, just other lawyers. But even by that, it is clear this is a result of a fickle and jealous Judicial System.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20050326.html

bonkey wrote:

Indeed...I'd go further and suggest that if Michael Schiavo and his case is as crooked as some would make out, then Mr.Schiavo and his case are the least of the problems the US faces, as pretty much its entire legal system would be called into question and/or disrepute alongside him.

jc

And this is why the case is so important, and goes far beyond the issue at hand. What will be interesting is if Congress and the Executive have the will for the fight.

mycroft

xm15e3 wrote:

I have no idea why he's changed his mind. The scope of the autopsy would be telling.

She's been in a veg state for over a decade? In a hosipital. You my son have been watching too much CSI Miami.

TomF

I just read another very sobering column about the Schiavo Case. This one is in the "Village Voice" newspaper (New York City) and is written by a well-known columnist for that paper, Nat Hentoff. He claims to be an atheist, but he writes so intelligently and so well that I find that claim hard to believe. Read this:

"Ignoring the absence of complete neurological exams, supporters of the deadly decisions by Judge Greer and the trail of appellate jurists keep reminding us how extensive the litigation in this case has been—19 judges in six courts is the mantra. And more have been added.
...

"As David Gibbs, the lawyer for Terri's parents, has pointed out, there has been a manifest need for a new federal, Fourteenth Amendment review of the case because Terri's death sentence has been based on seven years of 'fatally flawed' state court findings—all based on the invincible neglect of elementary due process by Judge George Greer.

"I will be returning to the legacy of Terri Schiavo in the weeks ahead because there will certainly be long-term reverberations from this case and its fracturing of the rule of law in the Florida courts and then the federal courts—as well as the disgracefully ignorant coverage of the case by the great majority of the media, including such pillars of the trade as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Miami Herald, and the Los Angeles Times as they copied each other's misinformation, like Terri Schiavo being 'in a persistent vegetative state.' "
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0513,hentoff,62489,6.html

xm15e3

mycroft wrote:

She's been in a veg state for over a decade? In a hosipital. You my son have been watching too much CSI Miami.

Naw, but that CSI quip was used earlier today by Felos. Go figure.

BTW, the court appointed "Independent" witness was none other than professional "right to die" activist Dr. Ronald E. Cranford

Here's one of Cranford's good works:

http://www.envoymagazine.com/PlanetEnvoy/Update-TCollins-TerriS-Jan04-Full.htm

- David Mack, a police sergeant, was shot in the line of duty. A neurologist diagnosed him as "definitely . . . in a persistent vegetative state . . . never [to] regain cognitive, sapient functioning . . . never [to] be aware of his condition." Less than two years later, Sgt. Mack woke up and went on to make a good recovery. The physician? Dr. Ronald Cranford, the same doctor who has declared Terri Schiavo to be in a Persistent Vegetative State.


Cranford, and his PVS gig has come under question lately:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7048/13

43% rate of mis-diagnosis..pretty spooky.

and from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/27/wschi127.xml
<i>

Several studies have documented high rates of misdiagnosis of PVS, however. In a 1996 report in The British Medical Journal, for example, 43 per cent of patients admitted to the brain injury unit at the Royal Hospital for Neuro-disability in London were found to have been wrongly classified as being in a vegetative state. Some doctors now suggest that Terri may not be in PVS but could be "minimally conscious" - a less profound condition in which patients demonstrate awareness, the ability to follow simple commands and a response to pain and environmental stimuli.

In February, a report in the medical journal Neurology revealed that the level of brain function in some minimally conscious patients may be more significant than previously acknowledged.</i>

What I find amazing is how many people put the burden of proof on life. That seems a bit twisted.

xm15e3

She died last night, apparently Mikie denied her family access during her final hours.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152015,00.html

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, is the legal fallout.

WHEELER4

It is a shame that Terri Schiavo died. It is a great travesty.

What I want to do here is put a little historical context here about federal government intervention. I know the the left and the media are excoriating President Bush and the Republican Congress over its role in this matter.

Let me point out to you the a Democratic President, sent troops to Little Rock Arkansas to push the desegregation of the schools. Federal troops were sent many places in America to push the leftist/marxist sociology of diversity.

I just find it a bit hypocritical that it is alright for the Left in America to use Federal troops to enforce its political ideology but if the Republicans do it---It's a major crime. The Left used to decry "States Rights" and now wants to uphold "States Rights" in this matter.

The purpose of government is to (A) do good, and (B) punish evil. That is the purpose of government. In the Terri Schiavo case, it has done a great evil!

BEAT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/?GT1=6305

wow, here it says that the husband denied access to the parents and siblings as she was dying, they asked to be there when she died and he denied them access...I was on his side until I read that, what kind of monster doesnt let the parents be there whenher last breath leaves her body, they were afterall there when she breathed her first breath.
I am glad its over when all is said and done.

Sparks

TomF wrote:

I just read another very sobering column about the Schiavo Case. This one is in the "Village Voice" newspaper (New York City) and is written by a well-known columnist for that paper, Nat Hentoff. He claims to be an atheist, but he writes so intelligently and so well that I find that claim hard to believe.

Well I personally take offense at that insinuation.

"Ignoring the absence of complete neurological exams, supporters of the deadly decisions by Judge Greer and the trail of appellate jurists keep reminding us how extensive the litigation in this case has been—19 judges in six courts is the mantra. And more have been added.

There couldn't be complete neurological exams, the woman had no cortex. There were CT scans and an MRI. What else would be suggested for a case where the cortex has necrotised?

valor

Athiests cannot write intelligently and well !?!

paulcr

WHEELER4 wrote:

It is a shame that Terri Schiavo died. It is a great travesty.

What I want to do here is put a little historical context here about federal government intervention. I know the the left and the media are excoriating President Bush and the Republican Congress over its role in this matter.

Let me point out to you the a Democratic President, sent troops to Little Rock Arkansas to push the desegregation of the schools. Federal troops were sent many places in America to push the leftist/marxist sociology of diversity.


There is a big difference....you are talking about equal protection under the law in the matter of desegregation. It's not a leftist/marxist anything. It's providing the same quality of education that the blacks in america were deprived of.

How does this case address anything other than a new venue for ROe v. Wade?

Sounds like you'd like to go back to the good old days when blacks knew their place.

WHEELER4

I don't want to sidetrack this thread into another element. But segregation was the policies of many states. The Federal government came in and FORCED the issue and FORCED people to adopt.

No religion teachs that segration is bad or evil Where is this "equality" taught in any religious text?

But in Terry Schiavo's case, it is in the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill". We are prevented from murdering another human being. To segregate or not to desegregate is not a moral issue. (And the case to "desegregate" can be shown to be morally wrong.) Giving food and water to an alive human being is. To purposely withhold is wrong.

So I beg to differ with you. The Left have no problem enforcing their agenda and their morality. They use federal troops to do it. It is the same basis of union strategy: to make the boss give concessions. To use force in this context is alright but not alright if the opposition wants to use the same.

Sparks

No offence Wheeler, but the ten commandments also include thoughtcrimes and are explicitly against the idea of religious tolerance, among other faults. They are not usable in a straightforward, use-them-directly fashion for judicial reasons. "Thou shalt not kill", for example, would make killing in self-defence a sin. Frankly, I don't even think they can be used for day-to-day moral judgements, let alone leglislative policy decisionmaking.

And frankly, if you think that using federal troops to enforce an equal standard of education for children is morally reprehensible, I think you need to go find a quiet room somewhere and spend a while thinking about your ethics!

sceptre

WHEELER4 wrote:

I don't want to sidetrack this thread into another element.

Good. Don't then. Start a new thread if you want to talk about educational segregation and people might be willing to discuss it (though I'm not too sure if it would really belong on this particular board given that, considered on its own, it's a historical discussion at this point). I can see that you're offering this as another example of the federal government interfering (as you might put it) in states' rights but as you're using it as the only example it either deserves a thread of its own or no thread.

beer enigma

BEAT wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/?GT1=6305

wow, here it says that the husband denied access to the parents and siblings as she was dying, they asked to be there when she died and he denied them access...I was on his side until I read that, what kind of monster doesnt let the parents be there whenher last breath leaves her body, they were afterall there when she breathed her first breath.
I am glad its over when all is said and done.

I'm glad that she's finally at peace for her own sake - for what its worth I fully support her husbands position on this.

I heard part of an interview on Fox tonight where her husband issued a statement saying that he wanted her last moments to be peaceful & that he felt if her parents & siblings were in the room with him during her last moments, it would erupt into a row, which he didn'nt want for Terry......