Terri Schiavo

[smacg]

I think the biggest travesty of the Terri Schiavo case is that this poor woman is being used as a political football. What about the dignity of human life? I'm not saying "let this woman die" necessarily - I'm removed from this case, and I don't have enough facts to make that decision. Certainly I never want to be in a position to have to make such a decision. But here we have a woman who's very existence is being volleyed around by Washington types who want nothing more than to score some political points on their rivals. The reason I say this is because of how partisan the split in opinion is. It disgusts me how both sides simply circle the wagons whenever any hot topic comes up instead of rationally discussing the problem and hammering out a solution. In the case of something like minimum wage or steroids in baseball we all kind of shake our heads and mutter about politics as usual. But here we have a poor woman in a persistent vegitative state and her family trying to figure out how to best server her, and these scummy politicians are jumping all over it trying to attach themselves to this case in order to make themselves appear "principaled" or some such thing. These people have only one principal, and that is the retention of power. And all of these so-called "pundits", the knee-jerk assholes who make a living whoring themselves out to one side or the other, should be loaded into a rocket and launched into the Sun.

Ok, that feels better then.

[shadowgate]

I am very scared by Congress making legislation that applies to just one individual! This is a very scary thing to me!

[smacg]

I am very scared by Congress making legislation that applies to just one individual! This is a very scary thing to me!

Yes, and it's more proof in my eyes that it's little more than political grandstanding on their part. This is a human life we're talking about, and either keeping her alive on the hope that she'll be able to pull out of her state or letting her die mercifully are both much better options in my mind than allowing two political parties try to score points with their constituaents. Why not just have the families on a special edition of "Family Feud" and the winner gets to decide her fate? This is a case for the courts to decide. They are a (supposedly) non-political entity, adn just as Congree bitches and moans that judges legislate from the bench, Congress shouldn't stick their nose so obtrusively into judicial matters.

[Aananla]

It's the same issue republicans and democrats have been arguing about since the beginning of time, so it's really no surprise.
Terri's family wants to take custody so they can take care of her because they believe she will get better. Michael intends to starve her to death. Michael cut off her family from any medical information. The judge involoved is on Michael's side. It really a screwed up deal.

This is why it's gotten so political. A lot of people are getting involved in an effort to save her life.

[GravenStone]

From what I intially heard, the legislation is actually written "broadly" enough to pertain to anyone in this specific circumstance, i.e. persistent vegitative state without any clear instruction as to their wishes or desires.

If nothing else, this is a ringing endorsement for everyone to have a Living Will, or a suitable equivalent.

[Drax]

I am very scared by Congress making legislation that applies to just one individual! This is a very scary thing to me!
Congress has been scaring me quite a bit lately. Between their involvement in the whole baseball/steroid mess and their enforcement/legislation with the FCC/Indecency act, things are drifting a bit too far for my liking...

[Aananla]

I just heard they have rescinded the order to remove Terri's feeding tube.

[GravenStone]

I just heard they have rescinded the order to remove Terri's feeding tube.

Yeah, because our grandstanding Senate subpeonaed her. :roll: Explicitly to invoke the clause that protects Congressional witnesses from tampering or harm by others.

Saw an interesting quote on Fark this morning regarding all this, "Hell is being someone else's Cause". Seems entirely too sadly appropriate here...

[Zyzzyx]

Ah... mm hmm.

I knew that I didn't follow much on the overall news these days, but I must be getting better at being a hermit. I haven't heard about any of this.

[Aananla]

I think there may be extenuating circumstances in this particular case. I don't approve of the Federal govt. getting involved in a state issue, however, Terri's family has been trying for the last thirteen years, to save Terri's life. Michael, her husband, has redirected Terri's rehabilitation funds for legal actions to allow him to stop feeding her. She has not received any type of therapy for 10+ years.

Terri did not have a living will. Her husbands justification for all of this is, he claimed they were watching a movie together, in which a character was in a coma, and Terri saying to him, "I'd hate to live like that."

In my opinion, a feeding tube is not life support, and the idea of willfully starving someone to death is revolting. I'd like to see Terri's family get dependancy over her instead of her husband. They want to take care of her. They want to give her the therapy she's never received.

[Erudite]

She has not received any type of therapy for 10+ years.

Terri did not have a living will. Her husbands justification for all of this is, he claimed they were watching a movie together, in which a character was in a coma, and Terri saying to him, "I'd hate to live like that."

In my opinion, a feeding tube is not life support, and the idea of willfully starving someone to death is revolting. I'd like to see Terri's family get dependancy over her instead of her husband. They want to take care of her. They want to give her the therapy she's never received.

Yeah, my understanding is that she was, at some point many years in the past, receiving therapy, and that she was responding to it in positive, albeit small, ways. Her husband discontinued her therapy.

I honestly don't know whether to think her husband is acting in the way he sincerely believes she would want or not. There is nothing about the entire situation that doesn't suck.

[Sagar]

In entrenched issues like this, its almost impossible to seperate fact from fiction anymore. Each side has its "facts" that is believes absolutely.

I wish I knew more. Are the parents in denial? Is their daughter basically a corpse kept alive by modern medicine? Is she conscious at all? Does she have any higher brain functions? If so, is it cruel to leave her trapped, a prisioner in her own body.

Is he too quick to give up? Does she really not want to be in this state or does he no longer want her to be in this state? Is he trying to murder her medically or is he releasing her from a state worse than death? Who should really have precedence here - the husband or the parent?

This is one of those ugly, nasty situations that has no apparent "right" solution.

[Aananla]

The judge just rescinded the previous rescinding and the feeding tube has been removed. :lowsad:

[Shiz]

I find it amusing that the people decrying torture of suspected terrorists are silent about starving someone to death. Starvation is horrible.

[smacg]

Yeah, the particular method of "letting" Terri Schiavo die sounds awful. Personally I would love for a miracle to happen and she suddenly snap out of it, or show some miraculous sign of recovering, and remove this whole debate out of the public spotlight. I'm sick of it, and I feel horrible for her family (including her husband).

[Shiz]

I just don't get what is gained by starving her? Keeping her alive takes minimal effort. I am solidly in the "leave her alone and let her parents care for her" camp.

[EricStratton]

My problem, and I didn't know that the husband was trying to starve her, is that the hubby doesn't think she'd want to be in this veg state but he thinks she'd rather starve?? I mean, I understand he wants to put her out of her misery but damn, wait until there's a kinder way.

[Aananla]

They expect it to take about two weeks for her to die. Gah!

[Sir Rubi]

There are much better ways to take her life than starving her to death, I agree. I'm very angry about this entire situation (which Katy can attest to--we're diametrically opposed on this issue and it's gotten ugly) in that I question the motives of her spouse (who waited how long until he digs up hearing her once say that "I'd never want to live that way"?).

Unfortunately, the only way he can "move on" is for her to die, because of the laws in Florida. One-sided divorce, in cases like this, doesn't work because even though she's clinically braindead, she still breathes. And you pretty much have to die or have both sides involved in Florida to be permanently separated and since he has someone waiting in the wings for him...

Anyway, I'm biased against him in this situation. The problem here is that until she's dead, he can't "move on." So he won't surrender her care to the parents because they'll very much keep her alive and he won't be allowed to "move on."

I hope her parents will be able to move on after this. This is going to be an awful way to watch their child die.

I don't know what to thing of the spouse. I'd imagine that, at this point, he'll probably just be glad for it to be over... for whatever reason.

*holds his tongue very firmly*

[Aananla]

I believe he moved on a while back. He was at least seeing someone else.

What sucks is his refusal to allow therapy since 1993 and there is medical testimony that she could be taught to eat again.

Her teeth haven't been brushed since 1995. She's lost 5 teeth.

Is that a loving husband who is mearly following a loved one's last wishes?

[Quervo]

Someone here in the office said that the husband has a Girlfriend and 2 kids by this new woman. And there is also a money settlement awaiting to be paid out after she has passed... And the Guardian would be the benificiary. (ie if the courts put her in the parents care he would be out... so this sounds like he pushing to get a divorce and some cash.

[leng]

From what I have read she expressed a wish that she should not be maintained in this sort of state.

If that is the case then all I can wish is that everyone responsible for prolonging her existence for their own ends should end up in a similar position.

[Shiz]

The woman is not catatonic, though. She can actually react to people in small ways. My whole objection to removing the feeding tube is that death by starvation is considered too cruel for criminals so why would we accept it for a civilian?

[Asharad]

She smiles occassionally, which is a brain stem response. There is a video her parents keeps sowing of her reacting to stuff. Which is fine, but it is an edited video. They basically taped her for months and then took the few times there was any reaction. This woman is dead. Her brains, not to be too delicate, are mashed potatos.

I feel for everyone involved- except for congress which should be drug out in the street and beaten.

[smacg]

I talked to my wife about this, who's taken courses in medical ethics, and the starvation they're talking about isn't as horrible as you'd think. Someone in a persistent vegetative state like Terri doesn't actually "eat". She's fed via an IV. She hasn't used her stomach in 15 years. Even if she does have consciousness, she won't feel hunger. She won't suffer. What will happen is that her potassium levels will drop to the point where her heart will slow down and eventually stop. Ironically enough, this is exactly what she did to herself that put her in this state to begin with.

I really am hesitant to judge either side in this case. Perhaps the Husband is a scum-sucking leach who is callously leaving his wife to die in misery so he can greedily pursue his own life. Perhaps he is a loving man who is simply trying to see to his wife's last wishes. Perhaps it's a great deal more complicated. He was relatively young when this happened (under 30, if I'm not mistaken). He had a whole life ahead of him, and his wife did this to herself. Not only has she put herself in a persistent vegetative state, but she's robbed him of his life with her as well. This might sound harsh, but it's true. People who try to commit suicide and who act recklessly like Terri did run the risk of seriously ****ing up the lives of those who care about them. So here's this guy who's trying to start a family life with a woman and she goes and gets herself in this state, and he has to decide whether he should keep her alive indefinately and basically not have a life of his own, or whether he should try to move on. Unfortunately the only way this can happen is if she dies. And unfortunately the only way that can happen is if he sticks to his guns that this is what she would have wanted. And her family wants to block that. So he has to fight it. And it gets really ugly, but this is his life and he can't just walk away from it. He's not sticking a knife into her back. Common medical opinion is that this is a condition from which she'll never recover (though there are medical professionals who argue with this). And then there's the money on top of it. He could just give it up, I suppose, but it's a lot of money, and after all, he IS entitled to it, right? Perhaps you can disagree with that statement. It adds a whole new wrinkle to the case. But the fact is you can't take self-interest out of the equation.

We have evolved over the millenia to survive. Every single biological process that takes place, every single emotion we experience, all of it has evolved for the purpose of propagating our genes to the next generation. I cannot judge this man. I do not know his true motives, and indeed if I were in his situation I might just act the same way he is. Whether or not he "deserves" it is impossible to say, but surely this man is going through hell right now. Imagine being the subject of countless news stories across the nation, where your motives and character were being impuned, and where the thwarting of a very private and personal decision was being publicized in such a sensational way. The news outlets when this story first broke emphasized the popular medical opinion that Terri would never recover in a meaningful way from her state. Now, several months on, they are choosing to emphasize a less well-accepted idea that therapy would help her, that her state could be reversed, etc. Now, realize for one moment that the Republican party has taken this cause as a wedge issue. The Republican party has the power and the infrastrucure in place for making sure their message gets to the press. Now look at the shift in their focus, and also take into account the ratings the press gets from dramatizing the whole thing. Also think about how many of these cases there are a year, and the odd way that this one has turned into such a cheap and tawdry melodrama.

Maybe the husband is a scumbag. Maybe the Terri's parent's are delisional (as I might very well be if I were in their shoes). But there's one thing I AM sure of. Politics has never disgusted me more than it does right now.

[Shiz]

Bah, I should have just ignored this whole thing like I intended to from the beginning. The "starvation" thing horrified me, but I overreacted. Obviously she is just on an IV and I overlooked that. Your point that she basically put herself into this state is a very good one that I haven't heard/read articulated anywhere.

As far as Congress overreaching, what else is new?

[Aananla]

There was a woman on the radio who recovered from being in a "vegetative state" who had her feeding tube removed for 8 days, and although she was immobile and couldn't speak or move, she said she was aware and felt everything, and the whole deal was excrutiatingly painful. She recovered because her husband wouldn't give up.

Congress now, is trying to say without a clear knowledge of the patient's desire to be left on life support or not, to err on the side of life.

I didn't know Terri tried to take her own life which put her in this state. What did she do?

[smacg]

She didn't try to take her own life. She had an eating disorder. She starved herself, which led to a Potassium deficiency that caused her heart to stop, depriving her brain of oxygen. I grouped her behavior in with suicidal behavior because it was reckless. What a lot of people don't realize is that suicides aren't always successful. Failed suicides can leave that person disabled for life, leaving them a burden for those who care for them. I had a personal experience with someone who attempted to commit suicide, and though they thankfully suffered no ill effects, it prompted me to do some research on how this act effects others.

As for the woman who successfully recovered from a vegetative state, good for her (and I mean that in all sincerity). Her case is an extremely rare one.

As I read what congress and the president are saying, I guess I can see their point. I guess I have such a deep distrust of political motives right now that I can't help but see this whole episode in a deeply cynical light.

[Aananla]

Just so you know, I'm going back and forth on this. Something about her husband makes me think he's just trying to kill her and get on with his life, with a heafty insurance policy as a bonus, which makes me think her condition is recoverable. Give her parents and family a chance to do the therapy and rehabilitation, and see what happens.

On the other hand, if she is aware like the woman above, and can feel everything, but just unable to react, what kind of hell has she been through, and for 13 years? Isn't it time to let her go? Load her up with morphene and wish her a fond, overdue farewell.

[Lycos]

I feel for everyone involved- except for congress which should be drug out in the street and beaten.

I couldn't agree more!

[smacg]

I guess the other thing that flavors my experience is that my mother was in a somewhat similar situation when my father died. He had an embolism that burst in his brain causing severe brain damage. By the time he got to the hospital there was very little they could do for him. This was back in 1978, but they could have put him on life support and hoped against hope. My mother realized that he would never recover, though, and they just let him pass on. I can't even imagine having to make that choice, and her circumstances were quite a bit different. She had four children ranging from 3 months to 8 years old (I was 2 at the time), and no life insurance policy or anything. She didn't even have a high school diploma. If there was anyone who would have had incentive to cling to hope against all odds it was her, but she realized that he was brain dead (they used that term for it back then), and that she would just be prolonging everyone's misery, including her own, by keeping him on a machine.

It's hard to let go. It's hard because for the rest of your life you can torture yourself thinking "what if?" I don't know if my Mother ever wonders if she should have acted differently. From the way she talks about it, this was the decision she had to make, and sure it was tragic, but the man who was my father died when he collapsed on the bathroom floor. The fact that machines could have pumped the blood through his body for him and made his chest rise and fall was immaterial.

It's funny how your life experiences inform your worldview.

[leng]

There was a woman on the radio who recovered from being in a "vegetative state" who had her feeding tube removed for 8 days, and although she was immobile and couldn't speak or move, she said she was aware and felt everything, and the whole deal was excrutiatingly painful. She recovered because her husband wouldn't give up.
You see reports like this occasionally but it is rare to get the full story. However, I'm willing to bet that in this case she hadn't been in the state for 15 years. Recoveries after such a long period are (almost) unheard of.

[Raveneye]

This case has been through nearly 20 courts. Rulings have been passed, appeals have been heard, and tons of money spent by both sides. In the end The Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled on this case, and that ruling was to let this poor woman finally rest in peace.

Then the Legislative branch of our wonderful government stepped in and decided they were going to overrule the highest authority in the Judicial branch. Not only is this unethical, it should be illegal. We might as well call it The Nachos Supreme Court of Taco Bell if the rulings they pass can be overturned by lawmakers without one whit of legal and judicial expereince and not even an inkling of the facts of the case.

This is what really pisses me off about the whole thing, the hijacking of the entire matter by the legislators to use as their own personal soapbox (Tom Delay I'm looking right at you!). It's disgusting and it flys in the face of everything our government is supposed to stand for. Though I suppose it's par for the course from an administration so juiced up on it's own religious zeal that they can't wait to jump into any fight where they can claim Jesus is on their side.

The issue of what to do with this woman has been decided. The highest court in our judicial system made the decision. Whether you agree with it or not, that decision should be final and neither Congress, the President nor any other governmental body should be allowed to overturn that decision.

You know the real waste? If all the time and effort that is being thrown at this by lawyers, judges, politicians and the media had simply been applied to changing the laws and insurance regulations in Florida that prevent her husband from simply getting an dissolution of marriage (so he can move on with his personal life) and remanding custody of her to her parents (so they can care for her if they so desire) while splitting the settlement money (so both sides receive compensation for the care given and yet to be given) this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue.

[Shiz]

Actually, Raveneye, Constitutionally the Legislature is the final arbiter. The Courts rule on existing law. If "the people" don't like the ruling, they can appeal to the Legislature to change/clarify the law. The only unelected branch of the government is not meant to have the final say. Congress is not "overturning" the decision, they are enacting new law to address it which is their prerogative.

I don't disagree that the whole thing is a mess, but the system is working within The Constitution's framework. I would argue that things have swung too far in favor of the judiciary in recent years. If one reads the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, one will be surprised to see a court ORDER the legislature to change the law. This is exactly the opposite of how things are supposed to work. Courts are not supposed to make policy, just enforce it.

You know this, of course, but the issues get so clouded by all the rhetoric on both side.

[Crim]

This case has been through nearly 20 courts. Rulings have been passed, appeals have been heard, and tons of money spent by both sides. In the end The Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled on this case, and that ruling was to let this poor woman finally rest in peace.

Then the Legislative branch of our wonderful government stepped in and decided they were going to overrule the highest authority in the Judicial branch. Not only is this unethical, it should be illegal. We might as well call it The Nachos Supreme Court of Taco Bell if the rulings they pass can be overturned by lawmakers without one whit of legal and judicial expereince and not even an inkling of the facts of the case.

This is what really pisses me off about the whole thing, the hijacking of the entire matter by the legislators to use as their own personal soapbox (Tom Delay I'm looking right at you!). It's disgusting and it flys in the face of everything our government is supposed to stand for. Though I suppose it's par for the course from an administration so juiced up on it's own religious zeal that they can't wait to jump into any fight where they can claim Jesus is on their side.

The issue of what to do with this woman has been decided. The highest court in our judicial system made the decision. Whether you agree with it or not, that decision should be final and neither Congress, the President nor any other governmental body should be allowed to overturn that decision.

You know the real waste? If all the time and effort that is being thrown at this by lawyers, judges, politicians and the media had simply been applied to changing the laws and insurance regulations in Florida that prevent her husband from simply getting an dissolution of marriage (so he can move on with his personal life) and remanding custody of her to her parents (so they can care for her if they so desire) while splitting the settlement money (so both sides receive compensation for the care given and yet to be given) this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue.

Just a clarification. The Supreme Court didn't rule on this case, they decided not to hear it. They said it wasn't in their jurisdiction.

I like that the congress is getting involved, but I hate the way they are doing it. It's rediculous that they are stepping in for one specific case. What they should be doing is looking at this in the abstract and making a law on what should be done for all cases where there is no living will. (Although this may be better done at the state level.)

We as a country need to have a dialog as to what is morally appropiate in these situatiuons. As ugly as this whole case is, at least it has people thinking about this and maybe some general consensus can be reached that will be the basis of a clearer set of laws. It may also be the motivator for people to get themselves a living will, so they can decide what is done should they ever find themselves in a similar situation.

[smacg]

Exactly, Raveneye! It's such a simple solution, one that anybody whop actually cared about this case and who wasn't simply trying to score political points might come up with. Of course, if the husband Michael was genuinely passionate about Terri not wanting to have her life dragged out like this, he might still fight to have her die.

CNN has a poll on their Web site asking if this case has been too politicized. 92% of the respondents say "yes". There could be a big backlash politically for this crap.

[Shiz]

Good piece in the WSJ today (subscribers only so I am copying in its entirety):

Killing Terri
By JAMES Q. WILSON
March 21, 2005; Page A16

Terri Schiavo is not brain dead as far as anyone can tell. If you are brain dead, you have suffered an irreversible loss of all functions of the brain. If agreed to by at least two physicians, that means you are legally dead, such that your organs can be harvested to help other people.

Instead, Ms. Schiavo is in what many physicians call a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS). That means that she lacks an awareness of her self or other people, cannot engage in purposeful action, does not understand language, is incontinent, and sleeps a lot. To be clinically classified as being in a PVS, these conditions should be irreversible. But from what we know, some doctors dispute one or more of these conditions and believe that it is possible that whatever her symptoms, they are not irreversible.

Her condition is hardly unique. In 1995, when the American Academy of Neurology published its report on people in a persistent vegetative state, it found that there were as many as 25,000 adults and 10,000 children in this country who suffered from PVS. Based on the best studies the Academy could find at the time, some adults in a vegetative state 12 months after a devastating injury or heart failure could recover consciousness and some human functions. The chances that such a recovery will occur are very small, but they are not zero.

If they are not zero, then withdrawing a patient's feeding tubes and allowing her to die from a lack of water and food means that whoever authorizes such a step may, depending on the circumstances, be murdering the patient. The odds against it being a murder are very high, but they are not 100%.

* * *

Many people, myself included, have allowed life-support systems to be withdrawn from parents who have no hope of recovery. My mother was going to die from cancer, and after all efforts had been made to help her, my sister and I allowed the doctors to withdraw the devices that kept her alive. She was dead within hours.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/ED-AC738_WILSONSCHIAVO03202005183134.jpg
My case, and that of countless other people who have made that decision, differs from that of Terri Schiavo in two important ways. First, the early death of my mother was certain, but no one can say that Ms. Schiavo will die soon or possibly at any time before she might die of old age. Second, all the relevant family members agreed on the decision about my mother, but family members are deeply divided about Terri.

These differences are of decisive importance. When death will occur soon and inevitably, the patient does not starve to death when life support ends. Since there was no chance of our mother living more than a few more days, what my sister and I did could not be called murder. When death will not occur soon, or perhaps for many years, and when there is a chance, even a very small one, that recovery is possible, people who authorize the withdrawal of life support are playing God.

And in Terri's case, they are playing God when they do not have to. Her parents have begged to become her guardians. Her husband has refused. We do not know for certain why the husband has refused. I doubt that he wishes to receive for himself the money that still exists from her insurance settlement and, apparently, he has offered to donate that money to charity. Perhaps, being a Catholic, he would like her death to make him free to marry the woman with whom he is now living. Or perhaps (and I think this is the most likely case) he does not want his wife to live what strikes him as an intolerable life.

The intolerable life argument has support from many doctors and bioethicists. They claim that a person can be "socially dead" even when their brains can engage in some functions. By "socially dead" they mean that the patient is no longer a person in some sense. At this point their argument gets a bit fuzzy because they must somehow define what is a "person" and a "non-person." That is no easy matter.

By contrast, physicians have unambiguous ways of determining whether a person is brain dead. This means that brain death is a very conservative standard and, if it errs, it errs on the side of preserving life.

Some people believe that all of these issues can be resolved if everyone signs a living will that specifies what is to be done to them under various conditions. The living will is supposed to determine unambiguously when a "Do Not Resuscitate" sign should be placed on a patient's hospital chart. Terri Schiavo had not signed a living will. If she had, we would not be facing these issues.

* * *

But scholars have shown that we have greatly exaggerated the benefits of living wills. Studies by University of Michigan Professor Carl Schneider and others have shown that living wills rarely make any difference. People with them are likely to get exactly the same treatment as people without them, possibly because doctors and family members ignore the wills. And ignoring them is often the right thing to do because it is virtually impossible to write a living will that anticipates and makes decisions about all of the many, complicated, and hard to foresee illnesses you may face.

For example, suppose you say that you want the plug pulled if you have advanced Alzheimer's disease. But then it turns out that when you are in this hopeless condition your son or daughter is about to graduate from college. You want to see that event. Or suppose that you anticipate being in Terri Schiavo's condition at a time when all doctors agree that you have no chance of recovering your personhood and so you order the doctors to remove the feeding tubes. But several years later when you enter into a persistent vegetative state, some doctors have come to believe on the basis of new evidence that there is a chance you may recover at least some functions. If you knew that you might well have changed your mind, but after entering into a PVS you can make no decisions. It is not clear we would be doing you a favor by starving you to death. On the contrary, we might well be doing what you might regard as murder.

There is a document that is probably better than a living will, and that is a durable power of attorney that authorizes a person that you know and trust to make end-of-life decisions for you.

Terri Schiavo's case could be decently settled by a judge who recognizes that there is some small chance of recovery and that several family members are willing to take responsibility for managing that process in hopes that a recovery of even small human features will occur. The judge in Florida ignored this and ordered her feeding tubes removed. The Florida appellate courts have not stayed his hand, and the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps for want of jurisdiction, has not intervened.

This is a tragedy. Congress has responded by rushing to pass a law that will allow her case, but only her case, to be heard in federal court. But there is no guarantee that, if it is heard there, a federal judge will do any better than the Florida one. What is lacking in this matter is not the correct set of jurisdictional rules but a decent set of moral imperatives.

* * *

That moral imperative should be that medical care cannot be withheld from a person who is not brain dead and who is not at risk for dying from an untreatable disease in the near future. To do otherwise makes us recall Nazi Germany where retarded people and those with serious disabilities were "euthanized" (that is, killed). We hear around the country echoes of this view in the demands that doctors be allowed to participate, as they do in Oregon, in physician-assisted suicide, whereby doctors can end the life of patients who request death and have less than six months to live. This policy endorses the right of a person to end his or her life with medical help. It is justified by the alleged success of this policy in the Netherlands.

But it has not been a success in the Netherlands. In that country there have been well over 1,000 doctor-induced deaths among patients who had not requested death, and in a large fraction of those cases the patients were sufficiently competent to have made the request had they wished.

Keeping people alive is the goal of medicine. We can only modify that policy in the case of patients for whom death is imminent and where all competent family members believe that nothing can be gained by extending life for a few more days. This is clearly not the case with Terri Schiavo. Indeed, her death by starvation may take weeks. Meanwhile, her parents are pleading for her life.

Mr. Wilson has taught at Harvard, UCLA and Pepperdine and is the author of "The Moral Sense" (Free Press, 1997).

[Raveneye]

The decision by the Supreme Court that they did not have jurisdiction to take the case away from the highest appellate court in Florida (who ruled in Mr. Schaivo's favor) while not technically a ruling still constitutes a decision from the highest court in the land that the case is closed and the last ruling should stay as is. The abilty of Congress to simply step in and hijack that decision and ruling is at best a stretch of the Constitution, and in my opinion in this case is a direct act against the rights granted every American.

Yes, people CAN appeal to legislators to change law based on popular opinion. It happens all the time. However, it is not supposed to happen in such a way that it changes previous court rulings. If it did, we'd be emptying prisons or locking up aquitted defendants every time a law changed that effected closed cases. As far as the Supreme Court was concerned, this case was closed, ruled on by the State Court and not a candidate for appeal to their court. Enacting a quickie law to get around this is simply against all the things our system is supposed to stand for.

Today it's all about saving the life of a woman in a vegitative state. Tomorrow's quickie law could easily be about giving the FBI or the NSA the ability to delve deep into your personal life to decide if you're a threat to the US as THEY define it. Or it could be some other civil rights violating or highly volatile situation. The problem is once you set a precedence for this, politicians can and will twist situations to take advantage of the power.

[Asharad]

. However, it is not supposed to happen in such a way that it changes previous court rulings. If it did, we'd be emptying prisons

Actually, that happens.

or locking up aquitted defendants every time a law changed that effected closed cases.

but that doesn't.

I didn't know this either, so I asked my in house (literaly) legal defense team and she gave me the 411.
However, I agree with you that in this case there is no excuse for congress to get involved.

[Lycos]

Just a clarification. The Supreme Court didn't rule on this case, they decided not to hear it. They said it wasn't in their jurisdiction.

Now it's in their jurisdiction. And I have a feeling that they are going to put the smack down on Congress. Only time will tell! :D

[deepfred]

smack down applied, federal judge just ruled first thing this a.m. to not reattach feeding tube.

[Vayanla]

This entire thread is full of incorrect statements and plain old misinformation diseminated by the Schindlers, if you want to see the source of the news reports that you've been reading go see www.terrisfight.net (http://www.terrisfight.net/). The site is very one sided and contains their side of the story. It's very sad that the Schindlers have been able to get their side of the story in front of more people that Michael Schiavo has been ale to - thus showing that whoever's more popular is usually right in an argument. ;)

I won't debate the fact that he's sired two children and cohabitated with another woman. It does put his motives to question, with that I agree.

The fact is that her brain is plain old gone. It's been replaced with fluid. People can not regrow a brain. What sort of quality of life is that? The only quality of life that will be spared by keeping Terri alive is the Schindlers...

Terri is no longer with us. For every doctor that Michael Schiavo can find to say she's in a PVS they can find 1 or 2 who will testify under oath that she's not PVS and instead in an MCS... Because that's what they want to hear. (My opinion here).

Michael claims that he prayed for 8 years for his wife to get better, and it wasn't until after his own mother passed on that he understood what loss was and knew that it was time for Terri to be with god (I suppose it's my argument that she's already there and only her body remains). All of these alleged abuse and neglect claims have mostly come about since Michael has started the litigation (in '98) to have her feeding tube removed. I suppose he doesn't see the need to take care of Terri when he's fighting for her right to die... I feel that's a mistake... And has cost him a lot of public opinion.

But my real issue here is how Congress and the President can effect legislation that is for only one individual. Terri get's treated differently than every other person in America. I'm sure on this merit alone the new law will eventually be ruled Unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court - and I expect it to make it all the way there.

For a good source on the current arguments, check out http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo/index.html there you can find most of the legal filings from both parties. Court documents aren't the most fun and exciting things to read, but it'll show you both sides of the arguments better than the AP has been doing. (BTW, the AP is for Terri to live.)

As far as getting a divorce, under FL law, since Michael is her guardian, he can consent that she get a divorce from him. He doesn't want to divorce her, he wants to carry out HER (at least so he says) wishes - to not live that way. (Edit: actually, the FL supreme court has affirmed that it is HER wish to not continue to live). It's not about the Schindler's it's not about himself, it's about Terri. And in that, I sympathise with he and Terri, and I agree.

For the record, if I'm ever found to be in a PVS - please pull the plug.

For all that's happened I blame journalists in the US for slanting the story so it sells copy. I'm involved in all to many things where the press pushes the story for the bang and not for the facts. On this point, I'd be happy to argue. ;)

[Vayanla]

Another interesting fact that I discovered while reading a Washington Post article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=2&u=/washpost/20050322/ts_washpost/a55253_2005mar21) is that in all of this federal court hijinx, Terris is essentially suing herself... How can a person sue themselves? And it creates peril for later appeal in and of itself...

[Aananla]

Because she has a poor quality of life, she should be killed? A lot of the mentally/physically challenged might fit in the same catagory.

[Vayanla]

Because she has a poor quality of life, she should be killed? A lot of the mentally/physically challenged might fit in the same catagory.
Poor? You're beeing far too generous and optimistic. She has zero quality of life - but that's not my argument. I'm not supporting euthenasia...

And to also add in, this happens dozens of time every day in the US. Did you miss the story from last week where doctors, in Texas, pulled the plug from a 5 month old baby (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-15-baby-ill_x.htm) against her mothers wishes? BTW, President Bush (then gov of texas, signed the law (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050322/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman_texas_law) allowing the doctors / hospital to do this).

My argument here is that she (Terri) has a constitutional right to die. SHE (Terri) has expressed she WANTS to exercise that right. (The FL Supreme court has affirmed this fact and it's been exhaustively appealed). (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/hus32105opp.pdf)

Michael Schiavo is not killing her - that's what the Schindlers want you to belive.

Michael Schiavo is letting Terri carry out her wish.

[Vayanla]

I'm sorry for all of the edits my previous post, but I was really trying to get it right along with the sources for my opinions.

[Vayanla]

11'th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta also ruled 2-1 against granting the emergency injunction. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20050323/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman&sid=84439559)

[Aananla]

Poor? You're beeing far too generous and optimistic. She has zero quality of life - but that's not my argument. I'm not supporting euthenasia...
Her quality of life is debatable. She quite enjoys jello. A certified nurse's assistant testified to feeding her jello which brought a smile to her face. She was able to swallow on her own.

Euthanasia would be much more merciful than starving her to death.

And to also add in, this happens dozens of time every day in the US. Did you miss the story from last week where doctors, in Texas, pulled the plug from a 5 month old baby (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-15-baby-ill_x.htm) against her mothers wishes? BTW, President Bush (then gov of texas, signed the law (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050322/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman_texas_law) allowing the doctors / hospital to do this).
The baby was on life-support. Terri was on a feeding tube.

My argument here is that she (Terri) has a constitutional right to die. SHE (Terri) has expressed she WANTS to exercise that right. (The FL Supreme court has affirmed this fact and it's been exhaustively appealed). (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/hus32105opp.pdf)
Michael has expressed that she wants to die. That is where the controversy is. One problem here, is when a judge establishes a "fact" in the case no other judge can dispute the judge's findings whether they are correct or not. This is why it is perfectly legal to kill Terri, although it is unethical and immoral.

Michael Schiavo is not killing her - that's what the Schindlers want you to belive.
I guess there is a small difference from killing someone outright and torturing someone to death.

Michael Schiavo is letting Terri carry out her wish.
Michael is carrying out whose wishes? Where is the living will?

[Vayanla]

You'll want to read this (http://www.terrisfight.net/documents/CIyerAffidavit090203.htm) too...

[Erudite]

Vegetable? Hell, I don't care if I look like an artichoke. Saaaave my ***! - George Carlin

I've read a lot more recently that makes me more sympathetic to her husband. Almost every medical expert who has expressed an opinion has indicated that she is not going to recover - her cortex and mid-brain have completely degenerated. I still think starving her to death is barbaric, and I have a hard time accepting any justification for that.


As far as getting a divorce, under FL law, since Michael is her guardian, he can consent that she get a divorce from him. He doesn't want to divorce her, he wants to carry out HER (at least so he says) wishes - to not live that way.

As I understand it (and I certainly could be wrong), the Schiavos are Catholic. While a divorce would help resolve the legal issues of Terri's care, it doesn't resolve his marital status within the Church. Her condition doesn't merit an anullment (for better or worse and whatnot), so for him to be free to remarry within the Church, she must die. That sounds cold, and again I don't know that this is his motive.

[Vayanla]

The baby was on life-support. Terri was on a feeding tube.Both were receiving necessary means to sustain life. If you want to consider a feeding tube fundamentally different than a respirator then so be it.

Michael has expressed that she wants to die. That is where the controversy is.There have been *11* hearings on this matter. How did they get it wrong 11 times in a row?

One problem here, is when a judge establishes a "fact" in the case no other judge can dispute the judge's findings whether they are correct or not.And this has been more exhaustively litigated than any other right to die case in the US... I'm sorry, I just plain old disagree with you.

This is why it is perfectly legal to kill Terri, although it is unethical and immoral.And 4 out of 10 Americans agree with you.

Michael is carrying out whose wishes? Where is the living will?The courts are not acting on Michael's word alone here.

Here's some more support of your arguments. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ucmg/20050323/cm_ucmg/therighttokillterrischiavo)

[Vayanla]

As I understand it (and I certainly could be wrong), the Schiavos are Catholic. While a divorce would help resolve the legal issues of Terri's care, it doesn't resolve his marital status within the Church. Her condition doesn't merit an anullment (for better or worse and whatnot), so for him to be free to remarry within the Church, she must die. That sounds cold, and again I don't know that this is his motive.I'm not a Catholic, however, I'm fairly certain(*) that you can't marry in the Catholic church after having cohabited in sin and having two children out of wedlock.... I highly doubt religion is the reason behind Michael's motives...

*Ok, fairly certain is a poor choice of words. I have a friend who was not catholic who got married in the catholic church and the one thing he asked me to do was not mention to the priest that they lived together before they got married.

[Vayanla]

Michael has expressed that she wants to die. That is where the controversy is. One problem here, is when a judge establishes a "fact" in the case no other judge can dispute the judge's findings whether they are correct or not. This is why it is perfectly legal to kill Terri, although it is unethical and immoral.One other (ironic) point to mention is that since the courts have ruled that it is indeed Terri's wish to die that even if the Schindler's were appointed her guardian they would be required, under law, to carry those wishes out and deny her food and water.

[smacg]

It's funny, but there are a lot of reflexive responses that don't come from the brain. the brain might trigger the use of those reponses, but it doesn't direct the firing of specific muscles. For example, when you smile, the brain doesn't specifically coordinate the contraction and relaxing of the muscles required to do so. It sends the message to smile down the spinal cord to a group of nerves that already knows how to do that. Your brain can take over, but most of the time the well-rehearsed actions we perform happen with very little involvement from the brain itself. Accordingly, actions that might seem to indicate conscious thought (such as reflexively smiling, eyes following an object, blinking, grimacing, swallowing, etc.) can actually occur without a conscious brain. Think of a chicken running around with its head cut off.

The reason why I think Michael Schiavo is getting such a bad rap is that he has had many opportunities to extricate himself from this whole mess. He could have divorced Terri and walked away without having to worry about her anymore. He's even been offered significant money to do just that. When I really dug into the facts of the case from several sources and started putting this all together, it really seems to me that Michael Schiavo is delibrately taking a hard road and trying to see to his wife's wishes as he best knew them. And it seems more and more like Terri's family is delusional and clinging pathetically to the hope that somehow, after all these year, Terri will somehow recover from this. The tapes that they market around as "proof" that she's responsive show her not respnding for most of the time, then her head lolls and she seems to smile, and they take that as proof that her recovery is any day now. I know it must be hard as a parent to see your daughter like this and to come to grips with the inevitable, and it must be very easy to find someone to turn into the villain, but I don't think they're right about this.

And the truly horrible thing I'm seeng right now is that degenerate prick Tom DeLay bashing a private citizen on the House Floor. My god, what the hell is wrong with that man? For an elected officical to take a private citizen and run his name through the muck to pander to a narrow constituency is disgusting. This man will rot in hell one day.

[Erudite]

I'm not a Catholic, however, I'm fairly certain that you can't marry in the Catholic church after having cohabitated in sin and having two children out of wedlock....

I'm not Catholic, either, but I have several friends that are. I'm almost positive that you're mistaken in that assessment. Adultery, like almost any other sin, can be absolved.

[Greebo]

You know what gets me the most about this matter?

The fact that it has become a national matter.

This woman's case is between her husband and her family and the courts.

The media is having a field day exploiting this poor woman's case, and not a damn bit of arguing either side does about it here or anywhere else has ANY bearing or relevance.

IMO, this matter should have been left private.

[smacg]

You know what gets me the most about this matter?

The fact that it has become a national matter.

This woman's case is between her husband and her family and the courts.

The media is having a field day exploiting this poor woman's case, and not a damn bit of arguing either side does about it here or anywhere else has ANY bearing or relevance.

IMO, this matter should have been left private.

And we come full circle to my original post!

[Vayanla]

I'm not Catholic, either, but I have several friends that are. I'm almost positive that you're mistaken in that assessment. Adultery, like almost any other sin, can be absolved.I stand corrected. Tho I think we're talking about fornication (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fornication&x=13&y=13) and not adultery (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=adultery)...

*hides*

[Asharad]

These are from a report prepared by Jeb Bush on this issue. They paint the husband in a rather good light:

QUOTE
Theresa’s husband, Michael Schiavo and her mother, Mary Schindler, were virtual partners in their care of and dedication to Theresa. There is no question but that complete trust, mutual caring, explicit love and a common goal of caring for and rehabilitating Theresa, were the shared intentions of Michael Shiavo and the Schindlers.


QUOTE
His (Michael’s) demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as “a nursing home administrator’s nightmare”. It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa’s collapse, she has never had a bedsore.



QUOTE
In late Autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing, formal diagnoses of persistent vegetative state with no evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa to California, where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. Michael remained in California caring for Theresa during a period of several months and returned to Florida with her in January of 1991.



QUOTE
It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating.



QUOTE
Michael Schiavo, on Theresa’s and his own behalf, initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had been overseeing Theresa’s fertility therapy. In 1993, the malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael’s favor, resulting in a two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa, and a loss of consortium award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust fund for Theresa’s financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa’s estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.



QUOTE
Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate (in order to remove any hint of bias in his decision to remove the feeding tube).


QUOTE
By 1994, Michael’s attitude and perspective about Theresa’s condition changed. During the previous four years, he had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care. This was in the face of consistent medical reports indicating that there was little or no likelihood for her improvement.


QUOTE
The hearings and testimony before the trial court leading to the decision to discontinue artificial life support included admitted hearsay from Theresa’s brother-in-law (Michael Schiavo’s brother) and his wife (Michael’s Schiavo’s sister-in-law) along with testimony from Michael. The testimony of these parties referenced specific conversations in which Theresa commented about her desire never to be placed on artificial life support. The testimony reflected conversations at or proximate to funerals of close family members who had been on artificial life support. The context and content of the testimony, while hearsay, was deemed credible and consistent and was used by the court as a supporting bases for its decision to discontinue artificial life support.

[Asharad]

oh yeah, and this:

The Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state.

Bold mine.

So the parents don't care what her wishes were.

[Erudite]

I stand corrected. Tho I think we're talking about fornication (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fornication&x=13&y=13) and not adultery (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=adultery)...

*hides*

Am I missing something? Premarital sex is fornication. Postmarital sex with somebody other than your spouse is adultery. Since Michael Schiavo is still married to Terri, wouldn't we be discussing adultery?

I was exchanging emails with a friend that is Catholic. She suggested that another concern for Michael, if he's really devout, would be legitimation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09131e.htm) for his children.

I dunno. I don't know his mind, obviously.

[BobHamfist]

IMO, this matter should have been left private.

Agreed.

[Raveneye]

The more I read about this case, the more it ticks me off that anyone other than family and the Florida court system is involved at all. For legislators to have passed a bill that forced this to move from state courts to federal courts is unethical in itself, but the treatment of the case as a whole by some politicians (DeLay chief among them) is simply appalling. They want to twist and reshape this man's fight to see his late wife's wishes fulfilled (and she is "late", she's PVS with no hope of recovery, the person that was Terri is long gone) and this family's desperate hope for a miracle into their own juggernaut of political PR that will create debate and divide a nation such that they can ride the wave of media attention directly into reelection.

With so many other issues facing this country, issues that effect nearly every American, not just one Florida family, shouldn't our lawmakers stop trying to divert attention from their own lack of progress and get to work fixing the problems in our country? Isn't THAT what they were elected for?

[Charinida]

Sorry to say, but as much as I feel for the parents, I really dislike how things are being handled.

This is not a government/political thing they (US Govt) should intervene in. And the US District Appeal denial should have been the final say...

As previously stated, there are more important things that the country needs to focus, correct and fix...

[Lycos]

With so many other issues facing this country, issues that effect nearly every American, not just one Florida family, shouldn't our lawmakers stop trying to divert attention from their own lack of progress and get to work fixing the problems in our country? Isn't THAT what they were elected for?

True, maybe they should work on something like the deficit. Nah, too hard. Maybe do something about the rising cost of health coverage. Nah, too hard. Maybe do something about reigning in the budget. Nah too hard.

I guess we need new people in congress to get something hard done. :D

[Shiz]

The politicization is grotesque, but it is a win-win for the GOP with their pro-life base. (I initially wrote "core base" but I consider myself a core supporter of the party and am not part of the "base" I am talking about.)

1) Do nothing. Terri dies. Your base is incredibly disappointed that you did nothing.

2) Act and Terri lives. Victory for the good guys! Life prevailed!

3) Act and the courts let Terri die anyway. Now the base is energized to "reform" the judiciary.

#3 was likely all along. What we have is yet more crescendo of the judiciary and legislative branches of the government colliding.

[Charinida]

I guess we need new people in congress to get something hard done. :D

Something like from Executive Order from Tom Clancy?

That would be cool...

Not cool that the Congressional Capital building is smashed, but still... A lot of new and fresh Reps/Congressional folks would be good... No long-term incumbent folks...

New ideas...

[Vayanla]

Am I missing something?No... heh, I don't know WTF I was thinking... Sorry.

[Greebo]

No... heh, I don't know WTF I was thinking... Sorry.
You were probably thinking about fornicating. :)

[Biaxin]

You were probably thinking about fornicating. :)

Hey,

Thinking about fornicating is something I try to do, regularly. It's thinking about mating that I avoid like gunfire.

I find that thinking about fornicating is, somewhat, soothing. Not as soothing as fornicating, but you take what you can get.

I'm going to quit, now, before this gets just vile.

[smacg]

The politicization is grotesque, but it is a win-win for the GOP with their pro-life base. (I initially wrote "core base" but I consider myself a core supporter of the party and am not part of the "base" I am talking about.)

1) Do nothing. Terri dies. Your base is incredibly disappointed that you did nothing.

2) Act and Terri lives. Victory for the good guys! Life prevailed!

3) Act and the courts let Terri die anyway. Now the base is energized to "reform" the judiciary.

#3 was likely all along. What we have is yet more crescendo of the judiciary and legislative branches of the government colliding.

I think what is happening with the Republican party is that they are energizing their base, but they're also shrinking it. I know qiute a few people who voted for Bush last year, but I don't know any of them who did it enthusiastically. They voted for him because (a) he was a Republican, and (b) they were convinced John Kerry would have been an even worse President than Bush. I think we're seeing a fundamental shift in American Politics right now. If we talk about being a "conservative" in the literal sense of the word and not just as a synonym for being a Republican, then the current Republican party has no claim on that whatsoever. They are Radicals. They have a Radical vision for this country, one founded in Radical Capitalism and Radical Fundamentalism. This is who they are steering their party towards; this is the base that they are pandering to; these are the people who will bring about the temporary decline of the Republican Party. True conservatives are appalled at this administration, and particularly at the actions of prominent party members over this bull****. And you look at the Democrats, who are interested in balancing the budget, paying down federal debt, and continuing programs that have proven effective over the better part of a century or longer, and contrast that with a party who is increasing federal spending, looking to wage wars against countries that haven't attacked us, alienating foreign allies, and radically altering the very principals upon which this country was founded, and it begins to look more and more like the Democrats are the new Conservatives.

[Caranthir]

I'm a "true" conservative and by and large I'm not "appalled" at the administration. Disappointed in some things, yes. But I supported the war on Iraq (as consistent with Bush's "destroy both terrorists and the states that harbor them" policy); love the fact that conversion to either a flat or consumption tax is being considered; admire the fact that the president actually tried to make real, physical spending cuts part of his budget for this year (particularly in farm subsidies, which unlike a lot of things Democrats have decried over the last few years, are actually a government handout to the rich; funny how the two twits from my state aren't joining the president to end corporate welfare in this case) before Congressional Republicans sandbagged him; admire the fact that the president is nominating judges who interpret the Constitution as it was written instead of just making s**t up as they go along; and recognizes that Social Security is flawed and that something needs to be done to fix it.

Those things I'm disappointed in? Many of them, like the Education Bill, are things where he made the mistake of allowing the Democrats to water down his original ideas (I'm a huge proponent of school choice). I'm disappointed that he hasn't said more to support the youth movement in Iran. And I'm disappointed he's throwing so much money around with regards to social programs when it's common knowledge that the easiest way to screw something up is to let the government get involved.

Congress? That's a different story. I'm seriously disgusted by both sides of the aisle there.

The judiciary? Just scary sometimes (especially the notion that international law somehow has any place in the interpretation of our own laws).

But by and large I'm fairly happy with this president. I like the fact that he actually has a vision for the country, as opposed to taking opinion polls to see where he should stand. If democracy in Iraq produces the domino effect which we've already started to see some indication of, I think you could eventually see him listed among the greats.

And the Democratic Party is moving to the left every bit, if not more so, than the Republican Party is moving to the right.

P.S. I miss the days when capitalism was considered "what made our country great," and not "radical."

[Caranthir]

I suppose for the record I should actually state my stance on the issue of Terri Schiavo: I do not believe that the federal government has any business being involved, but I agree with their position. I believe that when you don't have absolute, concrete evidence of what an individual would wish for, you should err on the side of life.

[Vayanla]

The baby was on life-support. Terri was on a feeding tube.I just discovered that the U.S. Supreme Court declared [previously, not as a part of this case] (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/6803.html) that feeding tubes are medical treatments just like respirators, heart-lung machines, dialysis and antibiotics, it has been crystal clear in U.S. law and medical ethics that those who cannot speak can have their feeding tubes stopped.

I really need to stop researching this and get back to work...

[Charinida]

Bah, and now Gov Bush wants to meddle in the mud with this too... /sigh

[leng]

Bah, and now Gov Bush wants to meddle in the mud with this too... /sigh
He's already meddled with it. It would have been over long ago if he had not intervened.