Governor Bush orders feeding tube reinserted into coma victim's body

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: First up she's not in a coma as the title of this thread implies, unless you call a coma being awake and able to see and recognise faces. I saw footage of her being carted around outside yesterday, and that's no coma Chewbacca.

The press is calling it a coma, but if it bothers you that much I will change the title to read "persistent vegative state victim whom doctors say has no consciousness".

Link

Terri Schiavo, 39, has been in what doctors call a "persistent vegetative state" since 1990, when her heart stopped because of a chemical imbalance. Her eyes are open, but doctors say she has no consciousness.

Her ability to recognize faces is unsubstantiated and doctors dispute that she is "awake" in so far that she is conscious and aware of her surroundings.

Amazing how so many laypeople can draw a conclusion from a short video tape when doctors on this womans case have drawn the exact opposite conclusion and testified so much in court under oath.

Who should I trust? The well-meaning laypeople or the doctors? Should I trust the courts that have heard the testimony and ruled based on the law, or the Governor who saw a short video tape and *changed* the law for this one individual and this one individual only.

I'll trust the professionals, the doctors who have treated this woman and the courts who have reveiwed *all* the facts and who arent driven by mere do- gooder-intentions and self-morality.

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: An abuse of power by people who think their morals are the only "right" morals. Link quote: TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Invoking a law rushed through the Legislature earlier in the day, Gov. Jeb Bush on Tuesday ordered a feeding tube reinserted into a brain-damaged woman at the center of one of the nation's longest and most bitter right-to-die battles. The bill was designed to save the life of Terri Schiavo, whose parents have fought to keep her alive. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, says she would rather die. The Senate voted 23-15 for the legislation, and the House passed the final version 73-24 only minutes later. Bush signed it into law and issued the order just more than an hour later. Schiavo's feeding tube was removed last Wednesday. Doctors have said the 39-year-old woman will die within a week to 10 days without food and water. After the Senate's vote, a cheer went up among about 80 protesters outside Terri Schiavo's hospice in Pinellas Park. "We are just ecstatic," Bob Schindler said after Bush told him he would issue the order that will keep his daughter alive. "It's restored my belief in God." George Felos, a lawyer for Michael Schiavo, took steps to stop Bush even before the governor received the bill. He filed a request for an injunction if Bush issued an order. Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer denied it on technical grounds, but said Felos could refile the request. In the Senate, even some supporters of the legislation expressed concern about their actions. "I keep on thinking 'What if Terri didn't really want this done at all?' May God have mercy on all of us," said Senate President Jim King, a Republican. Lawmakers were already called to the Capitol for a special session on economic development when they decided to intervene in the case. Bush said he did not think lawmakers were motivated by politics. "This is a response to a tragic situation." Bush said. "People are responding to cries for help and I think it's legitimate." Opponents said government was stepping in where it had no business being. "I do not believe the governor of Florida should be making a decision of life and death rather than the next of kin," said Sen. Steven Geller, a Democrat.

[/QUOTE]Damned if he did it, and damned if he didn't.

Personally, It's up to her parents... It's still hard to make a call.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: Given that the families are in dispute - I believe that this was a matter for the courts to decide: not for a politician.

Courts merely interpret the laws politicians make. [/QUOTE]Do they? What about the whole notion of substantive due process. The notion that there are rights contained in the "shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" being interpreted to mean more than something procedural.

Substantive due process upheld the rights of a slave owner in Dredd Scott, and the right to contract (banning labor laws) that was later rescinded. Then it was used to uphold the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. It's history first saw abuse by conservative judges, and then by liberal judges for the last 60 years. It is very much a valid point that this is judges inserting their morals in place of the legislature's.

So, in THEORY judges don't "make" law. But, in theory, judges are impartial and don't care which side wins. Pffft, riiiiight. [/QUOTE]I'd argue that in a representative democracy an elected Governor has more mandate than an appointed judge.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: Given that the families are in dispute - I believe that this was a matter for the courts to decide: not for a politician.

Courts merely interpret the laws politicians make. [/QUOTE]Do they? What about the whole notion of substantive due process. The notion that there are rights contained in the "shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" being interpreted to mean more than something procedural.

Substantive due process upheld the rights of a slave owner in Dredd Scott, and the right to contract (banning labor laws) that was later rescinded. Then it was used to uphold the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. It's history first saw abuse by conservative judges, and then by liberal judges for the last 60 years. It is very much a valid point that this is judges inserting their morals in place of the legislature's.

So, in THEORY judges don't "make" law. But, in theory, judges are impartial and don't care which side wins. Pffft, riiiiight. [/QUOTE]I'd argue that in a representative democracy an elected Governor has more mandate than an appointed judge.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: First up she's not in a coma as the title of this thread implies, unless you call a coma being awake and able to see and recognise faces. I saw footage of her being carted around outside yesterday, and that's no coma Chewbacca.

The press is calling it a coma, but if it bothers you that much I will change the title to read "persistent vegative state victim whom doctors say has no consciousness".

Link

Terri Schiavo, 39, has been in what doctors call a "persistent vegetative state" since 1990, when her heart stopped because of a chemical imbalance. Her eyes are open, but doctors say she has no consciousness.

Her ability to recognize faces is unsubstantiated and doctors dispute that she is "awake" in so far that she is conscious and aware of her surroundings.

Amazing how so many laypeople can draw a conclusion from a short video tape when doctors on this womans case have drawn the exact opposite conclusion and testified so much in court under oath.

Who should I trust? The well-meaning laypeople or the doctors? Should I trust the courts that have heard the testimony and ruled based on the law, or the Governor who saw a short video tape and *changed* the law for this one individual and this one individual only.

I'll trust the professionals, the doctors who have treated this woman and the courts who have reveiwed *all* the facts and who arent driven by mere do- gooder-intentions and self-morality. [/QUOTE]It does bother me. My father was in a coma for three months. She is not. She is severely brain damaged. He was not.

I still don;t understand how we can get to a point where an ex-husband is able to prevent two parent from feeding a daughter who can;t feed herself. I don;t understand how we get to that point. He doesn;t own her. He has another woman. In Australia, he would not be recognised as next of kin if he's been living with another woman and has a child with her.

Why are people ignoring the million dollar payout he's already received, that he did NOT spend on her rehabilitation. How is this not lunacy? How did we get to this point? In abortion, parents are given the right to kill their child, but here they are not allowed to help their child stay alive? I don't understand.

There is reasonable doubt the woman wanted to not live if in this circumstance.

I'm repeating myself now. Feeding tube is not a respirator. Feeding tube is not a respirator. She is not terminally ill. She is not terminally ill.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Yorick: I still don;t understand how we can get to a point where an ex-husband is able to prevent two parent from feeding a daughter who can;t feed herself. I don;t understand how we get to that point. He doesn;t own her. He has another woman. In Australia, he would not be recognised as next of kin if he's been living with another woman and has a child with her.

He isn't an "ex" husband; they are still married, despite the fact that he is involved with another woman (whether or not they have children is irrelevant). As such, his opinion must outweigh the opinions of her parents, otherwise parents will begin making all sorts of legal decisions for their children regardless of age. I may love my own parents, but there is no way I would allow them to make decisions for either myself or Belle. True, he doesn't "own" his wife, but he is supposed to be the one--the only one--allowed to make life-and-death decisions regarding his wife.

Originally posted by Yorick: Why are people ignoring the million dollar payout he's already received, that he did NOT spend on her rehabilitation. How is this not lunacy? How did we get to this point? In abortion, parents are given the right to kill their child, but here they are not allowed to help their child stay alive? I don't understand.

Suppose he was spending the money on things other than her care. Why didn't anyone raise a fuss before now? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

These parents are being extremely selfish. They want her to live--if you can call it that--because they are not willing to let her go. What they really need to do is walk away and get some grief counseling. Does she laugh at jokes? Does she talk about her aspirations, her feelings, her hopes and fears? Does she do anything other than lie there unresponsive? Don't they realize that they don't have a daughter anymore?

This viewpoint may seem harsh, but it is completely realistic. I wouldn't even treat my dog this badly or selfishly.

[Sir Taliesin]

He is not an ex-husband. They are still married. That's what gives him the right. He just decided to go out and father two children with another woman while his wife was in this state. I think there has been enough doubt raised about his actions that maybe his guardianship should be revoked and placed with her parents. He should divorce her and move on.

[Skunk]

There were indeed a number of doubts raised over his actions - and he fought (and won) no less than 20 separate court cases disproving the doubts.

As far as the husband is concerned, his wife is already dead - and so he felt free to continue his life with another person.

Yet I think that he also feels that it his last duty to his 'dead' wife to remain true to her wishes (as he recalls it) and that therefore he can not divorce her and walk away - that would be an abrogation of the trust that she placed in him and of the vows that they took when they married.

I would certainly be dissappointed and saddened if my wife declared that she would walk away from her responsibilities towards me if I was in such a situation.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Skunk: Yet I think that he also feels that it his last duty to his 'dead' wife to remain true to her wishes (as he recalls it) and that therefore he can not divorce her and walk away - that would be an abrogation of the trust that she placed in him and of the vows that they took when they married.

But he hasn't been true to his vows. There are two children by another woman to prove it. I think that's called adultery.


[ 10-23-2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: Yet I think that he also feels that it his last duty to his 'dead' wife to remain true to her wishes (as he recalls it) and that therefore he can not divorce her and walk away - that would be an abrogation of the trust that she placed in him and of the vows that they took when they married.

But he hasn't been true to his vows. There are two children by another woman to prove it. I think that's called adultery.
[/QUOTE]That's not a crime though and has no bearing on legal matters.