The Schiavo case; separation of church-state abuse

Forums: Legal
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The intrusion of government into the Teri Schiavo case is the perfect example of the need for separation of church and state. The Florida governor's action and the subsequent action by republicans in the congress are very dangerous actions. The primary backers of all of these actions are from the pro-life religious right who oppose anyone's right to die and their freedom to choose.---BBB

Florida court allows parents to intervene on behalf of brain-damaged, feeding-tube dependent daughter; Governor may question witnesses:

Opinion (PDF) (Gov. Jeb Bush v. Michael Schiavo, Guardian for Terri Schiavo) (Governor and Parents win right to question witnesses) (Feb. 13, 2004)

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/bushschiavo21304opn.pdf

Gov. Jeb Bush's Executive Order (Governor orders reinsertion of feeding tube) (Oct. 21, 2003) Text of Fla. Bill (Terri's Law) (PDF) (Oct. 21, 2003)

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/flsb3

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,794 • Replies: 87

No top replies

The intervention was not premised on religion. The fact that some people involved may derive their morals from religious beliefs is irrelevant, as long as the law itself is neutral on the subject of religion.

Congress has the right to pass any laws that don't conflict with the Constitution, and Florida has the right to pass any laws that don't conflict with federal law or the Constitution. Legislatures have a perfect right to make laws regarding what is and isn't allowable for euthenasia. In fact they have a duty to regulate how the helpless are treated. I am a lifelong atheist, and if I were in the legislature, I would be voting to save Schiavo, or even introducing the legislation myself.

By declaring that these laws, which say nothing at all about religion, violate the first amendment, you are disenfranchising people like me who want Schiavo saved for reasons which have nothing to do with any religious convictions.

0 Replies

This case is about the rights of a person to make their own decisions or if incapacitated to have a designated person do it. It's unfortunate that Terry Shiavo didn't have a living will but her husband is the one to decide.

If the legislature on a whim can override guardians and medical decisions then do we have any rights at all?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

This case is about the rights of a person to make their own decisions or if incapacitated to have a designated person do it. It's unfortunate that Terry Shiavo didn't have a living will but her husband is the one to decide.

He has no right to decide to starve her, only to state that she asked to be starved. For this we have only his word, and I think a higher level of proof than that should be required.

parados wrote:

If the legislature on a whim can override guardians and medical decisions then do we have any rights at all?

Yes. If you are arguing that the people have no right to regulate euthanasia, that is absurd.

0 Replies

I have to say, this is one example where discussion on A2K has changed my mind. I am still uncomfortable with the whole case (I think both options raise serious moral issues).

The fact is, taking a human life requires a very high standard of proof. I am no longer convinced that her husband has reached this standard.

I don't see religion as an important part of this debate.

I am going to write a living will very soon.

0 Replies

Brandon,

Death with dignity. That is the request. Lots of people request that there be no life saving techniques used, nothing mechanical.

At this point she has no life. She is brain dead. Without the use of a feeding tube she would die. It is not a case of "he wants to starve her" at all.

I watched my father struggle through 6 months of being bed ridden with a brain tumor at the end of his life. I can't imagine forcing him to have to stay alive because you or anyone else want him to.

0 Replies

Quote:

The fact is, taking a human life requires a very high standard of proof. I am no longer convinced that her husband has reached this standard.

There is no "taking of a human life." It is letting nature take its natural course without interfering. People die, it is natural. It is expected. The only question is to what extent do we go to keep them alive.

When people approach death it is normal for them to take in less and less food. (The book provided to family members of a person in hospice will tell you that.) Do we stick feeding tubes in everyone or do we let them have some say?

0 Replies

Quote:

Yes. If you are arguing that the people have no right to regulate euthanasia, that is absurd.

Euthanasia requires a postive act that kills someone as opposed to doing nothing and letting them die. This is not a case of euthanisia.

0 Replies

One thing I haven't seen much in these discussions is that she's in a persistent vegetative state. That was at issue for a while, and now seems to have been conclusively resolved -- the fact that it has been conclusively resolved is why this is going forward.

Quote:

Judge Greer accepted the testimony of doctors who said Ms. Schiavo, 41, is in a "persistent vegetative state," meaning damage to her cerebral cortex has made her incapable of emotion, memory or thought.

Incapable of emotion, memory, or thought. The person is no longer there -- the body is merely a shell.

When I was looking for that quote, found this, I'd thought so but very interesting:

Quote:

``It's so common, many hospitals don't require these kinds of decisions to be brought before an ethics panel anymore,'' said Laurie Zoloth, a professor of medical ethics Northwestern University.

American Medical Association guidelines bar doctors from performing euthanasia or participating in assisted suicide, but also require physicians to respect a patient's wishes to forgo care, even if it is life sustaining.

In cases where the patient is unable to communicate, the association recommends a spouse or closest relative be given the power to decide whether to withdraw life support. The guidelines allow physicians to discontinue treatment, even if the patient is not terminally ill or permanently unconscious.

Family disputes do happen, said Arthur Caplan, chairman of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania. Almost none winds up in court.

Most find a way to agree on whether their loved one would have wanted to be kept alive artificially.

``If there is one single lesson to take out of this, it is to fill out a living will, and discuss it with your family,'' he said, referring to a document that specifies a person's end-of-life wishes.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Withdrawing-Life-Support.html?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Brandon,

Death with dignity. That is the request. Lots of people request that there be no life saving techniques used, nothing mechanical.

Well, if you are such an advocate of death with dignity, why don't you decide to die with diginity right now? Presumably you don't because you want to live. The fact that the phrase exists in English is no proof that this particular person should be deprived of her life.

parados wrote:

At this point she has no life. She is brain dead. Without the use of a feeding tube she would die.

You should get your facts straight. She is not brain dead or no one would be having this discussion. She is brain damaged. Do you know for a fact that she doesn't know she is alive and value her life? If you knew, would you choose to snuff her out anyway?

parados wrote:

It is not a case of "he wants to starve her" at all.

This has to be one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen. She is to be starved to death, and he has gone to immense lengths to arrange it. Therefore, by definition, he wants to starve her. I submit to you that neither you nor I have the faintest idea what his motives are.

parados wrote:

I watched my father struggle through 6 months of being bed ridden with a brain tumor at the end of his life. I can't imagine forcing him to have to stay alive because you or anyone else want him to.

Terri Schiavo does not have a brain tumor, and, in fact, is not sick.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
Yes. If you are arguing that the people have no right to regulate euthanasia, that is absurd.
Euthanasia requires a postive act that kills someone as opposed to doing nothing and letting them die. This is not a case of euthanisia.

Your stupidity offends me. Anyone would die without food. She is healthy and merely cannot feed herself. I cannot think of a crueler way to kill someone than denying her water and food. You have a hole in your mind where empathy was supposed to be. Furthermore, you apparently did not notice that I was responding to a previous statement that the legislature cannot make this type of law, which is an entirely separate issue.

0 Replies

Brandon
Brandon, if you can't behave yourself and have a civil discussion on this topic, I suggest you take your flame-thrower somewhere else. Your well-known personal attacks on people who disagree with you is not welcome here.

In my original post, I opined that this case was the perfect example of why we must be vigilent in protecting the separation of church and state. It is evident that the supporters of keeping Terri alive do so to support their other crusades against abortion, no right to die, and other issues based on their religious beliefs. All that is necessary is to learn the supporting organizations and their financial and legal support.

But now, the abuse of power by republicans at the state and federal level in interferring in the relationship between husband and wife, patient and doctor to support their religious beliefs and political agenda has to be alarming.

A few of these organizations that have stolen the issue from several disability rights organizations are:

The National Right to Life organization;
Operation Rescue;
The Catholic Church;
Life Legal Defense Foundation, anti-abortion group;
Rev. Thomas Euteneuer, a Roman Catholic priest who heads the Virginia-based anti-abortion group Human Life International.

I would also remind you that Terri has been and is being kept alive by extraordinary means. By removing the technology that is keeping her alive, her death would result by natural causes, as if the technology did not exist. I would prefer that she not be starved to death even though I belive she would have no awareness of what is happening to her. It would merciful to give her the same injection used on death sentence criminals. At least we don't let them suffer unnecessarily. I find fault with Terri's parents who are subjecting Terri to a terrible "existence" because of their own resistance to putting her interests above their inability to let he die in peace and dignity, as would have happened without the extraordinary technology which originally kept her alive after her brain damage occurred. I feel sorry for her parents, who have obviously been manipulated by those around them with their political agenda to believe that with therapy, Terri would recover enough to live a meaningful life. Their religious agenda is trampling on the medical science that can measure Terri's tragic brain damage and the quality of her current life. Shame! shame! on them.

I also suggest that you consider the following facts re the Terri Schiavo case:

The tube's removal signals that an end may be near in a decade-long family feud between Schiavo's husband and her devoutly Roman Catholic parents, Bob and Mary Schindler. The parents have been trying to oust Michael Schiavo as their daughter's guardian and keep in place the tube that has kept her alive for more than 15 years.

Several right-to-die cases across the nation have been fought in the courts in recent years, but few, if any, have been this drawn-out and bitter.

The case has garnered attention around the world and served as a rallying cry for conservative Christian groups and anti-abortion activists, who flooded members of Congress and Florida legislators with messages seeking to keep Schiavo alive.

Outside Schiavo's hospice, about 30 people keeping vigil dropped to their knees in prayer when word spread of the judge's ruling calling for removal of the tube.

"What can wash away our sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus," they sang. Messages on protest signs included "Impeach Greer.com," a reference to the judge, and "Execution - It's Not Just for the Guilty Anymore."

But Rep. Henry Waxman of California, senior Democrat on the Government Reform Committee, called the subpoenas a "flagrant abuse of power" and amounted to Congress dictating the medical care Terri Schiavo should receive.

"Congress is turning the Schiavo family's personal tragedy into a national political farce," Waxman said.

When the tube was removed in October 2003, her parents and two siblings frantically sought intervention from Gov Jeb. Bush to stop her slow starvation. The governor pushed through "Terri's Law," and six days later the tube was reinserted.

That set off a new round of legal battles which culminated in September 2004 with the Florida Supreme Court ruling that Bush had overstepped his authority and declared the law unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been unwilling to hear arguments in the case.

0 Replies

Unlikely Alliances And Foes In The Schiavo Debate
Unlikely Alliances And Foes In The Schiavo Debate
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
October 22, 2004

A year ago this week, disability rights advocates were celebrating what seemed our most public victory since, perhaps, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.

A Florida governor, and brother to the President of the United States, had -- in near record time -- passed a law ordering a feeding tube reinserted into a woman who had been starving without one for six days.

Grassroots advocacy had worked!

Amidst all of the celebrating, however, I sensed a quiet bewilderment. Some said they felt the movement had been hi-jacked by other, larger, perhaps better-organized groups.

More than a dozen national disability groups publicly supported Terri's parents in their efforts to keep her alive. There can be little doubt, however, that much of the flood of messages to Governor Bush and Florida lawmakers came not from disability advocates but from advocates with a "right to life" agenda, primarily from religious groups.

Disability advocates held candlelight vigils during the time Terri was without her feeding tube, to draw attention to what we consider her human rights struggle.

But almost immediately after her feeding tube was reinserted, Terri's situation became reduced in the press to "right to die" versus "pro-life" sound-bites.

Those of us who support Terri's struggle to stay alive, though grateful for the help, found ourselves - like it or not -- allied with "anti-abortionists" on one side and the targets of scorn from "pro-choice" groups from the other.

Much of that has been a reaction to the fact that Michael Schiavo, his attorney, George Felos, and the American Civil Liberties Union have framed Terri's situation as a "right to die" case. In the view of their supporters, those who do not agree with what courts deem her "right to die" must be "pro-lifers" and, therefore, anti-abortionists.

Certainly, some of us are, and some of us are not.

In the meantime, the roar of the "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" debate may have drowned out the message we felt was important regarding the tens of thousands of people with disabilities similar to Terri's.

At the same time, allegations that Michael abused and exploited his wife have ironically been ignored by women's groups that have a pro-choice agenda.

We have no way of knowing the effect the public debate surrounding Terri's situation has had, and will have, on health care policy and funding, along with countless family discussions and decisions.

It is clear that our voices in this debate would not have been heard at all if Terri had not been alive during the past year.

It's also clear that Terri would not be alive today if it weren't for the efforts of disability groups and "right to life" groups working together to influence that public policy debate.

For that reason, I am personally grateful to all of those who acted, in large ways and small, to make their voices heard - even those who have borrowed the megaphone and stolen the spotlight from us to do so.

Perhaps during the next year, we can focus on moving the public debate from "pro-this" and "anti-that", and pumping up the volume on issues that are important to the twenty percent of our population that have disabilities.

Related:
"Who 'owns' Terri Schiavo?" by Mary Johnson (Ragged Edge Magazine -- October 23, 2003)
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/mediacircus/schiavoanalysis1.html

0 Replies

Quote:

Your stupidity offends me. Anyone would die without food. She is healthy and merely cannot feed herself. I cannot think of a crueler way to kill someone than denying her water and food. You have a hole in your mind where empathy was supposed to be

I will leave your statement to speak for itself when it comes to "empathy" and all the other words you used.

You obviously are young and know nothing of death. Try spending some time on a hospice ward before you accuse someone of having 'no empathy'.

0 Replies

. Terri Schiavo is not alive she is merely undead. Little more than a Zombie. Maintained in her undead state by artificial means. How many in a like situation die every day because they knew enough or had the ability to sign a I believe it's called a living will."
I have to wonder when the right to life groups will start a campaign to out law the use of that document. Calling it suicide.
As for congress it is absolutely not an issue that they should be involved in. Anything to distract the public from the piss poor job they have been doing. Congress should be dealing with the deficit, energy crisis, Medicare and the myriad of problems they were sent there to acdt upon and dare i say solve. . But than that would take some effort, mental capacity and common sense and above all will commodities in which they appear to be severely deficient.

0 Replies

I would add. Anyone who thinks that this is not being pushed by the religious fanatics of the right to life movement should wake up and smell the coffee. It is the same people who are anti abortion,anti fetal stem cell research and for religion in government.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

I would add. Anyone who thinks that this is not being pushed by the religious fanatics of the right to life movement should wake up and smell the coffee. It is the same people who are anti abortion,anti fetal stem cell research and for religion in government.

What's your point Au. Just because they are religious doesn't mean they are wrong.

The people who are trying to stop the removal of the feeding tube have made a very compelling argument without relying on ad hominem attacks.

0 Replies

Brown wrote

Quote:

The people who are trying to stop the removal of the feeding tube have made a very compelling argument without relying on ad hominem attacks.

What ad hominem attack. What is wrong with calling a spade a spade. What gives you or any of your fellow travelers the right to interfere in a situation that is none of your darn business.
As to compelling argument, what compelling argument?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
Your stupidity offends me. Anyone would die without food. She is healthy and merely cannot feed herself. I cannot think of a crueler way to kill someone than denying her water and food. You have a hole in your mind where empathy was supposed to be

I will leave your statement to speak for itself when it comes to "empathy" and all the other words you used.

You obviously are young and know nothing of death. Try spending some time on a hospice ward before you accuse someone of having 'no empathy'.

My age is 51 and I just spent 3 months with my mother as she died of cancer. I was in the hospital about 7 hours a day, every day of the week. About the same thing happened when my father died of cancer 13 years ago. It is not wise to make assumptions about other people's lives.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

. Terri Schiavo is not alive she is merely undead. Little more than a Zombie. Maintained in her undead state by artificial means.

This is factually wrong. You are trying to dehumanize her with words, but the truth is that she is alive and healthy, and the only artificial means employed is to feed her. Many people cannot feed themselves.

au1929 wrote:

...As for congress it is absolutely not an issue that they should be involved in.

Why can Congress, the voice of the people, not regulate what is and is not proper for euthanasia?

0 Replies

The Schiavo case; separation of church-state abuse

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know