BeeZarre

March 18 (Bloomberg) -- A Florida state judge has ordered that a feeding tube keeping alive Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman who collapsed 15 years ago, can be removed on the same day that two U.S. government committees ordered the woman and her husband to appear at hearings later this month.

Judge George Greer denied a request by U.S. House attorneys to delay the tube's removal, hours after another state judge temporarily blocked the order to remove it pending a review of legal issues, the Associated Press said.

Greer had ordered Schiavo's feeding tube removed at 1 p.m. local time today. The woman suffered severe brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped beating because of a chemical imbalance, and she has spent most of the past 15 years unable to care for herself.

(03-18) 12:58 PST Pinellas Park, Fla. (AP) --


Doctors removed Terri Schiavo's feeding tube Friday despite an extraordinary, last-minute push by Republicans on Capitol Hill to use the subpoena powers of Congress to keep the severely brain-damaged woman alive.


Schiavo's family issued a statement on their Web site confirming that the tube had been disconnected. It is expected that it will take one to two weeks for Schiavo to die, provided no one intercedes and gets the tube reinserted.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

so then i guess the government can intrude "the sanctity of marriage".

it's not logical to on one hand say that marriage is between "one man and one woman", and, that it is such a precious state of being that it must be defended against all attacks by the government...

only to then...

insist that the government turn around and attack the very state of being that exists between "the one man and one woman".

then the statement becomes "the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, their respective parents, their children, their religious leader, his flock, other leaders and their flock, local politicians, state politicians, national politicians, circuit judges, state supreme judges, the supreme court (usa), all lawyers, all doctors, the media, millionaires, and, of course, tico and dtom"...

not much "sanctity" of any kind in that scenario.

Was that directed to me, DTOM? I've read it several times now, and I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or exactly what you are saying .... but it might just be all the cold medicine coursing through my veins, right now ...

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

... She is perfectly healthy ...

you have a very strange definition of "perfect health".

Do you believe that a brain damaged person cannot be described as healthy? She is certainly not on any form of life support. If she is not healthy, what disease do you claim that she has?

I just looked up the judgment again. $1,000,000 total, $700,000 of that amount in a trust to pay for her care. Who's been paying for Ms. Schiavo's care these past years? I just got medical bills from the U.S. for one of my guys, $180,000 for the first 2 weeks in hospital, another $300,000 for slightly over a month in another hospital. $1,000,000 just wouldn't cover all these years of care.

sorry ya got the epizoodic, tico. hope ya feel better...

well, it wasn't directed to you, but it was in response to your post.

the wording may be a little weird. but the basic idea is that if the whole thing about "the sanctity of marriage" needing to be defended by the government from external attack (such as gay weddings and polygamy, etc.), the "sanctity of marriage" also must be defended against attacks launched by the government.

michael and terri are man and wife. terri communicated to her husband that she had no wish to "simply exist" in a fully disabled state such as the one that has befallen her. as her loving husband, michael has the right and obligation to see her wishes carried out.

everybody else getting involved is simply butting in and violating "the sanctity of marriage" between this one man and this one woman".

people really need to contemplate the implications of allowing self serving politicians and religious leaders to interfere with our most personal decisions. it's not going to lead to anything good.

I am extremely distraught over just where the hell Hilary and the rest of the dem party is in NOT opposing Sen Frist and his cohorts for their heinous act.

DrewDad wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I welcome goverment interference in private life when the issue is whether to kill someone or not. Seems appropriate and reasonable.

Show me where the government has a compelling interest in this case.

The government has a compelling interest in determining under what conditions someone may be euthanized. It may well be that the woman's husband has an ulterior motive, and the law should protect her from this possibility. She is perfectly healthy and is not being "allowed to die" but rather killed. The government certainly has an interest in determining when someone can be killed, and how the helpless of society are treated.

There are many legal questions about this case that ought to be answered. Terri Schiavo has never been represented by council, even though she is the one whose food will now be witheld. Had her parents not existed, who would have spoken for her at all?

Asking the question which the poster did, in and of itself makes me wonder about the poster's capacity for empathy.

whatever Tico, I am in outrage over this episode instigated by Sen Frist and abetted by the dems. making Hitlery jokes is about your typical style.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

sorry ya got the epizoodic, tico. hope ya feel better...

well, it wasn't directed to you, but it was in response to your post.

the wording may be a little weird. but the basic idea is that if the whole thing about "the sanctity of marriage" needing to be defended by the government from external attack (such as gay weddings and polygamy, etc.), the "sanctity of marriage" also must be defended against attacks launched by the government.

michael and terri are man and wife. terri communicated to her husband that she had no wish to "simply exist" in a fully disabled state such as the one that has befallen her. as her loving husband, michael has the right and obligation to see her wishes carried out.

everybody else getting involved is simply butting in and violating "the sanctity of marriage" between this one man and this one woman".

people really need to contemplate the implications of allowing self serving politicians and religious leaders to interfere with our most personal decisions. it's not going to lead to anything good.

Oh, I see ... kinda . Thanks.

Unfortunately, a husband does not have a property right in his wife. <duck> It's for that reason that one is not able to auction one's wife on ebay. Also, one is not entitled to murder one's wife, merely due to marital privilege--- even if your wife said it was "okay." There are also laws that govern the transfer of a spouse's property upon their death, and the disposition is not left merely to the whim of the other spouse. So the right of a husband to do with his wife as he wishes is limited by the goverment's laws. Government has seen fit to regulate marriage, homicide, and intestate succession, and so it is not unreasonable for there to be government "interference," and judicial scrutiny, of these areas.

Ticomaya wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

sorry ya got the epizoodic, tico. hope ya feel better...

well, it wasn't directed to you, but it was in response to your post.

the wording may be a little weird. but the basic idea is that if the whole thing about "the sanctity of marriage" needing to be defended by the government from external attack (such as gay weddings and polygamy, etc.), the "sanctity of marriage" also must be defended against attacks launched by the government.

michael and terri are man and wife. terri communicated to her husband that she had no wish to "simply exist" in a fully disabled state such as the one that has befallen her. as her loving husband, michael has the right and obligation to see her wishes carried out.

everybody else getting involved is simply butting in and violating "the sanctity of marriage" between this one man and this one woman".

people really need to contemplate the implications of allowing self serving politicians and religious leaders to interfere with our most personal decisions. it's not going to lead to anything good.

Oh, I see ... kinda . Thanks.

Unfortunately, a husband does not have a property right in his wife. <duck> It's for that reason that one is not able to auction one's wife on ebay. Also, one is not entitled to murder one's wife, merely due to marital privilege--- even if your wife said it was "okay." There are also laws that govern the transfer of a spouse's property upon their death, and the disposition is not left merely to the whim of the other spouse. So the right of a husband to do with his wife as he wishes is limited by the goverment's laws. Government has seen fit to regulate marriage, homicide, and intestate succession, and so it is not unreasonable for there to be government "interference," and judicial scrutiny, of these areas.

but that's the whole point of contention, tico.

it's not the husband's wish. it's terri schiavo's wish. during the interview with michael the othernight, it was clear that michael's "wish" was that this had never happened.

That would be crystal clear had Terri made out a Living Will. Since she didn't, we are going on Michael's word ... hence the problem.

... So the right of a husband to do with his wife as he wishes ...

That would be crystal clear had Terri made out a Living Will. Since she didn't, we are going on Michael's word ... hence the problem.

I suppose Dys is right and legally, her husband has prevailed.

I wish they'd just lethally inject her rather than subject her parents to watching her starve to death over the next days or weeks.

They must be in agony.