Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

I guess then you call everyone who has an opinion different than yours a liar.

>>sigh<<

Guess that DOES make you a better person than me.

But I do believer her dead, Brandon. If you'd quite talking for a minute and actually listen to me you might realize that.

I already said I don't consider that alive.

Bella Dea- I have to disagree. She IS alive. She is breathing, and her heart is beating. But is it a HUMAN life? That is the ethical and philosophical question with which society needs to grapple.


I had started a thread in the philosophy forum, that has not gotten a lot of response. I think the issue of what is a human existence is extremely important, in the light of today's and tomorrow's technology. We are treading in uncharted waters, and need to develop some rational guidelines.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=47828

Perhaps as much as the debate on whether Terri Schiavo is deserving of life is the debate on whether those politicians dealing with it are sincere in their convictions or pandering. Of course those writers who oppose the GOP or the President are going to write their articles accusing them of pandering, even showing 'evidence' however unsubstantiated that may be. But what of us who are just as sincere in coming down on the side life? Are we pandering? What do we have to gain?

Phoenix posted an article accusing the GOP of such pandering to the Christian right. The same article of course exempted the Democrats who were on the 'popular' side of the polls.

But there is room for more than one-dimensional thinking on this.

excerpt

'Culture of Life'

BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

During the presidential campaign last year, George W. Bush talked about the need to promote a "culture of life." Anyone who dismissed such talk as just a way to spin antiabortion views without scaring pro-choice voters should pay closer attention. Today the Terri Schiavo case is revealing that protecting life is much broader than that single issue, and that it is a central component of Mr. Bush's governing philosophy.

With Congress passing and President Bush signing legislation early yesterday morning that may end up saving Mrs. Schiavo's life, some are now accusing Republicans of crass political motives. That misses the larger public debate joined in America and largely promulgated by those the media often dismiss as "the religious right." From stem cells to abortion, Americans are confronting questions about life--when it begins and when it ceases to be valuable--more than at any time in our history. Partly we have science to blame for this debate, since medicine can sustain life long past the body's ability to function on its own. But the debate is so intense because it is about the direction in which we'd like our culture to move.

Perhaps it is fitting then that this debate should reach a crescendo in the run-up to Easter, a celebration ultimately about the resurrection of life. Several high-profile events have made Americans think about life in ways they might have otherwise been able to avoid. Ashley Smith helped bring in alleged murderer Brian Nichols by convincing him that his life still had meaning, even if he should spend the rest of it behind bars. One way she did this was by reading to him from the best-selling book "A Purpose-Driven Life." Scott Peterson was sentenced to death recently for the murder of his pregnant wife and their unborn son, Conner, who in different circumstances would have been considered a clump of cells. And Pope John Paul II's health has made many Catholics confront the realities of growing old and frail. He has persisted in carrying out his duties, even as Parkinson's disease is robbing him of his abilities, demonstrating that even a life much reduced has tremendous meaning.

This is the backdrop of the national stage upon which Terri Schiavo has been thrust. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, insists her life no longer has meaning and that it was her wish not to live on under such circumstances. Mr. Schaivo blames House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and other Republicans for bringing the federal government into what he sees as purely a private family matter. But this case was destined to make it into the national consciousness long before Washington politicians got involved. Her parents were never going to go along quietly with killing her. They even set up a foundation in Terri's name to help publicize her case, raise money and provide for her care. Mrs. Schiavo isn't a cause célèbre for Republicans. The struggle to keep her alive embodies the larger right-to-life battle millions of Americans have been fighting for decades.

A flashpoint has long been abortion, but it's wrong to think this battle is entirely about "a woman's right to choose" or about protecting only unborn life. A large segment of the population feels that there has been a coarsening of our culture, that as a society we no longer view life as precious and valuable in all its forms. Abortion on demand is a sign of that coarsening, but so is euthanasia and the push to use stem cells from frozen embryos and tissue from aborted babies. Like Terri Schiavo's family, many Americans have decided they aren't going to remain silent as lives are discarded as "worthless."

The president also decided he wasn't going to sit by on his ranch in Crawford, Texas, while Terri Schiavo slowly died of dehydration. It is said that tough cases make bad law, and that's why it was wise for Congress to legislate only on this specific case rather than "making law" for everyone.

But it is also true that extreme examples have a way of laying out cultural markers that help define our society. On stem cell research, cutting off federal funding of abortion clinics overseas, bringing faith-based groups into public policy and judicial nominations, President Bush has been nudging American society toward a culture of life. Now, by flying back to Washington and signing legislation well into the night, Mr. Bush is laying out a cultural marker. The president of the United States is saying, We're for life. That's not political pandering. It's the rise of a cultural movement
http://www.opinionjournal.com/

New York State guidelines on death.

Well, first of all a warning about my "learned opinion" is in order. I am not a lawyer; and in a thread sometime ago involving civil procedure, joefromchicago told me with good justification that I should either read up on this subject or stop posting confident opinions about it. I did read up on it, but not enough to justify much confidence. You have been warned.

For what it's worth, I would think that now that the Terri Shiavo case is a case under federal law, the parties can appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court. But if the legislation is indeed conditioned on this particular person -- which I don't know, because I haven't read this legislation -- I would also think that the case is moot as soon as Terri Shiavo dies, which I expect will happen before the case reaches the Supreme Court. Could the case somehow 'leapfrog' over the Appeals Court and go directly to the Supreme Court? This seems to be the first part of your question. If there is a process for doing that, I don't know it -- which isn't saying much.

She has no quality of life. None at all. And to me, personally, that isn't living. And since I believe this to be an individual decision, whether it is life, living, death, whatever, I don't think that someone in the supreme court should decide.

For me, it isn't about whether she deserves to live. Everyone deserves to live. But for me, it's whether she deserves to live like this.

Foxfyre - Mr. Miniter's argument doesn't stand scrutiny. McG is correct that it varies from State to State, but here's the general legal definition of "dead":
_____________________________________________________________

The diagnosis of brain death needs to be made quite rigorously to be certain the condition is truly irreversible. Legal criteria vary from place to place, but generally require neurologic exams by two independent physicians showing complete absence of brain function, and may include two isoelectric (flat-line) EEGs 24 hours apart. The Uniform Determination Of Death Act in the United States is an attempt to standardize criteria. The patient should have a normal temperature and be free of drugs that can suppress brain activity if the diagnosis is to be made on EEG criteria. Alternatively, a radionuclide cerebral blood flow scan that shows complete absence of intracranial blood flow can be used to confirm the diagnosis without performing EEGs.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:IxlnTtKgRzQJ:encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/brain_dead+brain+dead+legal+definition&hl=en
_____________________________________________________________

In the case of the thing in Florida all the conditions enumerated above are met. Time to give the poor thing a decent burial - indeed WAYYYY past time, considering it's been dead for 15 years now. Please see how monstrous your position is - or do you believe in never washing, since that's sure to kill bacteria by the millions, and they meet your and Mr. Miniter's definition of "life"?!

Bella Dea- I agree that there is no quality of life. And colloquially, one might reasonably say that she is not "living". But that is not the same as saying that she is biologically dead. She isn't.

I also agree that this entire case has gone way too far, and that the privacy rights of families have been severely abrogated.

Video shows state of Frist, too

Sen. Bill Frist last week watched a videotape of Terri Schiavo made in 2001. He did this in his capacity as Senate majority leader and as a renowned physician. In both roles, he performed miserably. As a senator, he showed himself to be an unscrupulous opportunist. As a physician, he was guilty of practicing medicine without a brain.
After viewing the tape, Frist (R-Tenn.) felt confident to question the several courts and many doctors who - apparently handicapped by firsthand examinations - had erroneously concluded that Terri Schiavo was in a "persistent vegetative state."

"I question it based on a review of the video footage," he told the Senate. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli." Doubtful. Frist and his colleagues were responding to political stimuli - the so-called right-to-life crowd. Frist and his (mostly) GOP colleagues were operating under such pressure that they sometimes did not know which subterfuge to adopt. It should not matter - it must not matter - if Terri Schiavo is really in a vegetative state or not. What should matter - under right-to-life reasoning - is that she is alive. Life is life, Frist. Get with the program.

Someone committed candor and truth in Washington (a federal offense?) by circulating a memo to Republicans alerting them to the obvious: Schiavo was "a great political issue." Frist, who is almost certainly running for President next time out, took umbrage at that: "I condemn the content of the memo," he umbraged, "and reaffirm that the interest in this case by myself (and others) is to assure that Mrs. Schiavo has another chance at life." Bravo! But why not insist that whatever state she's in, she keeps getting a chance at life - forever?

Watching the House debate Sunday night, I wondered why the Democrats even bothered debating the bill. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was eloquent and persuasive, but the GOP had the votes. Congress was intent on intruding into a family matter in which the courts had ruled repeatedly in favor of the husband. The parents felt otherwise, granted, but they had had their day in court. Those courts, though, did not rule as Congress would have liked, and so by pretty close to fiat - no hearings, no witnesses and absolutely no thought - the matter was moved to the federal courts where, probably, the outcome will be what it was at the state level. A change in jurisdiction is not going to change Schiavo's condition.

Terri Schiavo's husband said she would not want to live the way she does now - and that she even said so. But she was only 26 when tragedy struck, probably too young to give serious thought to these matters. Besides, what she once wanted is not the point. That person is gone - or so say the experts and so say the courts who have heard from the experts. What remains is a legal case that no longer is about Schiavo. Instead, it's about the politics of abortion - right to life - and political opportunism. Terri Schiavo lives so that others, notably Frist, can run for higher office. I know that by watching the tape.

HofT writes


Your unnecessary insulting tone aside, if this woman is already DEAD, why go through the whole starvation/dehydration routine? Why not just toss her in the coffin, have the funeral, and bury her. . .or toss her into the oven and cremate her now?

Thanks Thomas - assistant late today so can still stay online for a while. I know you're not a lawyer, but you're meticulous with sources, so I thought you might know the answer to the question.

Of course each appeal requires more time so the case may resolve itself. It's beginning to sound like "free medical care" in the UK, where abortion is legal but the waiting list is one year <G>

Foxfyre - no insult was intended or in fact implied in anything I said; if you would set aside blind emotion you would see that.

This we can agree on 100%

HofT writes


Well you have a sense of humor. I'll give you that.

to Phoenix:

The only problem I have with the 'privacy of families' here is that you have a mother, father, and siblings who are pleading for Terri's life and who are more than willing to take responsibility for her care for the rest of her life. And you have a husband who has refused her any kind of medical rehab or treatment since he received a legal settlement to provide such care, who has largely denied the rest of her family access to her--in fact is denying their access to be with her now--who has ordered no autopsy, and who may have financial interest in her death.

None of us can know what is in his heart or that of the rest of Terri's immediate family. We can only go on what the 'evidence' reported to us seems to show. I understand Florida law gives him sole power to make a decision for her, but shouldn't there be some way to deal with a situation when the legal guardian may not have the best interest of the patient at heart?

Thank you for the compliment, Foxfyre!

For what it's worth as legal opinion here's an editorial from the LA Times:

"Congress does act in other extraordinary cases on behalf of a specific individual, such as when it grants someone U.S. citizenship. But here, Congress is breaking new ground, trying to overturn a judicial decision by altering the Constitution's federalist scheme. This is the family law equivalent of the constitutionally banned "bill of attainder," legislation that seeks to convict someone of a crime."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-schiavo21mar21,0,2140071.story
_____________________________________________________________

Fed Judge Denies Request to Reinsert Schiavo's Feeding Tube
At last, a hero with some integrity and respect for the constitution. ---BBB

March 22, 2005
Federal Judge Denies Request to Reinsert Schiavo's Feeding Tube
By ABBY GOODNOUGH

TAMPA, Fla., March 22 - A federal judge here today refused to order the reinsertion of a feeding tube for the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo, denying an emergency request from the woman's parents that came after the intervention of Congress and President Bush in the case.

Judge James D. Whittemore of Federal District Court said Ms. Schiavo's case had been "exhaustively litigated" and that the 41-year-old woman's parents had not established a "substantial likelihood of success" at trial on the merits of their arguments.

The tube was disconnected on Friday on the orders of a state judge.

"This court appreciates the gravity of the consequences of denying injunctive relief," Judge Whittemore said in a 13-page ruling. But he said Ms. Schiavo's "life and liberty interests" had been adequately protected by Florida state courts, and despite "these difficult and time strained circumstances" the court was constrained "to apply the law to the issue before it."

A lawyer with a firm representing Ms. Schiavo's parents, George E. Tragos, said the ruling would be appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta today, "and we expect to be successful."

Mr. Tragos said he thought a decision from the court would come "a couple of hours" after it was presented, and that Ms. Schiavo would be returned to the tube "to be fed and rehydrated."

The Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, who has sometimes commented on the case on behalf of the parents, said today: "The arrogance of Judge Whittemore is extraordinary. How dare he wait 24 hours to issue this ruling?"

Mr. Mahoney added: "He shows a profound lack of respect for the disabled of America by denying her her constitutional rights. He has robbed Terri's legal team of literally a day and a half of the appeals process."

He said the family was hopeful of a successful outcome in the appeals court, adding "Florida has just not been good on this."

After two hours of tense and often emotional arguments on Monday, Judge Whittemore refused to rule immediately on whether to restore nutrition to Ms. Schiavo, whose husband won a state court's permission to remove her feeding tube. Judge Whittemore also expressed doubts about whether a federal review could change the ultimate outcome and seemed skeptical of the parents' contention that the state courts had violated Ms. Schiavo's right to due process.

The delay disappointed Ms. Schiavo's parents and others who have asked the federal court to swiftly order the tube reinserted and halt Ms. Schiavo's demise.

Judge Whittemore, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1999, was randomly selected by computer to preside over the case after Congress passed an extraordinary law early Monday morning allowing Ms. Schiavo's parents to seek a federal court review of the facts.

While their lawyer said that Ms. Schiavo, who had already gone more than three days without food or water, "may expire as I speak," Judge Whittemore appeared to be taking the calculated risk that she would survive while he deliberated.

Doctors have said that Ms. Schiavo, 41, could live up to two weeks without the feeding tube.

The hearing on Monday was the result of a determined effort by the Republican leadership in Congress to override a series of state court rulings that sided with Ms. Schiavo's husband, Michael.

President Bush returned to the White House from his vacation in Texas solely to sign the law. He later praised Congress for "voting to give Terry Schiavo's parents another opportunity to save their daughter's life."

During the hearing in Tampa, the chief lawyer for Ms. Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, told Judge Whittemore that Ms. Schiavo's due process rights had been violated because she had not had independent legal representation during the seven years the case was in state courts. The lawyer, David Gibbs, also said Ms. Schiavo's religious beliefs as a Roman Catholic were being infringed because Pope John Paul II has deemed it unacceptable for Catholics to refuse food and water.

"We are now in a position where a court has ordered her to disobey her church and even jeopardize her eternal soul," Mr. Gibbs said.

George Felos, who represents Ms. Schiavo's husband, who is also her guardian, said reinserting the feeding tube would "countenance a severe invasion upon the body of Terri Schiavo" and he asked the judge to declare that the law passed by Congress was unconstitutional.

Judge Whittemore at times sighed, paused and buried his face in his hands during the hearing. He wanted details of how long it would take to transport Ms. Schiavo from her hospice to a nearby hospital and replace the tube - about two hours, the lawyers said - and what the procedure involved. Both sides said it would require surgery and that Ms. Schiavo would need to be hospitalized for several days while her electrolyte balance was restored.

Ms. Schiavo's husband and parents, once close, have battled over her fate since 1998, when Mr. Schiavo asked a state court's permission to remove life support.

Ms. Schiavo suffered extensive brain damage when her heart stopped beating one night in 1990, due to a potassium deficiency that may have been caused by an eating disorder. She can breathe on her own and has periods of wakefulness, but Judge George Greer of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court, who presided over the case, accepted the testimony of doctors who said she was in a "persistent vegetative state" and incapable of thought or emotion.

More important, Judge Greer found credible Mr. Schiavo's testimony that his wife, who left no written directive, had said on several occasions that she would not want life-prolonging measures to be used for her.

Judge Whittemore frequently interjected questions, pressing Mr. Gibbs about his claim that Judge Greer had violated Ms. Schiavo's due process rights that and that he had not given her a fair trial. He pointed out that Judge Greer had held a "lengthy" trial and had appointed several independent "guardians ad litem" to represent Ms. Schiavo's interests, and that her parents had represented her interests, as they saw them, by fighting the tube removal.

Judge Whittemore asked Mr. Gibbs to cite case law that would bolster the claim that Ms. Schiavo's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process had been violated, adding, "because we haven't found any." Without proof that the state court's handling of the case violated precedent, Judge Whittemore said, "I think you would be hard pressed to convince me that you have substantial likelihood" of succeeding on the merits of the case.

To win a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must prove such likelihood.

Mr. Gibbs promised to provide case law backing up his claims as soon as possible. But he also said that under the new law passed by Congress, the federal court should "not unduly trouble itself with the history" of the case in state court. Mr. Gibbs is seeking a new trial with a jury, which was lacking in the 2000 trial held by Judge Greer.

But when he said that Judge Greer's findings were irrelevant under the Congressional measure, Judge Whittemore replied, "That's not how I read the act."

Mr. Felos, representing Mr. Schiavo, sought to focus Judge Whittemore on the question of whether the Congressional act passed in the early morning hours was constitutional. He argued that Congress did not have the authority to allow a federal review of the case because the Constitution says it is up to a state to decide whether due process rights have been violated.

"Yes, life is sacred," Mr. Felos said, "but so is liberty, your honor, especially in this country."

Robert Schindler, who attended the hearing without his wife, left the courthouse looking grim. Outside, protesters supporting the Schindlers heckled Mr. Felos as he told reporters he felt optimistic about the case.

Mr. Gibbs, whom Judge Whittemore asked to file a brief responding to Mr. Felos's claim that the new federal law was unconstitutional, told reporters he was not discouraged by the judge's refusal to rule from the bench.

"His reputation is one that is very careful, he is very methodical," he said, though he added, "Every moment is precious."

On Capitol Hill, Republican leaders who had forced Congress into a weekend session and called back vacationing lawmakers for a vote after midnight Sunday were watching the court action carefully. They said they were frustrated the judge was not moving more rapidly.

In Tallahassee, Gov. Jeb Bush said he was grateful to Congress for passing a law but said he still wanted the Florida Legislature to pass a measure tightening the requirements for guardianship. Mr. Schiavo lives with a girlfriend with whom he has had two children, and Mr. Bush said that presented a conflict of interest.

"I think our state ought to change our laws to say in those circumstances, that that guardian needs to be changed," Mr. Bush said.
-------------------------------------------------

Terence Neilan contributed reporting from New York for this article. Carl Hulse contributed reporting from Washington, and Christine Jordan Sexton from Tallahassee.

Foxfyre- Well, you said it. Under Florida law, Michael Schiavo has the legal power to make the decision for her. In family situations, (and believe me, I have been in the middle of many over my lifetime) there is often disagreement as to what is "best interest", by various family members. One might argue from today to doomsday what is the "best interest" in any particular situation. The overriding concept is the law.

Recently, I have seen a lot of sculltebutt about Michael Schaivo possibly being an abuser. I have also seen veiled allegations that he caused the original trauma that left her in a persistent vegetative state.

Personally, I think that these contentions are simply a smokescreen to destroy Michael's credibility. If there were any real proof of wrongdoing on Michael's part, the police should have been brought into this long ago.

Had he been charged, and convicted of attempted murder, the Schindlers would have been named as guardians, and theis entire fiasco would never have happened. Since there is nothing but scuttlebutt, conjecture, and innuendo, the Schindler's have no right, IMO, to override Michael Schiavo's decision.

The fact that others wish to take over her care does not remove his responsibility as her husband to see her wishes carried out. The brother and sister have testified that this would have been her wish.


Ain't that the truth.

Phoenix writes


No argument from me there. At the same time, would you not agree that the law can be incompletely or incorrectly written to provide unintended bad consequences? State law prohibiting interracial marriage, requiring segregation of schools, etc. etc. etc. were all superceded by federal law. If the states should start enforcing some sodomy laws still on the books, there is no doubt in my mind the federal courts would become involved, and they should. Some law is just bad law. Some law that was appropriate for its time becomes bad law as cultural norms change.

There is also the good old double standard. How many on A2K would want the states to have the right to decide on matters of rights to abortion? The right to hang the Ten Commandments in the state house? Agree with state decisions to ban gay marriage? Think the states should have the right to tailor education to the 'most deserving'? Etc. etc. etc. (I do not propose any of these as debate topics for this thread but use them as example only.)

There are times when it can be appropriate in certain circumstances to temporarily set aside a law when a higher principle of law comes into play. Many would say the Terri Schiavo case was one of those circumstances for numerous reasons posted on this thread. We all do not agree with that, of course.

I will never agree that it is appropriate to kill a person via dehydration if there is any chance that person can experience discomfort or feel pain. I think there has been adequate evidence and/or testimony presented to support the possibility, if not the probability, that Terri Schiavo can.

And from a purely personal perspective, I think it is unconscionable that this so-called loving husband is not allowing her immediate family who do love her and care about her to be with her as she dies.