Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Before I get into my coverage of the antiwar rally, I just want to to point out the absurd idiocy of this whole Schiavo idiocy.

First off: Bill Frist: a medical doctor by trade, a man who believes that AIDS can be spread by tears (WRONG) came wobbling onto the senate floor, and said that after watching a few videotapes of Schiavo, his professional diagnosis was that she was "not in a persistent vegetative state." Well, thanks for the diagnosis, doc- the problem is, you're a cardio doc- not a neurological specialist. Your medical opinion, in this case, is as worthy as that of a podiatrist on the subject of anal cysts.

Secondly: George Bush: a hopeless, bumbling spectacle to behold, on any occasion. It's common knowledge that Bush, as Texas Governor, signed into law a bill that MANDATES the removal of feeding tubes from terminally ill patients, even when the family objects.

Under this legislation, if the family doesn't have the cash to keep the terminally ill alive, the hospital is ORDERED to pull the plug. (how's that for "erring on the side of life?")

And hell- when has bush shown ANY respect for life? The man who was known as the "texecutioner" isn't really in a position to claim any adherence to the "culture of life" he continually evokes.

Thirdly: The Congress: Good freaking lord- sometimes, I agree with the more conservative americans: Congress doesn't work very hard, for the money they earn, and danged if you can pull them out of their generous off-time. But in this case, most of congress flew back to washington (at what expense to the taxpayer), just to participate in this fraud.

Fourthly: The media: if ya didn't know, 800 vigils and marches against the continued war in Iraq took place, this weekend, in this country- but the only thing you hear about it (between the constant Schiavo BS), are a few shots of protests in LONDON.

This was an insane media distraction and spectacle, and had less to do with Schiavo, herself, than a token bone that Bush could throw to his "pro-life" base.

-- Erich Blumrich

Quote:

DOES the "husband" still have the right to make the decision? Did the husband forfeit that right 8 years ago when he "started a new life" with another women and had 2 children by the "new wife"?

woiyo-Legally, Michael is still Terri's husband. He is legally merely living with the other woman.

I get very angry when people get all uptight about Michael having a life outside of Terri. For goodness sake, Terri was in a persistent vegetative state for five years, before he had the relationship with the other woman.

Was Michael expected to put his life on "hold" forever? Just think about what YOU would do, if you were in that position!!!

Bella Dea wrote:

Can he divorce her?

And isn't that adultry?

Yes, it is adultery, Yes, he can divorce her, but for some reason, he does not want to. But that is besides the point.

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:

DOES the "husband" still have the right to make the decision? Did the husband forfeit that right 8 years ago when he "started a new life" with another women and had 2 children by the "new wife"?

woiyo-Legally, Michael is still Terri's husband. He is legally merely living with the other woman.

I get very angry when people get all uptight about Michael having a life outside of Terri. For goodness sake, Terri was in a persistent vegetative state for five years, before he had the relationship with the other woman.

Was Michael expected to put his life on "hold" forever? Just think about what YOU would do, if you were in that position!!!

Phoenix, your steadfast refusal to admit the truth of this surprises me. I expect others to let their personal thoughts on what should be Terri's fate interfere with their assessment of "next of kin", but not you.

One need not find fault in Michael's natural decision to move on after 5 years of no meaningful marriage to acknowledge that he did indeed move on. The simple fact is; he did. If Terri were able to speak for herself; there isn't a single court in this land that would deny her a divorce based on that fact. No reasonable person could deny this, right?

One need not even consider Michael's motivation or Terri's condition, at all, to admit that simple truth. Yes, Florida Law lacks a provision to appropriately re-evaluate the "next of kin" status in this situation.

Michael could be the kindest, most considerate, compassionate Ex-husband there has ever been… but there can be no doubt that he moved on and when he did he ceased to be her next of kin in anything but flawed law.

As always, the usual suspects will take political advantage and the usual suspects will see nothing beyond the political power struggle that encompasses every decision made by elected officials. That doesn't mean we should ignore the simple fact that Michael would not be considered her next of kin were she able to speak for herself. Ignoring that FACT makes no sense… and personal opinions about what Terri's fate should be shouldn't enter into that consideration.

If you get past that simple truth, then you have to consider that Florida's flawed Law governing next of kin status has allowed this woman to be condemned without representation loyal to her or her true next of kin. While that may very well be the most humane final chapter in this story, it is nonetheless the wrong precedent to set. I lack the legal expertise to know if this flaw can even be legally reviewed/addressed by the Federal Courts under this extraordinary new legislation... but that is or at least should be, the true nature of this attempt at remedy.

How is it that you believe a husband shouldn't have the right to convey the wishes of his wife?

Isn't Terri a grown lady? Why would her parents have any say in what happens to her?

As always, the usual suspects will take political advantage and the usual suspects will see nothing beyond the political power struggle that encompasses every decision made by elected officials. That doesn't mean we should ignore the simple fact that Michael would not be considered her next of kin were she able to speak for herself. Ignoring that FACT makes no sense… and personal opinions about what Terri's fate should be shouldn't enter into that consideration.

simple fact that Michael would not be considered her next of kin were she able to speak for herself

No, that is precisely the point. He has maintained this sham marriage for the sole purpose of killing her. Whether for humane or heinous reason, that is the simple truth.

Quote:

No, that is precisely the point. He has maintained this sham marriage for the sole purpose of killing her. Whether for humane or heinous reason, that is the simple truth.

No, this is an assumption that you have made for some reason. You have no way of knowing whether this is true, yet you claim it as truth. Bad move.

Cycloptichorn

All of the reasons previously discussed for allowing Missouri to require clear and convincing evidence of the patient's wishes lead us to conclude that the State may [497 U.S. 261, 287] choose to defer only to those wishes, rather than confide the decision to close family members.

In the Quinlan case, young Karen Quinlan suffered severe brain damage as the result of anoxia, and entered a persistent vegetative state. Karen's father sought judicial approval to disconnect his daughter's respirator. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted the relief, holding that Karen had a right of privacy grounded in the Federal Constitution to terminate treatment. In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. at 38-42, 355 A.2d at 662-664. Recognizing that this right was not absolute, however, the court balanced it against asserted state interests. Noting that the State's interest "weakens and the individual's right to privacy grows as the degree of bodily invasion increases and the prognosis dims," the court concluded that the state interests had to give way in that case. Id., at [497 U.S. 261, 271] 41, 355 A.2d at 664. The court also concluded that the "only practical way" to prevent the loss of Karen's privacy right due to her incompetence was to allow her guardian and family to decide "whether she would exercise it in these circumstances." Ibid.

n2 Because we find the separation of powers issue to be dispositive in this case, we do not reach the other constitutional issues addressed by the circuit court.