Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Deb,

I would respectfully point out that many judges have disagreed with you on this case; so there seems to be some confusion as to what the law actually is, doesn't there?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn:

I would respectfully point out that only ONE judge has ruled that contradictory hearsay evidence was "clear and convincing" evidence of Terri's wishes and made a FINDING OF FACT that Terri wished to have the feeding tube removed.

ONLY ONE JUDGE.

If you were educated on the law, then you would know that appellate courts treat FINDINGS OF FACT different than they treat CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Once you have educated yourself concerning this matter, then we can talk.

In the meantime, you are merely spreading misinformation.

Debra

0 Replies

One of two things could happen:

The Republicans continue down this Constitutional slippery slope, and alienate more moderates as they desperately try to reign in their religious fundamentalist constiuency;

Or they literally allow this to all drop by the wayside regarding government intervention, and instead start demonizing liberals and Democrats for being murderers. They will do whatever it takes to tap into the religious ideological mindset in order to secure votes.

0 Replies

Quote:

Cycloptichorn:

I would respectfully point out that only ONE judge has ruled that contradictory hearsay evidence was "clear and convincing" evidence of Terri's wishes and made a FINDING OF FACT that Terri wished to have the feeding tube removed.

ONLY ONE JUDGE.

If you were educated on the law, then you would know that appellate courts treat FINDINGS OF FACT different than they treat CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Once you have educated yourself concerning this matter, then we can talk.

In the meantime, you are merely spreading misinformation.

Debra

No need to get snippy, Deb.

The fact that even ONE judge disagrees with you points to a certain lack of clarity in the application of the law, does it not?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Dookie, The interesting thing about this one issue is the fact that those supporting this president and right-to-lifers is the simple fact that many conservatives are being labled as "murderers" because they don't agree with what Congress has done. They are alienating many of their own party members; something I thought would never happen.

0 Replies

To get back to the political football thing, I think the Republicans may have fumbled this in the larger sense. The polls indicate that the overwhelming majority of Americans (forget the numbers, 60 something to 20 something) think that the tube should be removed, and even more think that Congress and the president should stay the heck out of it.

Some great quotes in today's NYT from Republicans who are against this whole farce.

It might be one of those signal moments, a small thing that makes a lot of people go WAIT a minute...!

I sure hope so.

0 Replies

Soz- Me too!

<aside to Soz- If I knew then what I know now! >

0 Replies

That's been my thought too; talk about "I'm a uniter, not a divider" Oh yeah?

0 Replies

Here's one of the quotes, from Christopher Shays:

""My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing,"

Can't find the poll I'm thinking of, but here's another:

Quote:

(CBS/AP) Congressional leaders have insisted their only motivation in getting involved in the Terri Schiavo case was saving a life. But Americans aren't buying that argument, a CBS News poll finds.

Just 13 percent of those polled think Congress intervened in the case out of concern for Schiavo, while 74 percent think it was all about politics.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/politics/main682619.shtml

0 Replies

Phoenix!! I tried to tell you!!!

Seriously, I'm so glad to see you being your iconoclastic self again.

0 Replies

CNN is reporting that the Florida legislature have rightly rejected (IMO) the idea of a bill allowing the tube to be reinserted....

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Since the 18th.

It'll be interesting to see how far this is pushed. The Republicans have reached out massively on this one, and it remains to be seen whether they will try to circumvent the law...

Cycloptichorn

Yeah ... I'm just waiting for Bush to give himself dictatorial powers. Should happen any day now .....

Are you kidding? That happened a long time ago, Tico. Where have you been hiding?

0 Replies

Great! Who should we kill next through court-ordered starvation and dehydration?

Let's look in all the children's hospitals and hospices throughout the country, make a determination of whom among the patients are incapable of recovering from their impairments, and discontinue their food and water.

After that, we can start culling through the patients in nursing homes.

But, where do we draw the line? Do we merely terminate the lives of those who require assisted feeding through a tube or all persons who are incapable of feeding themselves? I mean, none of those old bastards in nursing homes have any hope of recovering from the ill-effects of old age. Time to put them out of their misery so our time and money can be better spent on people with some modicum of hope.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Great! Who should we kill next through court-ordered starvation and dehydration?

Let's look in all the children's hospitals and hospices throughout the country, make a determination of whom among the patients are incapable of recovering from their impairments, and discontinue their food and water.

After that, we can start culling through the patients in nursing homes.

But, where do we draw the line? Do we merely terminate the lives of those who require assisted feeding through a tube or all persons who are incapable of feeding themselves? I mean, none of those old bastards in nursing homes have any hope of recovering from the ill-effects of old age. Time to put them out of their misery so our time and money can be better spent on people with some modicum of hope.

That's a little extreme I think Debra, but maybe we could just assume we've already decided that "erring on the side of life" is a grey area based on the little boy in Texas who was just taken off life support and died against the will of his mother. Bush signed that bill into law while governor of Texas did he not?

0 Replies

Debra, Big difference; Terri's case has been settled in the courts of our country. It was Terri's wish not to be put on life support confirmed by Michael and Terri's brother and sister - with support from professional doctors representing Terri and the state, and now decided by 23 judges - four of them federal judges. What is it that you don't understand about this issue - both morally and legally?

0 Replies

Debra_Law- It is not reasonable to take one case, which has had particular legal ramifications, and generalize it to ALL cases that are even remotely related to it.

I know that the Schiavo case has caused a lot of emotion, but I think that we need to gain some perspective.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

But, where do we draw the line? Do we merely terminate the lives of those who require assisted feeding through a tube or all persons who are incapable of feeding themselves? I mean, none of those old bastards in nursing homes have any hope of recovering from the ill-effects of old age. Time to put them out of their misery so our time and money can be better spent on people with some modicum of hope.

Perhaps a better question should be where do we draw the line in regards to "culling" select scenarios without including ALL aspects before "rushing" to your "lawyerly" conclusions, Debra.

But is it possible for you do that?

As blueveinedtrhobber pointed out, Bush himself has contradicted his core principles when he signed that bill into law back in Texas. Apparently, he had already decided to "look in all the children's hospitals and hospices throughout the country, make a determination of whom among the patients are incapable of recovering from their impairments, and discontinue their food and water."

There are enough neoconservative religious blowhards who have used Christopher Reeve as an example, without demonstrating one bit of intelligence in distinguishing the fact that while Terri is PVC, Christopher Reed's mind was a sharp as ever, and he actually encouraged those in his similar situation to not give up hope. You neocons sound more ridiculous when you use the late Mr. Reeve as an example. You have already tainted this whole issue in that regard, and there may be no turning back.

Your disengenuous anologies aside, Debra, you truly bely your own arguments with this nonsense.

Why don't we, instead, address the issue of HEALTHCARE for these individuals who STILL can think and STILL can function, and let's look at investing MORE in helping these people, rather than CUTTING benefits, CUTTING Medicare (which Bush tried to do). See, that's what us liberals are concerned with. Giving these people in the hospitals, hospices, and throughout the country, BETTER and AFFORDABLE healthcare.

But, judging by your recent anology, you sound like YOU don't give a damn about the people you mentioned in your quote.

0 Replies

Debra,

You continue to harp on this without addressing the issues from Quinlan that I raised earlier. The courts said that families get to make that decision based on 14th amendment. This was reaffirmed in Cruzan with a stipulation that the state may require evidence.

Don't attack others for not knowing the law when you misuse it yourself.

0 Replies

Quote:

But, where do we draw the line? Do we merely terminate the lives of those who require assisted feeding through a tube or all persons who are incapable of feeding themselves? I mean, none of those old bastards in nursing homes have any hope of recovering from the ill-effects of old age. Time to put them out of their misery so our time and money can be better spent on people with some modicum of hope.

This is ridiculous both from the standpoint of law and from the standpoint of this case. The law says feeding tube is like respirator and can be removed. See my earlier quote from Cruzan on this thread. Old people that can communicate their wishes are protected by the 14th amendment, they can accept or refuse treatment on their own.

0 Replies

Parados:

Well . . . why don't you give me the link to the United States Supreme Court decision in the Quinlan case with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment. . . .

I'll be patiently waiting . . . .

Debra

0 Replies

Debra, You probably can't see it, but when Bush and his cronies talk about "each life is precious," but expend all their energies to save one life that has no cognition, but we have thousands who are in need of health care - including our vets returning from war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they show no equal devotion to help them, there's an inconsistency that is shouting so loud it's a wonder many can't hear or see it. It's called hypocrisy.

0 Replies

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know