Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Interesting point Lash,

I'm worried about the next pope.

Medicine will have to keep him alive as long as possible by any means...in 200 years, he could be a head in jar.

The difference, and it's a huge difference, is that Rosa Parks was more than willing to take on the crusade and Terri Shaivo is not and cannot. My complaint isn't that poster cases are used, but rather that this poster case is an unconscionable use of a defenseless person and her husband and parents. These people need to greive their losses and face reality. What the pro-lifers and the media are doing is inhumane.

OMG. Littlek is trying to off the Pope. He's not even really sick! Just really slow and dribbly.

And, he can't talk.

Or walk.

Or, move much.

<lol>

But, don't kill him. I like him. And, I don't know if this matters anymore, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to die.

Apparently he doesn't want to die. I think the pope's case is much much more clear-cut than terry's case.

Yeah, and I reckon he's an atheist so death is kinda scary.

<double post edit>

Lash,

The level you require for proof is very low indeed. I'm surprised at you. If the camera caught a few incidents of Mrs. Shaivo with a reflex response and the preponderance of the time there was no response, it seems reasonable to assume that the few incidents were due to a random process rather than to cognition. The preponderance of evidence here is over whelming. I can't imagine why anyone would not simply face the fact that Terri Shaivo is gone and no amount of carrying on will bring her back. In life, there are many times when events take place and there is nothing anyone can do about them. Mrs. Shaivo's death is one of them. You cannot murder a person who is not there.

When you take your children to the doctor, do you disregard what he/she advises because it's not what you want to hear?

Good point, Lola. They're gonna keep going to other doctors until they hear what they want to hear, and they'll eventually succeed.

Yes, c.i. My mind is reeling from this discussion. There is absolutely no logical basis to believe that Terri is aware of anything. To ignore a massive amount of evidence to the contrary is something I don't understand. Unless it has to do with not wanting to give up and recognize that the conservatives lost this one. I hope it doesn't come down to making political points. I hate to think that's the case, but I can think of no other reasonable reason for such persistence in the face of so much evidence.

I don't either; it boggles my mind how people are able to ignore so many experts in the field.

Federal Judge Condemns Intervention in Schiavo Case
By ABBY GOODNOUGH and WILLIAM YARDLEY

Published: March 31, 2005


PINELLAS PARK, Fla., March 30 - A federal appeals court in Atlanta refused Wednesday to reconsider the case of Terri Schiavo, with one of the judges rebuking President Bush and Congress for acting "in a manner demonstrably at odds with our founding fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people."

Outside the hospice where Ms. Schiavo has gone almost two weeks without her feeding tube, the mood was quieter than in recent days. At one point her father, Robert Schindler, emerged to say that Ms. Schiavo looked good, given the circumstances, but the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who met with her parents for the second day in a row, later said he was urging them to accept her probably imminent death.

"They're hoping against hope but they know that you cannot live without food and water," Mr. Jackson said in an interview. "They are looking for every spark in the dark that could be her light. But these are very mature people, and they are looking at her real-life options."

Mr. Schindler and his wife, Mary, had asked the full United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Wednesday to consider ordering their daughter's feeding tube reinserted. A three-judge panel declined to issue such an order last Friday, and after less than day's deliberation, the full court issued a 10-to-2 decision rejecting the latest request.

An emergency appeal the Schindlers filed with the Supreme Court Wednesday night, asking that Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube be reinserted while they made further appeals, was rejected. It was the sixth time the court declined to intervene.

The 11th Circuit court's decision, signed by Chief Judge J. L. Edmondson, was only a sentence long. But in a concurring opinion, Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., appointed by the first President Bush in 1990, wrote that federal courts had no jurisdiction in the case and that the law enacted by Congress and President Bush allowing the Schindlers to seek a federal court review was unconstitutional.

"When the fervor of political passions moves the executive and legislative branches to act in ways inimical to basic constitutional principles, it is the duty of the judiciary to intervene," wrote Judge Birch, who has a reputation as consistently conservative. "If sacrifices to the independence of the judiciary are permitted today, precedent is established for the constitutional transgressions of tomorrow."

Judge Birch said he had not had time before now to consider the constitutionality of the law, which Congress passed and Mr. Bush signed before dawn March 21, because of "the rapid developments and sensitivities in this case." The 11th Circuit court considered and rejected several appeals from the Schindlers last week after Judge James D. Whittemore of Federal District Court in Tampa denied their motions.

In particular, Judge Birch wrote, a provision of the new law requiring a fresh federal review of all the evidence presented in the case made it unconstitutional. Because that provision constitutes "legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions," he wrote, it "invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle."

David J. Garrow, a legal historian at Emory University who closely follows the 11th Circuit, said Judge Birch's opinion was striking because the judge was a conservative Republican, especially regarding social issues. Judge Birch wrote the ruling for a three-judge panel of the court last year unanimously upholding a Florida law that prohibits gay men and lesbians from adopting children.

"This is a Republican judge going out of his way to directly criticize the Congress and President Bush for what they've done," Mr. Garrow said.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at Duke University, said Judge Birch probably felt it important to address the constitutionality of the law because the opportunity might never arise again.

"When Terri Schiavo dies, this law expires because it was only about her," Mr. Chemerinsky said. "This raised an important constitutional issue that could come up again, and he's saying it's important that some judge be on the record about it."

Mr. Jackson returned to Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park after meeting with Gov. Jeb Bush and state lawmakers earlier in Tallahassee. There, he pressed lawmakers to reconsider legislation the State Senate rejected last week that would outlaw the removal of feeding tubes from patients who had not left written instructions. Ms. Schiavo, who suffered severe brain damage in 1990, left no instructions. But a state judge accepted the testimony of her husband, Michael Schiavo, that on several occasions she had said she would not want to be kept alive artificially.

Mr. Schiavo, who has sought to remove his wife's feeding tube and let her die since 1998, has long battled with her parents, who believe she responds to them and could improve.

After meeting with Mr. Jackson in his office, Governor Bush praised him for lobbying on behalf of the Schindlers. Acknowledging the political differences between Mr. Jackson, a liberal Democrat, and many of the Schindlers' supporters, he described Mr. Jackson's efforts as "kind of like Nixon going to China."

Mr. Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, arrived at the hospice Wednesday morning and stayed on the grounds all day, leading to speculation that Ms. Schiavo's death might be near. Yet in the early afternoon, Mr. Schindler told reporters that his daughter still looked good, bringing four relatives and friends who had seen her that morning to the microphones to back him up.

"I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw and encouraged," Mr. Schindler said of his morning visit with Ms. Schiavo. "She's still fighting, and we are still fighting for her."


Christine Jordan Sexton contributed reporting from Tallahassee, Fla., for this article.

I think it's a case of "while there is life, there is hope" no matter how small the chance.

Just playing Devil's Avocado.
(Like he needs another one!?)

Put it does require a great deal of black/white oversimplification of a very complex issue to say "She should not be murdered"

I'm not a conservative


This was not a religious right wing vs. left wing case. This was not a conservative vs. liberal case.

I'm not looking at this case from any political perspective. I'm looking at this case in utter disbelief. The evidence that allegedly supports Michael Schiavo's mission to terminate his wife's nutrition and hydration (and thus cause her death) is not as overwhelming as you may think it is. In other cases, his alleged evidence would be inadmissible as untrustworthy and unreliable. There are far more expert evaluations that favor the continuation of life than there are expert evaluations that favor the discontinuation of life support. If you investigate the backgrounds of the experts who took Michael's side in this case, you will see that they are strongly affiliated with "right to die" advocacy groups, and at least one of them advocates the withdrawal of food and water from Alzheimer's disease patients. . . .

If you look at the mountain of evidence on the Schindler's side that the trial judge simply dismissed as irrelevant or as lacking credibility, you will begin to sense, to quote Shakespear, that "something is rotten in Denmark . . . . and you don't have to be a conservative, a liberal, a religious fanatic, an atheist, an activist, or whatever, to figure that out.

Debra, No matter how we slice this case, there is always going to be a difference of opinion. Most of us defer our opinion to the experts that have handled this case - the neurologists and judges; the doctors for their medical opinion and the judges for their interpretation of the laws.

Re: I'm not a conservative


The "experts" on the parent's side are all right to lifers. But there are many medical opinions that are not right to die people. The medical and scientific evidence is overwhelmingly clear.

And I do not agree with you that this is not a liberal vs. conservative case. It is part of the New Right's agenda which Bush is obligated to fulfill.

In any case, surely you recognize, Debra that the constitutional issues are of highest importance.

"When the fervor of political passions moves the executive and legislative branches to act in ways inimical to basic constitutional principles, it is the duty of the judiciary to intervene," wrote Judge Birch, who has a reputation as consistently conservative. "If sacrifices to the independence of the judiciary are permitted today, precedent is established for the constitutional transgressions of tomorrow."

I don't know. This is sort of in a nutshell

Re: I'm not a conservative


And which issue is of the highest importance? Are you talking about an individual's right to refuse life-sustaining care? Don't forget that the Due Process Clause also protects the individual right to life.

I recognize that the State of Florida legally requires far more proof of an individual's intent with respect to the distribution her PROPERTY than it does with respect to terminating her LIFE. Due process?

Yes. That's why I said "Terri Shiavo's parents", who are willing to take on the crusade.

I mean that she was not dying except in the restricted sense of being unable to feed herself. A baby is also unable to feed itself. Being unable to feed yourself is not normally classed as a terminal condition.

He could be, but if he is self-aware, and wishes to live, stopping his life support will be murder. Both of those two points are in dispute in the case of TS.