What Will Michael Schiavo Do?

[pippadaisy[$]]

It's a tough one for me... I can't stay up until 11 anymore, and I won't watch the news while the kids are up, so it's Fox at 10 if I want ANY local coverage.

[jgibson2[$]]

pippadaisy said

It's a tough one for me... I can't stay up until 11 anymore, and I won't watch the news while the kids are up, so it's Fox at 10 if I want ANY local coverage.

Local coverage? If I miss the 6pm news, I listen to the radio or go to the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post web pages for that. I've gotten so aggravated with all the local TV stations and their promos for news stories that either don't show up or are so different from the promos that I have to decide whether it's worth calling the station to complain.

I only called the station once. I must not have been the only one to do that. They have broadcasts at 5 and 6. On the 5 O'Clock broadcast, they referred to the father of an 11 year old's baby as her "lover". I called to say that "molestor" would have been more appropriate, but that calling him the "father of her baby" would be acceptable. On the later broadcast, that's exactly what they called him.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

oh man, the things I could say about local news... but that would be taking this thread way off topic

[frazzledspice]

The Supreme Court has just refused to hear the case.

The doctor who gave his impression on PVS probably couldn't examine her at this stage, because in her weakened condition she wouldn't be able to give even whatever minimal responses her parents allege she gives. I suppose that there are expert witnesses in court who testify all the time based on reading case files and tests and seeing videos. I suppose he could be given as much credence as any other expert witness.

I am sure that expert witnesses have testified in previous trials as to Ms. Schiavo's condition, and I am sure the Schindlers must have had experts testifying for their point of view and that Michael Schiavo must have had experts testifying for his point of view. What this new doctor is saying has probably been said before. Juries and judges failed to recognize it before, and it is unlikely, even if the case were heard, that they would recognize it now.

I am certain that Ms. Schiavo's death will result in attempts at legislation, and it seems to me that this is necessary. Hopefully, more people will write living wills, even if they think they will never be needed, so that THEY will be in control of their futures rather than squabbling relatives.

[jgibson2[$]]

frazzledspice said

I am certain that Ms. Schiavo's death will result in attempts at legislation, and it seems to me that this is necessary. Hopefully, more people will write living wills, even if they think they will never be needed, so that THEY will be in control of their futures rather than squabbling relatives.

More than attempts, I hope. I would hope that the legislation will be carefully thought out so that it avoids this sort of situation, rather than leading to more of these cases.

[MrsNormanMaine[$]]

An interesting take on the Schindlers based on the old maxim of 'Follow the Money'. It suggests they're puppets of the whole Scaife/Dominionist consortium that's behind a lot of the current culture wars. Interestingly enough, this was written a couple of weeks ago, before the case really took off.

http://blog.bioethics.net

Dr. MNM

[MrsNormanMaine[$]]

To clarify above, look at entry by Jon Eisenberg on 3/4/05

MNM

[pippadaisy[$]]

I'm not seeing it... is there a permalink?

Also, there was a link there to the little boy who was taken off life support in Houston. Again, lack of information previously. The little boy had a form of dwarfism that is ALWAYS fatal, and would have been detected before he was born had the mother received any pre-natal care. They put him on the vent while they tried to figure out what was wrong with him.

I can't blame them for taking it to the courts... the poor little thing never had a chance.

[erik_kosberg]

Jason Lewis who has a conservative talk radio show in the Twin Cities is very much against having the tube removed but wrote a commentary piece for today’s Strib against federalizing the issue, in particular that law that was rushed through Congress a few days ago.

The Schiavo case seems like it’s entering the endgame. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene. One judge ruled against Jeb today. He’s appealing through the state court system but that’s already ruled against the parents many times.

[pippadaisy[$]]

That's what boggles the mind. Even the majority of the folks who are against the removal of the tube are against what Congress did in this situation. So how many people are against the removal of the tube but FOR the end to the separation of branches of the government?

I heard DeLay on the news this morning saying that Congress' intent wasn't to give the District Court a chance to deny the reinsertion of the tube, but to force them to say it had to go back in. I called my mother and asked her if she would ask her boss (a District Court judge here in NY) if he was aware that he now worked for Congress.

What shocks me is that this is basic third-grade American studies, and our own representatives seem to have no concept.

[poseidon]

I'm not FOR the end of the seperation of powers. What I don't like to see is what I seem to be seeing -- and that's the judicial system determining that it is the end-all-and-be-all of government. This country wasn't set up to be ruled by judges -- powers are to be exactly that -- shared.

Congress told the judiciary that it had to revisit the issue and reconsider the evidence. The president signed the bill. What did the judiciary do? Absolutely nothing.

I was pretty much ambivalent regarding this issue until the last two days. However, with two convicted murderers having their executions stayed in the last 24 hours, I find it rather ironic that the courts are going to bat, trying to do everything possible to save the lives of murderers, yet are bending over backwards trying to ensure that a perfectly innocent woman is being withheld food and water so that she can die.

[theworm[$]]

Jeff, would you feel the same way if the situation were reversed? If the courts said keep her alive, and the parents wanted to put an end to her suffering and the executive and legislative branch interfered?

[brian_igo]

poseidon said

I'm not FOR the end of the seperation of powers. What I don't like to see is what I seem to be seeing -- and that's the judicial system determining that it is the end-all-and-be-all of government. This country wasn't set up to be ruled by judges -- powers are to be exactly that -- shared.

Congress told the judiciary that it had to revisit the issue and reconsider the evidence. The president signed the bill. What did the judiciary do? Absolutely nothing.

I was pretty much ambivalent regarding this issue until the last two days. However, with two convicted murderers having their executions stayed in the last 24 hours, I find it rather ironic that the courts are going to bat, trying to do everything possible to save the lives of murderers, yet are bending over backwards trying to ensure that a perfectly innocent woman is being withheld food and water so that she can die.

Because, you know, someone who may have been convicted of a capital crime on faulty evidence has everything in common with a woman whose frontal lobes liquified when Milli Vinilli wasn't a punchline.

It's also worth noting that the courts are not "going to bat, trying to do everything possible to save the lives of murderers". Courts don't "go to bat" for anyone, nor do they do "everything possible." Lawyers ask questions and judges give answers. That's what happened in the appeals cases you mentioned (presuming they actually exist) and that's what happened in the Schiavo appeals, too. Like prayers, sometimes the answer is no.




Brian

[erik_kosberg]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._damaged_woman

The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday refused to overturn a judge's order blocking the state from taking temporary custody of Terri Schiavo...

The parents have within the last 24 hours been rebuffed by the state’s highest court and the nation’s highest court.

[pippadaisy[$]]

Here's where I'm confused. How is the judicial branch considering itself the be-all and end-all of anything? Their job is to interpret the laws that have been set forth. Without any proof that what the spouse has reported is NOT true, Florida State Law states that the spouse has the highest decision-making authority after the courts, followed by adult children, and if the first two don't exist, THEN the parents.

They aren't changing anything... they are merely reminding everyone what the law states. Nothing's changed, and they aren't rewriting anything.

[drmomentum[$]]

As far as I can tell, this consternation over the judges is some sort of psychobabble, because it doesn't seem to mean anything.

Where have the judges changed the law here? If congress doesn't like the law, shouldn't they make new laws? What were they doing for the last 15 years while Mrs. Schiavo has been force-fed like a foi gras goose? Picking their noses? Surprise, surprise, the law caught up with the Schindlers macabre manipulations and someone dropped a dime to the feds because they've been too lazy to pick up a newspaper on their own.

Please. If the system is broken (and maybe it is) what new law does congress have in store for us that will prevent the next Terri Schiavo from having her feeding tube removed? Are they, as I type this, in high-minded discussions and about to produce some legislation that will slice the gordian knot down the middle with their shiny sword of morality and clear thinking? We'll all look on in amazement and say "now that's why those smart fellers are in government and I'm just a lousy office worker."

If the judges aren't the problem (and this is the first I've heard even a hint that judges are responsible in any sort of way for this disaster) then where the holy hand-grenade is this coming from?

Just one more agenda to drop at Terri's feet.

[poseidon]

theworm said

Jeff, would you feel the same way if the situation were reversed? If the courts said keep her alive, and the parents wanted to put an end to her suffering and the executive and legislative branch interfered?

Yeah, I think I probably would. I'm having a difficult time accepting the fact that it is okay to kill someone because they're mentally or physically handicapped. Where do we draw the line?

[realtraveller]

A US Newswire story reports that Ralph Nader thinks that Jeb Bush and the courts should review the Schiavo matter again.

They pointed out something. She can swallow her own saliva. Why couldn't she swallow water and liquid nourishment then? Maybe she doesn't need the feeding tube, she could be spoon fed.

Or is Judge Greer saying that if you are in a PVS then you don't deserve any nourishment no matter how it is delivered?

[erik_kosberg]

Ralph Nader?

Just a thought, but if she could swallow water and food, what doctor would put in a feeding tube?

[rmthunter]

theworm said

But now the Schiavos have a new doc that have said that she's not in a vegetative state and that she should be saved based on new evidence.

NYT says the doctor (Cheshire is his name) said she appears to be minimally conscious. He is a neurologist and bioethicist who has not examined Terri Schiavo, but merely spent an hour or so at her bedside and reviewed videotapes made by her parents. He directs a lab at the Mayo Clinic that deals with unconscious reflexes such as digestion, etc. His affidavit says that "it is more likely that Ms Schiavo was in a 'minimally conscious state.'"

He is quoted in the Times as giving this very rational and scientific analysis: "Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90-minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness or volitional behavior,. . . yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of things around her." (Emphasis added.)

The Times article also makes repeated reference to Cheshire's work being guided by his religious beliefs. (Sorry, this is from yesterday's print edition, so no links -- I've been offline for two days.)

Baby Bush called him a "renowned neurologist," but no one seems to know who he is. The Times states quite baldly that he is not well known in either the neurology or bioethics fields, which in itself is neither here nor there, except as an indication of BB's desperation. However, his willingness to make a statement such as he has, on the basis of not much in the way of evidence, makes me wonder if the Times is not correct in its implication that this is ideologically driven. He would not be the first scientist whose extra-scientiic beliefs have clouded his reliability as an observer.

[pippadaisy[$]]

That's incorrect. She can't swallow her own saliva, as she has no swallowing reflex at all. That was in all the documentation of the court-appointed temporary guardians I linked above. She chokes on as little fluid as what they use to moisten her mouth.