First Elian, and Now Terri.....

[Adam's Apple]

Selective Restraint
By John H. Fund for www.opinionjournal.com
March 28, 2005

Liberals cheered when Janet Reno defied the courts to seize Elian Gonzalez.

The sad case of Terri Schiavo has raised passions not seen since five years ago. Then another bitterly divided family argued in Florida courts over someone who couldn't speak on his own behalf: Elian Gonzalez.

In both cases, those who were unhappy with the courts' decisions strained to assert the federal government's power to produce a different outcome. The difference is that in Mrs. Schiavo's case, Congress backed off after passing a bill that merely asked a federal court to hear the case from scratch, something that U.S. District Judge James Whittemore declined to do. By contrast, those who wanted the federal government to intervene in Elian Gonzalez's case went all the way, supporting a predawn armed federal raid on the morning before Easter to seize the 6-year-old boy despite a federal appeals court's refusal to order his surrender.

Both cases were marked with hypocrisy and political posturing galore. Both times some conservative Republicans talked about issuing subpoenas to compel the person at the center of the case to appear before Congress; they swiftly backed down when public opinion failed to support their stunt. Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, argued that by opposing Elian's return to his father in communist Cuba, conservatives were abandoning the principle that "the state should not supersede the parents' wishes." In the case of Terri Schiavo, many conservatives who normally support spousal rights decided that Michael Schiavo's decision to abandon his marital vows while at the same time refusing to divorce his wife rendered him unfit to override the wishes of his wife's parents to have her cared for.

But liberals have gotten off easy for some of the somersaulting arguments they have made on behalf of judicial independence and states' rights to justify their position that Terri Schiavo should not be saved. Many made the opposite arguments in the Elian Gonzalez case.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006480

 

[dilloduck]

Selective Restraint
By John H. Fund for www.opinionjournal.com
March 28, 2005

Liberals cheered when Janet Reno defied the courts to seize Elian Gonzalez.

The sad case of Terri Schiavo has raised passions not seen since five years ago. Then another bitterly divided family argued in Florida courts over someone who couldn't speak on his own behalf: Elian Gonzalez.

In both cases, those who were unhappy with the courts' decisions strained to assert the federal government's power to produce a different outcome. The difference is that in Mrs. Schiavo's case, Congress backed off after passing a bill that merely asked a federal court to hear the case from scratch, something that U.S. District Judge James Whittemore declined to do. By contrast, those who wanted the federal government to intervene in Elian Gonzalez's case went all the way, supporting a predawn armed federal raid on the morning before Easter to seize the 6-year-old boy despite a federal appeals court's refusal to order his surrender.

Both cases were marked with hypocrisy and political posturing galore. Both times some conservative Republicans talked about issuing subpoenas to compel the person at the center of the case to appear before Congress; they swiftly backed down when public opinion failed to support their stunt. Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, argued that by opposing Elian's return to his father in communist Cuba, conservatives were abandoning the principle that "the state should not supersede the parents' wishes." In the case of Terri Schiavo, many conservatives who normally support spousal rights decided that Michael Schiavo's decision to abandon his marital vows while at the same time refusing to divorce his wife rendered him unfit to override the wishes of his wife's parents to have her cared for.

But liberals have gotten off easy for some of the somersaulting arguments they have made on behalf of judicial independence and states' rights to justify their position that Terri Schiavo should not be saved. Many made the opposite arguments in the Elian Gonzalez case.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006480

Excellant comparison !! ( althought I'm sure the whiny " but this is different" is coming soon )

 

[insein]

in elian's case, he at least got to live and was still fed when he returned to cuba. Terri slowly dies. The court has ordered her death by not even allowing nurses or her family to orally feed her. Thats what i truely dont get. sure take her off the machine but let her rehabilitate through manual feeding. Her husband is selfish whether through malicious intent or not.

 

[Avatar4321]

in elian's case, he at least got to live and was still fed when he returned to cuba. Terri slowly dies. The court has ordered her death by not even allowing nurses or her family to orally feed her. Thats what i truely dont get. sure take her off the machine but let her rehabilitate through manual feeding. Her husband is selfish whether through malicious intent or not.

I think whats interesting about all this is that if Christopher Reeve was treated like Terri was he would have been killed years ago.

 

[musicman]

Re: Elian

In Florida, the Cuban-American vote, which went overwhelmingly for Clinton in '96, went just as overwhelminly for Bush in 2000. As close as that election was, a decent case can be made that Clinton's actions in the Gonzalez case - which infuriated Cuban-Americans - cost Al Gore the presidency.

Little Elian may have done more for the cause of freedom than he'll ever know.

 

[MissileMan]

I think whats interesting about all this is that if Christopher Reeve was treated like Terri was he would have been killed years ago.

Reeve wasn't brain dead, he was paralyzed.

 

[Avatar4321]

Reeve wasn't brain dead, he was paralyzed.

She wasn't brain dead technically either. But thats now what i mean. I meant the fact that he was using a feeding tube.

 

[manu1959]

She wasn't brain dead technically either. But thats now what i mean. I meant the fact that he was using a feeding tube.

terri is brain dead..... she has no cognitive brain functions...her brain is the consitancy of spinal fluid

 

[Adam's Apple]

terri is brain dead..... she has no cognitive brain functions...her brain is the consitancy of spinal fluid

We will never know that for sure because an MRI and PET scans were not done on Terri. Expert doctors have testified that these tests are required before a diagnosis of PVS can be made.

 

[Bonnie]

Orwell and Terri Schiavo
Rich Lowry

March 28, 2005


Denial is not just a river in Egypt, goes the saying. Indeed, it is something very important to supporters of ending Terri Schiavo's life, judging by their head-spinning evasions.

A woman who might (or might not) be in a persistent vegetative state, but who is otherwise not ill and can continue to live for years despite her profound disability, is dying because we are refusing to give her sustenance. We are affirmatively ending her life, perhaps against her will, because there is no way now to know her will. Supporters of this act feel compelled to try to pretty it up.

They say that Terri is being "allowed to die." No. She is being made to die. All across America, in hospitals, mental wards and institutions for the severely disabled, there are people who, if we withdrew our care for them, would die. We wouldn't call this "allowing" them to die. We would call it scandalous neglect.

George Felos, the lawyer for Terri's husband, Michael, explains his position in the case thusly: "I firmly believe in the right of individuals to make their own medical-treatment choices." But Terri is not making her medical choices. Choices are being made for her, perhaps (if you believe Michael Schiavo) on the basis of things she said a decade ago, perhaps (if you don't) in the absence of any stated preference.
After visiting her bedside recently, Felos declared, "In all the years I've seen Mrs. Schiavo, I've never seen such a look of peace and beauty upon her." Maybe Felos has forgotten: If she is indeed in a persistent vegetative state, as he maintains, she can't feel anything, let alone a sense of peace that would make her radiant with beauty.

One expert told The New York Times that "no one is denying this woman food and water." Really? Then why is she dying? Is it merely a coincidence that she might experience kidney failure from dehydration at any time?


This expert's argument is that, since she is in a persistent vegetative state, she has "no knowledge of food." By this logic it would be morally acceptable to suffocate her with a pillow since she has "no knowledge of air." She could be dropped out of a 15-story window because she has "no knowledge of gravity." She could be shot because she has "no knowledge of ballistics."

Then there is the misuse of words that are thrown at Republicans to prove their alleged hypocrisy. For example: Why aren't conservatives respecting the "sanctity of marriage" here? But Michael Schiavo -- perhaps understandably, given the wrenching circumstances -- long ago moved in with another woman, with whom he has two children. This is no longer a case of simon-pure "sanctified" marriage.

Or how about "federalism," supposedly trampled by the GOP Congress? But federalism means a division of the branches of government, all with their designated powers. When state and federal courts willfully strike down or ignore laws passed by democratically elected legislatures, this is not "federalism," but a perversion of the country's constitutional scheme.




Felos says Terri would want us to "ask ourselves the questions: What's the purpose of my life? And how can I best fulfill that? And how can I be of service to others?" Those are important questions, but ones liable to produce answers that might confound all our expectations. Terri Schiavo might have believed, before her tragic injury, that her purpose was to be a loving wife and mother. Now, in circumstances that would have horrified her, her purpose might be to give a kind of comfort to her family and to demonstrate to those around her the value of life, even when our capacities are heartbreakingly diminished.

Despite the spiritual-sounding mumbo jumbo, Felos and his allies want to foreclose the possibility of this purpose. They believe that some people's lives are meaningless and expendable. There is something chilling about that, which is why they so often resort to weasel words and gauzy euphemisms.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/printrl20050328.shtml

 

[NATO AIR]

As Charles Krauthammer wrote:

But the law, while scrupulous, has been merciless, and its conclusion very troubling morally. We ended up having to choose between a legal travesty on the one hand and human tragedy on the other.

I feel this to be true about this case... I would rather support a legal travesty rather than a human tragedy.

This poor woman is starving to death! What kind of "peaceful" death is that? If her "wishes" to die are going to be respected, why not at least her give her a lethal injection?

Death row inmates get better treatment than this woman... that is disgusting beyond belief.

 

[theim]

As Charles Krauthammer wrote:


I feel this to be true about this case... I would rather support a legal travesty rather than a human tragedy.

This poor woman is starving to death! What kind of "peaceful" death is that? If her "wishes" to die are going to be respected, why not at least her give her a lethal injection?

Death row inmates get better treatment than this woman... that is disgusting beyond belief.

Because that would be actively causing her death, killing her.

Refusing to give the woman food is just withholding medical treatment. I guess food is medical treatment now.

I'd consult with some libs, but trust me, I think it makes sense. Maybe.

 

[Bonnie]

Because that would be actively causing her death, killing her.

Refusing to give the woman food is just withholding medical treatment. I guess food is medical treatment now.

I'd consult with some libs, but trust me, I think it makes sense. Maybe.

First there was Jive now there's LIB SPEAK

 

[Annie]

Once again I am wading into this discussion...I agree that removing the feeding tube was wrong on the moral level, it is killing.

On the other hand, it is also important to remember that even Jesus made for seperation between what is God's and what is governments. I just have a serious problem with bluring the lines of federalism.

I find the Jesse Jackson kerfuffle as opportunistic as normal for him. If he was seriously concerned, he would have gotten down there a whole lot sooner. Both sides are now manipulating people.

I just keep saying my prayers.

 

[NATO AIR]

It just disturbs me in this day and age... an American woman is being starved to death. That is barbaric beyond comprehension

 

[Bonnie]

It just disturbs me in this day and age... an American woman is being starved to death. That is barbaric beyond comprehension

Yes legal homocide of an innocent helpless woman.

 

[nakedemperor]

I think whats interesting about all this is that if Christopher Reeve was treated like Terri was he would have been killed years ago.

There's a difference between having a dead body and a living mind and having a dead mind and a living body.

 

[manu1959]

We will never know that for sure because an MRI and PET scans were not done on Terri. Expert doctors have testified that these tests are required before a diagnosis of PVS can be made.

and where might you have gotten those facts?

are you sure that the only way you can test for brain waves or activity is MRI and PET scan?

she did not have an dnr so when they first picked her up after more than ten minutes of no oxygen no heart beat .... zip ....the first thing they do is run a tape on your heart and brain to assess damage while they revive you....then again when you hit the emergency room.....

are you telling me that there was brain activity at that point? try again....doctors testified she had no cognitive brain function... during the first trial

mri and pet scan will not acess brain activity only if there is a mass or lack thereof in the tissue....if there is no brain activity the mri and pet scan is pointless

 

[insein]

There's a difference between having a dead body and a living mind and having a dead mind and a living body.

Neither of which has been tested in over 10 years. One judge declared her brain dead based on the testimony of one doctor. Many experts believe that she could be rehabilitated. Many other experts believe she cant. But 1 doctor and 1 judge get to decide her fate when we appeal murder 1 cases to the nth appeal? This same doctor has stated that alzheimers patients should be stripped of their constitutional rights.

Thats the whole point of this. The right to "Life" under the 14th amendment, also the protection against cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment are being broken in this case. The issue for many is not Terri herself. Though many feel for her, their issue as is mine is that my grandparents or one day parents or myself will be in ill health. Who will decide my fate should i be rendered unable to speak for myself?

My grandmother currently has alzheimers. According to the doctor that declared terri a vegetable and stated that her rights should be removed, he believes alzheimers patients should also have their rights removed. With this precedent set, all it would take is one judge to lay judgement on my grandmothers fate and order her dead if my grandfather decided he didnt want the burden. While many cant perceive that their family would toss them aside like a pet, many families are not so close. Human beings might begin to be expendable when they become old. Rather then paying for all that medical care, children of aging parents might simply have a court rule for their death to be imposed.

Do you see where this is headed? This is not about terri. Unfortunately her fate seems sealed. The precednt however is dangerous for this country.

 

[nakedemperor]

The patient's life rests in the hands of the spouse or guardian as it is, that's a polemic in and of itself-- however, I agree that in a case such as Mrs. Schiavo's, the testimony of more than one doctor is required. In her individual case though, the doctor's testimony has been repeatedly substantiated by other doctors (outside of the courtroom). Legal issue aside, you're always going to find a doctor who has a different opinion of a patient whose condition is agreed upon by the great majority of physicians... this sort of thing happens all the time, that is, guardians or patients refusing treatment. And in the case of someone who has been repeatedly diagnosed as a PVS, the guardian or spouse has the say-so.

Again though, substantiated evidence is necessary..