On the Past Days

[dilloduck]

Really? I don't think so Dillo...What we do have is conservatives and the right wing Christian coalition..a bad mix.
Cuz they ain't the same.

against each other??---not sure I follow ya

 

[Mr. P]

against each other??---not sure I follow ya

I know.

 

[dilloduck]

I know.

quit being a smart ass and give it a shot-----

 

[Annie]

I have to say, this is where I fall. I think those arguing for Terri had the right heart. Those that were for euthanasia, wrong. Problem was, the feds. Link to andrew at site:

http://instapundit.com/archives/022030.php

March 25, 2005
I APPRECIATE Andrew Sullivan's quoting me, but he's wrong: Unlike Andrew, I don't think that America is in danger of being taken over by religious Zealots, constituting an American Taliban and bent on establishing theocracy. I think that -- despite their occasionally abusive emails (and most aren't abusive, just upset) -- the people that Mickey Kaus is calling "pro-tubists" are well-meaning, sincere, and possessed of an earnest desire to do good. I don't think that they're nascent Mullah Omars, and I think that calling them that just makes the problem worse. This is a tragedy, and it's become a circus. Name-calling just makes you one of the clowns.

But I do think that process, and the Constitution, matter. Trampling the Constitution in an earnest desire to do good in high-profile cases has been a hallmark of a certain sort of liberalism, and it's the sort of thing that I thought conservatives eschewed. If I were in charge of making the decision, I might well put the tube back and turn Terri Schiavo over to her family. But I'm not, and the Florida courts are, and they seem to have done a conscientious job. Maybe they came to the right decision, and maybe they didn't. But respecting their role in the system, and not rushing to overturn all the rules because we don't like the outcome, seems to me to be part of being a member of civilized society rather than a mob. As I say, I thought conservatives knew this.

posted at 02:05 PM by Glenn Reynolds

 

[Gem]

Mr. P Wrote:

Is there something wrong with the Fla. law in this matter? I missed that.

The FL court did not take into account much of the information that might go to demonstrate a) the Terri Shiavo's condition is not PVS and b) that Michael Shiavo is an unfit guardian and that guardianship should be transferred to her parents.

The numerous appellate courts did not take any of the new information into consideration either....hence why people felt that the case needed to be reexamined with all the new information entered and considered.

 

[dilloduck]

I have to say, this is where I fall. I think those arguing for Terri had the right heart. Those that were for euthanasia, wrong. Problem was, the feds. Link to andrew at site:

http://instapundit.com/archives/022030.php

While others are concerned about certain morality issues it's apparent that in YOUR mind the presssing issue is the problem with Bush asking the Federal courts to look into this. I'm not sure what kind of uproar to you think would be appropriate?

 

[dilloduck]

quit being a smart ass and give it a shot-----

Didn't think so----

 

[Mr. P]

Mr. P Wrote:


The FL court did not take into account much of the information that might go to demonstrate a) the Terri Shiavo's condition is not PVS and b) that Michael Shiavo is an unfit guardian and that guardianship should be transferred to her parents.

The numerous appellate courts did not take any of the new information into consideration either....hence why people felt that the case needed to be reexamined with all the new information entered and considered.

So what does any of that have to do with Fla. law?

 

[Gem]

If the lawyer of a man sitting on death row for a gruesome, heinous crime suddenly discovered credible new evidence that demonstrated he might not be guilty you would scream for justice to be served, for the case to be re-opened and the new evidence to be examined...it would be attrocious to put a man to death if he wasn't guilty.

So why is it...in light of testimony and evidence that might prove Terri is not PVS and that Michael Shiavo, who clearly has something to gain from her death and something to lose from her continuing to live, is an unfit guardian...somehow a mockery of the judicial system or the Constitution to demand the case be re-opened and reexamined?

Just because you would not want to live in the state that Terri Shiavo is living in doesn't mean you can deny her the right to have all relevant information examined in her case....which is, in my opinion, what has happened here. If, in the end, the court had looked at all the evidence (which would have meant allowing the testimony of nurses who have sworn that Michael Shiavo actively mistreated his wife and worsened her condition....allowing MRIs and PET scans - standard tests that have never been done, allowing the testimony of neurologists who disagree with the inital doctor - the right-to-death activist, etc. etc. etc.), and ruled that there was still sufficient evidence that Terri Shiavo was PVS and that there is significant evidence that she wanted to die if she was PVS...then so be it...but that is NOT what we are dealing with here...don't fool yourself.


The FL court, although operating properly, did NOT examine all of the information that is available today.

If a court found a man guilty of murder 20 years ago and sentenced him to death....would you state that DNA evidence that might prove him innocent shouldn't be investigated because 20 years ago, before DNA evidence was available, the courts operated properly and within the law?

 

[musicman]

For the life of me, I can't see the impropriety of Congress' actions. All three branches of the federal government are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and there was clearly a plausible due process issue here. All congress did was set jurisdiction in the matter, which is absolutely within its constitutional powers. Frankly, I don't see where they had a choice.

Somewhere along the line, America bought into the misbegotten notion that putting a black robe on a lawyer makes him Jesus Christ. Judges mess up, too. They make subjective, agenda-driven rulings. They overreach their authority. They often fancy themselves elite, unaccountable social engineers. They're not. Judges should be subject to the same scrutiny given any other government official. This is America - we all put our drawers on one leg at a time.

 

[Annie]

If the lawyer of a man sitting on death row for a gruesome, heinous crime suddenly discovered credible new evidence that demonstrated he might not be guilty you would scream for justice to be served, for the case to be re-opened and the new evidence to be examined...it would be attrocious to put a man to death if he wasn't guilty.

So why is it...in light of testimony and evidence that might prove Terri is not PVS and that Michael Shiavo, who clearly has something to gain from her death and something to lose from her continuing to live, is an unfit guardian...somehow a mockery of the judicial system or the Constitution to demand the case be re-opened and reexamined?

I would hope that a FL judge would consider this. At this point in time, I'm unsure whether or not they have, as both sides are spinning relentlessly.

Just because you would not want to live in the state that Terri Shiavo is living in doesn't mean you can deny her the right to have all relevant information examined in her case....which is, in my opinion, what has happened here. If, in the end, the court had looked at all the evidence (which would have meant allowing the testimony of nurses who have sworn that Michael Shiavo actively mistreated his wife and worsened her condition....allowing MRIs and PET scans - standard tests that have never been done, allowing the testimony of neurologists who disagree with the inital doctor - the right-to-death activist, etc. etc. etc.), and ruled that there was still sufficient evidence that Terri Shiavo was PVS and that there is significant evidence that she wanted to die if she was PVS...then so be it...but that is NOT what we are dealing with here...don't fool yourself.

as I would say to my students, you are a bit 'all over here.' Hard to follow. Again, what was allowed? What was not? Why? We just do not have enough real facts-only the spin.

The FL court, although operating properly, did NOT examine all of the information that is available today.

If a court found a man guilty of murder 20 years ago and sentenced him to death....would you state that DNA evidence that might prove him innocent shouldn't be investigated because 20 years ago, before DNA evidence was available, the courts operated properly and within the law?

On this point I agree. From all I've read and heard, thing FL law should have accomodated moving from Greer, the only FL judge I've heard to find on 'facts.' Seems there should be more than one on this case.

 

[Mr. P]

If the lawyer of a man sitting on death row for a gruesome, heinous crime suddenly discovered credible new evidence that demonstrated he might not be guilty you would scream for justice to be served, for the case to be re-opened and the new evidence to be examined...it would be attrocious to put a man to death if he wasn't guilty.
........So why is it...

Ahhh..Cuz is not a criminal case?
Just a guess..

 

[musicman]

Yeah, we could but this was politics and we ALL know better.

That's your OPINION, Mr. P.

 

[Gem]

So we should ignore potential evidence that might prove that this woman is 1) not PVS and 2) did not want to die and 3) that her guardian is unfit to make decisions for her....because she isn't a criminal sentenced to death?

Seems a bit backwards to me, Mr. P...that you would be willing to examine ALL the evidence for a criminal trial...but willing to not examine all the evidence when considering killing an innocent person.

 

[theim]

For the life of me, I can't see the impropriety of Congress' actions. All three branches of the federal government are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and there was clearly a plausible due process issue here. All congress did was set jurisdiction in the matter, which is absolutely within its constitutional powers. Frankly, I don't see where they had a choice.

Somewhere along the line, America bought into the misbegotten notion that putting a black robe on a lawyer makes him Jesus Christ. Judges mess up, too. They make subjective, agenda-driven rulings. They overreach their authority. They often fancy themselves elite, unaccountable social engineers. They're not. Judges should be subject to the same scrutiny given any other government official. This is America - we all put our drawers on one leg at a time.

amen.

 

[musicman]

amen.

Your avatar ROCKS!

 

[dilloduck]

It's called compasssionate conservatism. What did you think that meant? Bushs' motives was to make sure an American individual received EVERY chance to make sure this insanse decision to starve her to death was legal . It may be but it certainly is immoral and Bush did NOT sweep into the hospice with the national guard to prevent it althought many are begging him to do so.

 

[Merlin1047]

I've been vacillating on this issue for a while now - and that's pretty unusual for me. I'm not exactly known for being indecisive. But the fact is that this case is a mess in all respects. The following pretty well sums up this puzzler:

Extracted from a thread posted by Adam's Apple:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19194

While I think there are major problems with Congress's intrusion into this case, I also think her death is certainly tragic, and the Florida courts probably got this one wrong. But we would not be having this debate if medical science had not advanced beyond where it was, say, 100 years ago. Ms. Schiavo would have died before the argument was born.

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp

We are living at an unfortunate time in the development of medical science. We have developed the technology to keep a body alive and functioning, but we lack the knowledge to heal the person who resides in that body. We can keep Terri Schiavo's body operating and sustain her remaining cognitive functions which appear to be substantially less than your average house pet, yet we lack the ability to repair her brain and restore her to her former level of mental health and function.

The Schiavo case is the icon of decisions which are forced on hundreds of thousands of Americans every year - the decision whether a loved one's condition merits continued care or if the remnant of that person should be allowed to die.

Medical science extends our lives to the point that dying is now a protracted process which can take ten or twenty years or even more. Some would argue that dying is a process which starts at birth, but let me forestall such a foolish argument before it begins. There comes a point at which the body is no longer able to sustain itself without medical intervention. That is where the "dying process" to which I refer begins. We extend this process through surgery and medication. That's a wonderful thing, but it also frequently leads to the type of dillema presented by the Schiavo case. Nature no longer makes the decision on how long we live. We have usurped that to a substantial degree through modern medicine. The consequence of our intervention is that frequently we are forced to make a decision which nature was intended to make for us. The Schiavo case is demonstrative of the turmoil and trauma which can result from humans having to make such a decision.

To this point I have resolutely refused to inject my personal preferences into the particulars of the Schiavo case. But I will depart from that just this once to state unequivocably that I would not want to live a single minute in Terri Schiavo's condition. I don't know if that is Terri's wish and if not, then she should not have been placed in this situation. But the point I want to make is that those who have not executed a living will are placing yourselves at exactly the same risk as Ms. Schiavo. You are risking having to endure a nightmarish existence while various elements of your family experience the trauma of a battle over a decision regarding your continued existence. A decision which is your right and your responsibility to make for yourself.

 

[dilloduck]

I've been vacillating on this issue for a while now - and that's pretty unusual for me. I'm not exactly known for being indecisive. But the fact is that this case is a mess in all respects. The following pretty well sums up this puzzler:

Extracted from a thread posted by Adam's Apple:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19194



We are living at an unfortunate time in the development of medical science. We have developed the technology to keep a body alive and functioning, but we lack the knowledge to heal the person who resides in that body. We can keep Terri Schiavo's body operating and sustain her remaining cognitive functions which appear to be substantially less than your average house pet, yet we lack the ability to repair her brain and restore her to her former level of mental health and function.

The Schiavo case is the icon of decisions which are forced on hundreds of thousands of Americans every year - the decision whether a loved one's condition merits continued care or if the remnant of that person should be allowed to die.

Medical science extends our lives to the point that dying is now a protracted process which can take ten or twenty years or even more. Some would argue that dying is a process which starts at birth, but let me forestall such a foolish argument before it begins. There comes a point at which the body is no longer able to sustain itself without medical intervention. That is where the "dying process" to which I refer begins. We extend this process through surgery and medication. That's a wonderful thing, but it also frequently leads to the type of dillema presented by the Schiavo case. Nature no longer makes the decision on how long we live. We have usurped that to a substantial degree through modern medicine. The consequence of our intervention is that frequently we are forced to make a decision which nature was intended to make for us. The Schiavo case is demonstrative of the turmoil and trauma which can result from humans having to make such a decision.

To this point I have resolutely refused to inject my personal preferences into the particulars of the Schiavo case. But I will depart from that just this once to state unequivocably that I would not want to live a single minute in Terri Schiavo's condition. I don't know if that is Terri's wish and if not, then she should not have been placed in this situation. But the point I want to make is that those of you who have not executed a living will are placing yourselves at exactly the same risk as Ms. Schiavo. You are risking having to endure a nightmarish existence while various elements of your family experience the trauma of a battle over your continued existence. A decision which is your right and your responsibility to make for yourself.

well said----science has created a "monster" here and like it or not, we now have to make some decisions as how to handle the thousands of cases just like this one. It can no longer be just ignored which is why I'm glad that all aspects of this decision are being put though such intense scrutiny. One cannot argue that she is being tortured and at the same time say her death with be just hunky dory because she can't feel a thing. Are some people implying that she has a soul and IT is suffering because her body is still alive?
Bet some don't want that point of view to get out.

 

[Mr. P]

...----science has created a "monster" here and like it or not, we now have to make some decisions as how to handle the thousands of cases just like this one. ...

BULL! All ya need to do is mind your own damn business!