Lawmakers Widen Schiavo Right-To-Die Fight

Sam · Post by **Sam** » March 21, 2005 5:30 pm

Perhaps if more people would be considered to be guilty and sent to death row by such testimony, of a one time conversation that was only recalled after so many years went by....then more people would question such evidence/testimony.....

*************************************************************

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... /11.html#4

''Right to Die'' .--In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 314 the Court upheld Missouri's requirement that, before nutrition and hydration may be withdrawn from a person in a persistent vegetative state, it must be demonstrated by ''clear and convincing evidence'' that such action is consistent with the patient's previously manifested wishes. The Due Process Clause does not require that the state rely on the judgment of the family, the guardian, or ''anyone but the patient herself'' in making this decision, the Court concluded. 315 Thus, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the patient herself had expressed an interest not to be sustained in a persistent vegetative state, or that she had expressed a desire to have a surrogate make such a decision for her, the state may refuse to allow withdrawal of nutrition and hydration.

''A State is entitled to guard against potential abuses'' that can occur if family members do not protect a patient's best interests, and ''may properly decline to make judgments about the 'quality' of life that a particular individual may enjoy, and [instead] simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the . . . interests of the individual.'' 316

The Court's opinion in Cruzan ''assume[d]'' that a competent person has a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition. 317 More important, however, a majority of Justices separately declared that such a liberty interest exists. 318 Thus, the Court appears committed to the position that the right to refuse nutrition and hydration is subsumed in the broader right to refuse medical treatment. Also blurred in the Court's analysis was any distinction between terminally ill patients and those whose condition has stabilized; there was testimony that the patient in Cruzan could be kept ''alive'' for about 30 years if nutrition and hydration were continued.

ph4ever · Post by **ph4ever** » March 21, 2005 5:32 pm

Sam wrote:Connie, Is it Right for a husband to be allowed by law to beat his wife with a stick no bigger than his thumb?

Google all you like...It is not in the Constitution is it ? But it is law on the book in some places...

All of us know that doctors nor the law nor anyone else ( all jokes aside )is always correct.

If you want to think or feel that starving and dehydrating someone to death and it taking them two weeks to die is NOT cruel and inhumane so be it. That is your opinion as it is the opine of others.... just as I and others feel THAT intentional forcing death upon someone and for them by such means and for that person to take two weeks to die is a crimminal act.

I know of several cases of people being prosecuted for animal cruelty for treating their pets and other animals as such.....

I know we as a nation have went to fight, die and bleed over people being intentionally starved... How many Irish died because the British refused to allow them food in the potato famine? Brits were never prosecuted....so does that make death by starvation humane?

What about the Nazis, or the Japanese or Stalin or Pol Pot or numerous others that have starved millions to death? do you approve of their conduct? I think not... but you are all for starving a woman that committed no crime and taking of her life.......

How do you know who is right or who is wrong? You want to take the life away of a parents child to satisfy what? something based upon a one time conversation that the husband waited years to recall??

I only know that it is quite possible that given past demonstrated performance..... miracles do happen.... if she is intentionally killed then who will ever know? Who gave her the chance?

Who was taking the chance of one occuring away from her?? Who knows what her wishes actually are or were???

Would you condemn a person to death row for such dubious testimony?

Do you really know if Terri is inside?

Does she not deserve to have the Right to question or some one to question for her?

The right for blacks or women to vote isn't in the original constitution Sam. Quoting the original 14th Amendent without all the annotations is like quoting only one line of the Bible without reading the whole verse just to prove your point and IMHO enlightened people just don't do that. I'm not responding to any of your other badgering questions. Going over all the other questions is just plain ass stupid as we all know your stance and I'm not falling into the argument trap with you. You asked a question and I answered it. You didn't like the answer so you throw all these questions at me. You've asked the same questions over and over and over again. Grow up Sam - harrassing people with the same line of questioning is not going to change anyone's mind. You've asked the same questions for weeks and it's getting old. Find something new to explore regarding this subject ok?

ph4ever · Post by **ph4ever** » March 21, 2005 5:36 pm

Sam wrote:Perhaps if more people would be considered to be guilty and sent to death row by such testimony, of a one time conversation that was only recalled after so many years went by....then more people would question such evidence/testimony.....

*************************************************************

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... /11.html#4

''Right to Die'' .--In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 314 the Court upheld Missouri's requirement that, before nutrition and hydration may be withdrawn from a person in a persistent vegetative state, it must be demonstrated by ''clear and convincing evidence'' that such action is consistent with the patient's previously manifested wishes. The Due Process Clause does not require that the state rely on the judgment of the family, the guardian, or ''anyone but the patient herself'' in making this decision, the Court concluded. 315 Thus, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the patient herself had expressed an interest not to be sustained in a persistent vegetative state, or that she had expressed a desire to have a surrogate make such a decision for her, the state may refuse to allow withdrawal of nutrition and hydration.

''A State is entitled to guard against potential abuses'' that can occur if family members do not protect a patient's best interests, and ''may properly decline to make judgments about the 'quality' of life that a particular individual may enjoy, and [instead] simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the . . . interests of the individual.'' 316

The Court's opinion in Cruzan ''assume[d]'' that a competent person has a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition. 317 More important, however, a majority of Justices separately declared that such a liberty interest exists. 318 Thus, the Court appears committed to the position that the right to refuse nutrition and hydration is subsumed in the broader right to refuse medical treatment. Also blurred in the Court's analysis was any distinction between terminally ill patients and those whose condition has stabilized; there was testimony that the patient in Cruzan could be kept ''alive'' for about 30 years if nutrition and hydration were continued.

Sam was it not the state that said the feedinig tube should be removed???

Do you not know the difference between State and Federal jurisdiction?

Tiki Bar · Post by **Tiki Bar** » March 21, 2005 5:40 pm

I think Sam's questions are valid to back up his argument on this, and not badgering or harassing in the least.

I certainly don't agree with him, but I don't think he's out of line at all, nor do I think he should be asked to alter his delivery method.

Blonde Stranger · Post by **Blonde Stranger** » March 21, 2005 5:41 pm

The judge in Terri Schiavo's case found by clear and convincing evidence that she would not have wanted to be kept alive. Read starting at page 4, and pay attention to page 9:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

ph4ever · Post by **ph4ever** » March 21, 2005 5:46 pm

Tiki Bar wrote:I think Sam's questions are valid to back up his argument on this, and not badgering or harassing in the least.

I certainly don't agree with him, but I don't think he's out of line at all, nor do I think he should be asked to alter his delivery method.

If your child comes to you and asks you the same question over and over and over again then what do you call it??

I'm not asking him to alter - I'm not asking him to change. I'm just not going to respond to those questions because this will be the 3rd thread that he's posed those very same questions in and enough is enough IMHO.

Sam · Post by **Sam** » March 21, 2005 5:53 pm

Tiki Bar wrote:I think Sam's questions are valid to back up his argument on this, and not badgering or harassing in the least.

I certainly don't agree with him, but I don't think he's out of line at all, nor do I think he should be asked to alter his delivery method.

TikiB,
THANK YOU!!!
I did not mean any for any of my/the questions to be badgering or insulting.

more later perhaps...I have to go out for a bit...

Thank you again for at least understanding I have my point of view and others have theirs just as you do....and that is good thing. Shows we can learn from each other...such as understanding, if nothing else....
Sam

Wino you know · Post by **Wino you know** » March 21, 2005 6:33 pm

Sam:
You'll find that Tiki Bar does respect those of us with opposing views, and isn't one of the ones who blames all the world's ills on President Bush, unlike a few others here.
She also IS NOT of the mind-set that you're welcome here as long as your opinions agree with the majority of the clique.
I've always admired her for that-she's one awesome lady.
Now that I've pretty much effectively destroyed HER reputation........, I'll just say
I'm sure everyone who's siding with the husband in this case can rest easy-the federal judge who will be making the determination as to whether Terri Schiavo gets to live or be starved to death is a Clinton appointee, which, for all practical purposes, means she's as good as gone.

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » March 21, 2005 7:23 pm

Hey, at least we know SOMETHING weights heavy enough on Bush's conscious for him to interrupt his vacation. One would have thought that as long as American's are dying fighting his war that he might have curtailed his liesure time but at least this is a small consolation.

Hopefully this will set a precedent where any individual who doesn't like the results of due process in the courts can appeal to the congress to pass a law JUST FOR THEM. That will make everything run smoother.

Anyone else think it's ironic that the party supposedly of "less-government" would blatantly attempt to manipulate both a separate branch of government and state jurisdiction in what is essentially a family matter?

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Lightning Bolt · Post by **Lightning Bolt** » March 21, 2005 10:31 pm

Wino you know wrote:Sam:
....and isn't one of the ones who blames all the world's ills on President Bush, unlike a few others here.

....the federal judge who will be making the determination as to whether Terri Schiavo gets to live or be starved to death is a Clinton appointee, which, for all practical purposes, means she's as good as gone.

Guess the blame game swings both ways, huh?

Slick Willie and his heathen followers ultimately will get the blame for mercilessly terminating an innocent life.
sheez!

Wino you know · Post by **Wino you know** » March 21, 2005 10:51 pm

Gosh, Lightning Bolt-you're always SO pleasant. The true spirit of a parrothead. That's YOU.

I didn't SAY "Slick Willie" (YOUR term for the man-not MINE) is responsible for Terry Schiavo's imminent demise. The judge who will order her to be starved to death is merely doing what he's been programmed to do.
The person responsible for her death is HER FRUITCAKE HUSBAND!

Wino you know · Post by **Wino you know** » March 21, 2005 10:54 pm

Key Lime Lee wrote:Hey, at least we know SOMETHING weights heavy enough on Bush's conscious for him to interrupt his vacation. One would have thought that as long as American's are dying fighting his war that he might have curtailed his liesure time but at least this is a small consolation.

Hopefully this will set a precedent where any individual who doesn't like the results of due process in the courts can appeal to the congress to pass a law JUST FOR THEM. That will make everything run smoother.

Anyone else think it's ironic that the party supposedly of "less-government" would blatantly attempt to manipulate both a separate branch of government and state jurisdiction in what is essentially a family matter?

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Lee-
I can understand you thinking the way you do, but I respectfully disagree.
What I find hypocritical is the people who say they're against the death penalty (like the a-hole who raped and murdered the little girl in Florida) but think nothing of starving Terry Schiavo to death just because "it's what her 'husband' wants."
Terry Schiavo is guilty of nothing. Except maybe poor taste in choosing a mate.

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » March 21, 2005 11:13 pm

For all those who want Terry kept alive:

For the sake of argument, say you told your spouse that you did not want to live in a veg-like state and you did not have a living will - would you still want your spouse to carry out your final wishes?

Say something horrible happens to you and you have no living will but you and your spouse have talked in the past about this - wouldn't you want your wishes followed?

Isn't that what her husband is trying to do?

As for the crack about the Clinton appointed judge, Clinton may have nominated him, but a Republican controlled Congress voted to make him a federal judge.

Lightning Bolt · Post by **Lightning Bolt** » March 21, 2005 11:21 pm

Sorry to ruffle your feathers, Wino, it is not personal.
I'm sure you're a fine person wherever you call home.

As for myself, my phriends (at home and on BN) will tell you that I am a friendly, outgoing fellow who's always ready for the next project or party

They would also tell you that when we go "off-topic", I do not shy away from offering my opinion, and when spurred to a rebuttal, will be pointed in finding contradictions and, what I might find as, hypocrisy. I DO LIKE TO DEBATE ISSUES IF I FEEL I HAVE A VALID OPINION.
But... I can back off too

We'll pick it up again tomorrow!.

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » March 21, 2005 11:22 pm

Wino you know wrote:
Key Lime Lee wrote:Hey, at least we know SOMETHING weights heavy enough on Bush's conscious for him to interrupt his vacation. One would have thought that as long as American's are dying fighting his war that he might have curtailed his liesure time but at least this is a small consolation.

Hopefully this will set a precedent where any individual who doesn't like the results of due process in the courts can appeal to the congress to pass a law JUST FOR THEM. That will make everything run smoother.

Anyone else think it's ironic that the party supposedly of "less-government" would blatantly attempt to manipulate both a separate branch of government and state jurisdiction in what is essentially a family matter?

What a bunch of hypocrites.
Lee-
I can understand you thinking the way you do, but I respectfully disagree.
What I find hypocritical is the people who say they're against the death penalty (like the a-hole who raped and murdered the little girl in Florida) but think nothing of starving Terry Schiavo to death just because "it's what her 'husband' wants."
Terry Schiavo is guilty of nothing. Except maybe poor taste in choosing a mate.

Certainly if that were the case, then I would agree... but the issues here, of course, are about who has the authority to determine when to stop life-sustaining care in the case of a patient with no prognosis for meaningful recovery. To portray it any other way would be inaccurate.

What's most troubling to me is the utter lack of respect that certain politicians seem to show the court. Its as if they seem to think that every judge is motivated solely by the same political dogma that drives their decision making process.

Tiki Bar · Post by **Tiki Bar** » March 21, 2005 11:36 pm

ph4ever wrote:
Tiki Bar wrote:I think Sam's questions are valid to back up his argument on this, and not badgering or harassing in the least.

I certainly don't agree with him, but I don't think he's out of line at all, nor do I think he should be asked to alter his delivery method.

If your child comes to you and asks you the same question over and over and over again then what do you call it??

I'm not asking him to alter - I'm not asking him to change. I'm just not going to respond to those questions because this will be the 3rd thread that he's posed those very same questions in and enough is enough IMHO.

But he's not a kid... I think between adults it would be considered a debate.

Quite honestly, I've stayed out of these threads, because my mind is made up on how I feel, but I know and accept that a lot of people who I genuinely care for disagree with me. My opinion is based on skimming the surface, as I have no attention span for news, politics, or legalities, and frankly feel none of it is any of my business.

But as Ms Mod, I have to poke my head in from time to time. I can only assume, and I may be wrong, that if Sam is saying the same thing over and over, the "other side" must be saying the same thing over and over too. I really don't know, but I'm not going to do the research.

I just want us all to remain civil in discussing it, and if anyone has heard enough, I would rather they walk away, then ask their "opponents" to.

Wino you know · Post by **Wino you know** » March 21, 2005 11:41 pm

captainjoe wrote:For all those who want Terry kept alive:

For the sake of argument, say you told your spouse that you did not want to live in a veg-like state and you did not have a living will - would you still want your spouse to carry out your final wishes?

Say something horrible happens to you and you have no living will but you and your spouse have talked in the past about this - wouldn't you want your wishes followed?

Isn't that what her husband is trying to do?

As for the crack about the Clinton appointed judge, Clinton may have nominated him, but a Republican controlled Congress voted to make him a federal judge.

I feel the spotlight on me again in this one, so I'll try-

1)No, I wouldn't want to be left in a vegetable-like state. The thing is-Terry IS concious, alert, and does respond to people by smiling, moving her head, blinking her eyes, and reacting to people touching her. I'm NOT saying it's THE way to live, of course, and, again, I WOULD NOT want that for myself-all I've been saying all along is that if the parents are willing to care for her and bear the medical expenses, why not let them do it? I can't begin to imagine the pain of a parent seeing their child OF ANY AGE slip away. That has GOT to be the ultimate pain.
My other concern is that simply starving a person to death seems BEYOND cruel. If she was totally unconcious and COULDN'T be fed, perhaps I'd feel differently.

2)If something "horrible" happened to me, for all I care, they could throw me in the Cedar River. But that's just ME.

3)I have no idea WHAT her husband "is trying to do", except end her life in one of the cruelest ways possible. What I've read in reports from various news outlets, and from people who know the Schiavo and Schindler families, Michael Schiavo, over the years, would have severe temper tantrums whenever he'd hear news of Terry making any improvement, and be gleeful whenever she'd have any setbacks.
Hell, I can tell by LOOKING at the guy he's very shifty. Not that looks should make a difference, BUT.............................................

4)This one I'll agree with you on. And it's what p*sses me off more than ANYTHING about the Republicans-they all try to baby their democrat counterparts in hopes of "being liked", "bringing bipartisanship," "getting along", or whatever. They ALWAYS do this B.S., and it always backfires in their freaking faces, instead of them just growing some balls and doing the right thing.
(Remember in 1994 when Clinton appointed Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg to the Supreme Court-the ULTRA-Queen of librealism was confimed with a Senate vote of 94-0. That was one time when I shouted "F'ING REPUBLICANS" for about five months).

Good questions-I just hope you can understand that, for me, it hurts to see an innocent person go like she is.

Wino you know · Post by **Wino you know** » March 21, 2005 11:54 pm

Lightning Bolt wrote:Sorry to ruffle your feathers, Wino, it is not personal.
I'm sure you're a fine person wherever you call home.

As for myself, my phriends (at home and on BN) will tell you that I am a friendly, outgoing fellow who's always ready for the next project or party

They would also tell you that when we go "off-topic", I do not shy away from offering my opinion, and when spurred to a rebuttal, will be pointed in finding contradictions and, what I might find as, hypocrisy. I DO LIKE TO DEBATE ISSUES IF I FEEL I HAVE A VALID OPINION.
But... I can back off too

We'll pick it up again tomorrow!.

Thanks, Lightning Bolt-
I like to THINK I'm a decent person-others may disagree, but I can live with that. (I call Iowa home, among other things).
Hey, look, nobody appreciates a spirtied debate more than I do, and if you have an opinion-ESPECIALLY if it's in the off-topic area-go for it, all I ask is for you to realize there ARE a few of us who think differently than the majority of those here. Doesn't mean we're bad people-we just travel on a different plane. I just try to do what is right and treat people like I'd want to be treated, and, I'm sure, as you say, your friends think the world of you too. Like you, I seem to thrive on throwing my (solicited or unsolicited) opinion out there, and USUALLY am ready for some back and forth debate. Don't ever be afraid to tell me how you feel-just don't hold it against me if I feel differently than you do.
See you tomorrow.

Wino you know · Post by **Wino you know** » March 21, 2005 11:59 pm

Key Lime Lee wrote:Certainly if that were the case, then I would agree... but the issues here, of course, are about who has the authority to determine when to stop life-sustaining care in the case of a patient with no prognosis for meaningful recovery. To portray it any other way would be inaccurate.

What's most troubling to me is the utter lack of respect that certain politicians seem to show the court. Its as if they seem to think that every judge is motivated solely by the same political dogma that drives their decision making process.

And AGAIN I'll agree with you (in that second paragraph). NO judge of either political conviction has any business of legislating from the bench. They are to INTREPET the laws, not MAKE laws.
As I said before, I just think that if Terry's parents are wanting to take care of her and pay her medical expenses, they should be given that chance. Michael can divorce her, and get whatever financial settlement he's entitled to. This is where I DISAGREE with a lot of people-he WILL gain financially when he's either divorced from her or she dies.

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » March 22, 2005 12:08 am

Wino you know wrote:I just think that if Terry's parents are wanting to take care of her and pay her medical expenses, they should be given that chance.

Unless, of course, Michael really is acting in accordance with what he believes her wishes were...

And thus the debate continues... not sure I see what business it would be of a federal court tho...