Between Life and Death [Archive] - Marine Corps

thedrifter

03-23-05, 10:11 PM

Former Schiavo Nurse Tells a Very Different Story
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Sher Zieve

Carla Sauer Iyer is a Registered Nurse who cared for Terri Schiavo for almost two years, in 1995 and 1996, while Terri was a resident at the Palm Gardens convalescent home. Carla's story is both shocking and chilling and, if true, uncovers extraordinary criminal behavior that appears to have been covered up. Iyer reports that while Terri was in her care, she was aware and alert. Carla said: "Her cognitive abilities including laughing, talking, letting you know she was in pain." She also said that Terri could formulate and speak words including "mommy", "help me", "Hi" and "pain". Nurse Iyer also stated that Terry could swallow and was regularly fed by the nurses at Palm Gardens. However, Iyer said that whenever Michael Schiavo entered Terri's room and saw that Terri was being fed by means other than a feeding tube, he told the nurses to stop and threatened them with being fired. At other times, Carla reports that Michael would shout in frustration and rage "When is that b**ch going to die!? Hasn't she died yet!?" Also, although the monetary settlement received by the Schiavo's was for Terri's treatment, Michael refused to allow any therapy. Suffice it to say, this is an entirely different account from that which we have been allowed to hear from Michael Schiavo, his euthanasia-advocate attorney George Felos and the mainstream media. And, it is a shocking one. But, one of the most shocking and horrific incidents was still to come.

Nurse Iyer reports that on one of Michael Schiavo's visits to his wife, he entered Terri's room and shut the door, leaving him alone with her for approximately twenty minutes. After that time, Michael exited the room and hurriedly left the Palm Gardens facility. When Nurse Iyer reentered Terri's room to check on her, she found Terri lethargic, sweating profusely and "crying hysterically". When Iyer checked Terri's blood sugar level, she discovered that it was barely registering on the glucometer. Then, when Iyer checked the trash bin, she found a used vial of insulin. Iyer also stated that there were needle marks apparent under Terri's breast, in her groin area and under her arms. Iyer said that after she had stabilized her patient, she went to the police, reported it and signed a sworn affidavit as to the preceding events. She, then, returned to Palm Gardens and reported the incident to the facility's administrators. Carla said that the administrators were 'very upset' that she hadn't come to them first and terminated her employment the next day.

WHEW! If even any of these allegations are true, why in heaven's name weren't they investigated? Or, if there actually was an investigation, why is this the first time that the allegations are being reported? Where has the good ol' mainstream media been, for all of this time? Has there been some sort of cover-up going on? Was someone or "someones" being 'paid off' to ignore them? These are all valid questions and ones that remain unanswered by the Schiavo camp, the authorities or the judiciary. Of additional interest, the only people who have ever said that they heard Terri state she wanted 'no artificial means to keep her alive' are named…guess what…Schiavo. With the Terri Schiavo case, a power-hungry and corrupt judiciary has made the decision to take our lives in their hands. Bear in mind, the worst convicted criminal known to mankind, if he or she is lucky enough to be tried in an American court, would never be allowed to starve or be denied water. But, Terri and others in similar situations are the powerless and incapacitated ones. Terri has not even been allowed her own attorney. Rather, a 'husband' who strongly appears to be motivated to have her dead is her "guardian". Why didn't he divorce her? Money…lots of it…can be a strong motivating factor. Yes. I know Michael says 'there's no more money left". Really? Is Felos working pro-bono? Michael Schiavo has consistently refused to offer up any and all of his financials. I suppose he doesn't have to do so but, that's why the questions remain.

One last caution: Be careful who you marry, ladies, and be very sure you have a living will; one that is rock-solid and can't be changed by either a greedy husband or an activist judge trying to push his or her agenda. It may be the only thing that saves your lives.

>Sher Zieve is a Conservative political commentator who firmly believes that if Leftists ran the country (left to their own devices), it would be the end of the United States as a sovereign nation.

Ellie

thedrifter

03-23-05, 10:12 PM

The law is failing Terri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Krauthammer
March 23, 2005

WASHINGTON -- If I were in Terri Schiavo's condition, I would not want a feeding tube. But Terri Schiavo does not have the means to make her intentions known. We do not know what she would have wanted. We have nothing to go on. No living will, no advance directives, no durable power of attorney.

What do you do when you have nothing to go on? You try to intuit her will, using loved ones as surrogates.

In this case, the loved ones disagree. The husband wants Terri to die; the parents do not. The Florida court gave the surrogacy to her husband, under the generally useful rule that your spouse is the most reliable diviner of your wishes: You pick your spouse and not your parents, and you have spent most of your recent years with your spouse and not your parents.

The problem is that although your spouse likely knows you best, there is no guarantee he will not confuse his wishes with yours. Terri's spouse presents complications. He has a girlfriend, and has two kids with her. He clearly wants to marry again. And a living Terri stands in the way.

Now, all of this may be irrelevant in his mind. He may actually be acting entirely based on his understanding of his wife's wishes. And as she left nothing behind, the courts have been forced to conclude based on his testimony that she would prefer to be dead.

That is why this is a terrible case. The general rule of spousal supremacy leads you here to a thoroughly repulsive conclusion.

Repulsive because in a case where there is no consensus among the loved ones, one's natural human sympathies suggest giving custody to the party committed to her staying alive and pledging to carry the burden themselves.

Let's be clear about her condition. She is not dead. If she were brain-dead, we would be talking about harvesting her organs. She is a living, breathing human being. Some people have called her a vegetable. Apart from the term being disgusting, how do they know? How can we be sure of the complete absence of any consciousness, any awareness, any anything ``inside'' this person?

The crucial issue in deciding whether or not one would want to intervene to keep her alive is whether there is, as one bioethicist put it to me, ``anyone home.'' Her parents, who see her often, believe that there is. The husband maintains there is no one home. (But then again he has another home, making his judgment somewhat suspect.)

The husband has not allowed a lot of medical testing in the last few years. I have tried to find out what her neurological condition actually is. But the evidence is sketchy, old and conflicting. The Florida court found that most of her cerebral cortex is gone. But ``most'' does not mean all. There might be some cortex functioning. The very severely retarded or brain-damaged can have some consciousness. And we do not go around euthanizing the minimally conscious in the back wards of the mental hospitals on the grounds that their lives are not worth living.

Given our lack of certainty, given that there are loved ones prepared to keep her alive and care for her, how can you allow the husband to end her life on his say-so?

Because following the generally sensible rules of Florida custody laws, conducted with due diligence and great care over many years in this case, this is where the law led.

For Congress and the president to then step in and try to override that by shifting the venue to a federal court was a legal travesty, a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers. The federal judge who refused to reverse the Florida court was certainly true to the law.

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.

There is no good outcome to this case. Except perhaps if Florida and the other states were to amend their laws and resolve conflicts among loved ones differently -- by granting authority not necessarily to the spouse but to whatever first-degree relative (even if in the minority) chooses life and is committed to support it. Call it Terri's law. It will help prevent us having to choose in the future between travesty and tragedy.

Ellie

thedrifter

03-23-05, 10:12 PM

Michael Schiavo: Hapless Victim or Twisted Husband?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 22, 2005
by Dustin Hawkins

Michael Schiavo has spent so much time on Tragedy TV since “step one” of starving his wife to death that one might be led to believe he is either running for Congress or selling a book. Either way he has a built-in following stretching from the sanity-free zone known as Berkeley to the mental cases of a Harvard faculty meeting. But the question remains: is Michael Schiavo a hapless victim or twisted “husband” with something to hide?

Of course, Michael Schiavo is quick to point out the existence of a vast right wing conspiracy of both crazed religious evangelicals and overly righteous Republicans out to get him. We are just jumping in and attacking him with no good reason. According to Michael, he is but a loving husband who has the best interest of his wife in heart. He has done nothing wrong by wanting to “carry out (his) wife’s wishes.” But it is Mr. Bizarre-o himself who has made his own standing in this case highly suspect.

There have been several cases regarding decisions to end a life brought up in comparison to the Schiavo case. But this case is much different. For one, only one immediate family member wants Terri dead. This family member has received a large sum of money in the form of a settlement for what happened to his wife, and has spent a large sum of that money earmarked mainly for Terri’s therapy and spent it on lawyers for Terri’s demise. Before receiving a settlement, he said he was going to take care of Terri for the rest of his life. After receiving the settlement, he suddenly recalled that she would not have wanted to live like this and began seeking ways to legally off her. I guess the settlement wasn’t quite big enough.

This family member, while fighting to have wife #1 starved to death – the one he cares about so deeply – has an out-of wedlock family which has produced two kids, a set of matching his and hers Mercedes, and even a potential replacement wife (though something tells me that the “till death do we part” line will not make it into the vows this time around).

If Michael Schiavo was ready to move on, as his actions suggest, the easiest thing to do would have been to divorce Terri and release her into the care of the people who haven’t abandoned her and who are willing to stand by her side day and night - in both sickness and in health. That is all they ask. Instead, he has denied them this opportunity, has denied her meaningful therapy, and denied her a right to life. He has refused that an autopsy may be done upon her death and that she be immediately cremated instead of buried, also against her actual family’s wishes. Some observers have requested that an autopsy be done (and not in order to find out the cause of death – we will know that one already.)

Unsurprisingly, this case has pitted Pro-life Conservatives vs. Pro-Life-For-Death-Penalty-Inmates-And-Guantanamo-Bay-Detainees-Only Liberals against each other once again. Congressional Democrats have suddenly found an issue in which they don’t think they have any authority over. It’s amazing, liberals can conclude they have the Constitutional authority through the commerce clause as to how high my sheets’ thread count should be, but this Terri Schiavo nonsense is just too much for them.

By visiting http://www.terrisfight.org, one can see video of Terri Schiavo responding positively to her mother as she cares for her for the day. There is a video where she reacts negatively to a swab test by turning her head away as it is put in her mouth. There is a video of Terri making audible noises and smiling, as well as she can, each time her mother comes into the room to talk with her. When asked to open her eyes, she does it, and when asked to track a balloon around the room, she does that too.

Michael Schiavo claims that this is merely a private family decision, and all of us our just butting in to that. But Terri is not some unwanted sole, as both her real family and the nation has proven. She deserves more than what she is getting from her “husband.” And claiming that it is her wish, when she is defenseless against his claims, means nothing in the court of right and wrong and of life and death. Indeed, her real family wants to keep her alive. And that family is growing by the minute.

Ellie

thedrifter

03-23-05, 10:15 PM

Last update: March 23, 2005 at 6:48 AM

God is merciful enough to offer life beyond feeding tubes
Syl Jones
March 23, 2005 SYL0323

Honey, I never thought I'd be writing to tell you my final wishes if I'm ever in a persistent vegetative state. I can imagine what that feels like because I watch Tom DeLay on television every day, hawking his phony right-to-life politics as if they were the word of God. But we both know that clutching at every last breath in this world negates a much deeper spiritual belief.

I believe that God is merciful enough and great enough to remember those who served him well and to resurrect them after death. Not to a life in heaven where we'd sprout wings and spy on the personal affairs of our friends. No, I mean a resurrection to a restored paradise earth, where the beautiful promise of God's kingdom -- "He will wipe out every tear from their eyes and death will be no more" -- causes me to rejoice.

Unlike the protesters in Florida with their mouths covered with tape saying "Life," you and I actually speak openly about the hope of divine remembrance through resurrection. We do this because there is no Biblical command that we cling to this life -- but there is a command that we discuss the good news of God's kingdom. Thousands of martyrs have willingly relinquished their lives because they believed in the promise of that kingdom and its power to restore their lives just as God restored the life of Jesus.

There are other things I'd like to stipulate in the event that I become brain-dead. I agree to inform my parents -- upon whose common sense you may rely -- that a public battle over keeping me alive would bring unrelenting shame upon my children and my God. Please inform your parents the same and ask them to respect our belief that the passing of our bodies releases our spirit to return to God, where, with hope, he will remember us.

Also, ask my son and daughters to keep CNN and the rest of the exploitative media out of my hospital room. I'd rather not have pictures of me broadcast around the world half-naked and hovering between life and death. That would be cruel and unnecessarily distressing to my family and friends.

Should Congress threaten to get involved --if the hulking figure of Dennis Hastert ever darkens my doorway -- please call an immediate news conference. Ask Congress why, if they are so pro-life, haven't they pulled the 130,000 American men and women out of Iraq and stopped killing people there? Ask them why they've allowed the CIA to outsource torture so that living human beings are suffering on their watch. Ask them, too, if there isn't a glaring contradiction between being pro-life and supporting the sale of .50-caliber rifles. Make the point that the surging violence in this country is surely not befitting a Judeo-Christian nation and ask why they aren't spending their time reducing real violence instead of staging special sessions.

Most of all, ask them why their vehement pro-marriage stance hasn't stopped them from destroying the simple but sacred bond between Terri and Michael Schiavo, husband and wife. If a husband can't speak for his wife, and vice versa, when facing life-and-death issues, then the cockeyed conservatism of an ignorant few has gutted the very meaning of marriage.

During Easter week -- supposedly the most holy period of Christendom's many celebrations -- you'd think that someone -- particularly the "faithful" who are carrying signs and marching in blind support of "life" -- would ask if the story of Jesus' death and resurrection offers any clues to this dilemma.

Would Jesus, for instance, have sanctioned the use of a feeding tube to save his own life or that of his many disciples? If not, why would we? Was he not rescued after death by the one of whom it is said, "With God, all things are possible"? If so, isn't that more than enough?

So, honey, it is my will that you never be burdened by such decisions. Rest assured in my faith that if God means for me to live despite persistent vegetation, he certainly has the power to do it without doctors, cameras or feeding tubes. He has, in fact, already done it, through the gift of his Son, who conquered death for all time and showed us the way and the truth and the light.

Syl Jones, Minnetonka, is a journalist, playwright and corporate communications consultant.

Ellie

thedrifter

03-24-05, 06:05 AM

In Love With Death
The bizarre passion of the pull-the-tube people.

Thursday, March 24, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

God made the world or he didn't.

God made you or he didn't.

If he did, your little human life is, and has been, touched by the divine. If this is true, it would be true of all humans, not only some. And so--again, if it is true--each human life is precious, of infinite value, worthy of great respect.

Most--not all, but probably most--of those who support Terri Schiavo's right to live believe the above. This explains their passion and emotionalism. They believe they are fighting for an invaluable and irreplaceable human life. They are like the mother who is famously said to have lifted the back of a small car off the ground to save a child caught under a tire. You're desperate to save a life, you're shot through with adrenaline, your strength is for half a second superhuman, you do the impossible.

That is what they are trying to do.

They do not want an innocent human life ended for what appear to be primarily practical and worldly reasons--e.g., Mrs. Schiavo's quality of life is low, her life is pointless. They say: Who is to say it is pointless? And what does pointless even mean? Maybe life itself is the point.

I do not understand the emotionalism of the pull-the-tube people. What is driving their engagement? Is it because they are compassionate, and their hearts bleed at the thought that Mrs. Schiavo suffers? But throughout this case no one has testified that she is in persistent pain, as those with terminal cancer are.
If they care so much about her pain, why are they unconcerned at the suffering caused her by the denial of food and water? And why do those who argue for Mrs. Schiavo's death employ language and imagery that is so violent and aggressive? The chairman of the Democratic National Committee calls Republicans "brain dead." Michael Schiavo, the husband, calls House Majority Leader Tom DeLay "a slithering snake."

Everyone who has written in defense of Mrs. Schiavo's right to live has received e-mail blasts full of attacks that appear to have been dictated by the unstable and typed by the unhinged. On Democratic Underground they crowed about having "kicked the sh-- out of the fascists." On Tuesday James Carville's face was swept with a sneer so convulsive you could see his gums as he damned the Republicans trying to help Mrs. Schiavo. It would have seemed demonic if he weren't a buffoon.

Why are they so committed to this woman's death?

They seem to have fallen half in love with death.

What does Terri Schiavo's life symbolize to them? What does the idea that she might continue to live suggest to them?

Why does this prospect so unnerve them? Again, if you think Terri Schiavo is a precious human gift of God, your passion is explicable. The passion of the pull-the-tube people is not.

I do not understand their certainty. I don't "know" that any degree of progress or healing is possible for Terri Schiavo; I only hope they are. We can't know, but we can "err on the side of life." How do the pro-death forces "know" there is no possibility of progress, healing, miracles? They seem to think they know. They seem to love the phrases they bandy about: "vegetative state," "brain dead," "liquefied cortex."

I do not understand why people who want to save the whales (so do I) find campaigns to save humans so much less arresting. I do not understand their lack of passion. But the save-the-whales people are somehow rarely the Stop stop-abortion-please people.
The PETA people, who say they are committed to ending cruelty to animals, seem disinterested in the fact of late-term abortion, which is a cruel procedure performed on a human.

I do not understand why the don't-drill-in-Alaska-and-destroy-its-prime-beauty people do not join forces with the don't-end-a-life-that-holds-within-it-beauty people.

I do not understand why those who want a freeze on all death penalty cases in order to review each of them in light of DNA testing--an act of justice and compassion toward those who have been found guilty of crimes in a court of law--are uninterested in giving every last chance and every last test to a woman whom no one has ever accused of anything.

There are passionate groups of women in America who decry spousal abuse, give beaten wives shelter, insist that a woman is not a husband's chattel. This is good work. Why are they not taking part in the fight for Terri Schiavo? Again, what explains their lack of passion on this? If Mrs. Schiavo dies, it will be because her husband, and only her husband, insists she wanted to, or would want to, or said she wanted to in a hypothetical conversation long ago. A thin reed on which to base the killing of a human being.

The pull-the-tube people say, "She must hate being brain-damaged." Well, yes, she must. (This line of argument presumes she is to some degree or in some way thinking or experiencing emotions.) Who wouldn't feel extreme sadness at being extremely disabled? I'd weep every day, wouldn't you? But consider your life. Are there not facets of it, or facts of it, that make you feel extremely sad, pained, frustrated, angry? But you're still glad you're alive, aren't you? Me too. No one enjoys a deathbed. Very few want to leave.

Terri Schiavo may well die. No good will come of it. Those who are half in love with death will only become more red-fanged and ravenous.
And those who are still learning--our children--oh, what terrible lessons they're learning. What terrible stories are shaping them. They're witnessing the Schiavo drama on television and hearing it on radio. They are seeing a society--their society, their people--on the verge of famously accepting, even embracing, the idea that a damaged life is a throwaway life.

Our children have been reared in the age of abortion, and are coming of age in a time when seemingly respectable people are enthusiastic for euthanasia. It cannot be good for our children, and the world they will make, that they are given this new lesson that human life is not precious, not touched by the divine, not of infinite value.

Once you "know" that--that human life is not so special after all--then everything is possible, and none of it is good. When a society comes to believe that human life is not inherently worth living, it is a slippery slope to the gas chamber. You wind up on a low road that twists past Columbine and leads toward Auschwitz. Today that road runs through Pinellas Park, Fla.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster), a collection of post-Sept. 11 columns, which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.

Ellie

thedrifter

03-24-05, 10:50 AM

Starved for justice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Coulter
March 24, 2005

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: 1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard), 2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), and 3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.

In two of the three cases mentioned above, the Democrats' use of force was in direct contravention of court rulings. Admittedly, this was a very long time ago - back in U.S. history when the judiciary was only one of the three branches of our government. Democratic Gov. Orval Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard expressly for purposes of defying rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts.

The decadent buffoon Bill Clinton sent armed agents from the INS to seize a small boy from an American family - despite rulings by the majestic and infallible Florida courts granting custody of the boy to that very family.

None of these exercises of military force has gone down in history as a noble moment, but that's because of the underlying purpose of the force, not the fact that force was used.

To the contrary, what has gone down in history as a glorious moment for the republic was when President Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) called out military force of his own. In response to Gov. Faubus' abuse of the National Guard, Eisenhower simultaneously revoked Faubus' control of the National Guard and ordered the 101st Airborne Division to escort black students to school. (Minutes later, Democrats pronounced the Arkansas public schools a "hopeless quagmire" and demanded to know what Ike's exit strategy was.)

As important as it was to enforce the constitutional right to desegregated schools, isn't it also important to enforce Terri Schiavo's right to due process before she is killed by starvation?

Liberals' newfound respect for "federalism" is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word "federalism."

I note that whenever liberals talk about "federalism" or "states' rights," they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature - or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals mean by "federalism" is: a state court ruling. Just as "choice" refers to only one choice, "the rule of law" refers only to "the law as determined by a court."

As a practical matter, courts will generally have the last word in interpreting the law because courts decide cases. But that's a pragmatic point. There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too.

It would be chaotic if public officials made a habit of disregarding court rulings simply because they disagreed with them. But a practice borne of practicality has led the courts to greater and greater flights of arrogance. Sublimely confident that no one will ever call their bluff, courts are now regularly discovering secret legal provisions requiring abortion and gay marriage and prohibiting public prayer and Ten Commandments displays.

Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband.

Florida state court Judge George Greer - last heard from when he denied an order of protection to a woman weeks before her husband stabbed her to death - determined that Terri would have wanted to be starved to death based on the testimony of her husband, who was then living with another woman. (The judge also took judicial notice of the positions of O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and Robert Blake.) The husband also happened to be the only person present when the oxygen was cut off to Terri's brain in the first place. He now has two children with another woman.

Greer has refused to order the most basic medical tests for brain damage before condemning a woman to death. Despite all those years of important, searching litigation we keep hearing about, Terri has yet to receive either an MRI or a PET scan - although she may be allowed to join a support group for women whose husbands are trying to kill them.

Greer has cut off the legal rights of Terri's real family and made her husband (now with a different family) her sole guardian, citing as precedent the landmark "Fox v. Henhouse" ruling of 1893. Throughout the process that would result in her death sentence, Terri was never permitted her own legal counsel. Evidently, they were all tied up defending the right to life of child-molesting murderers.

Given the country's fetishism about court rulings, this may be a rash assumption, but I presume if Greer had ordered that Terri Schiavo be shot at her husband's request - a more humane death, by the way - the whole country would not sit idly by, claiming to be bound by the court's ruling because of the "rule of law" and "federalism." President Bush would order the FBI to protect her and Gov. Bush would send in the state police.

What was supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch has become the most dangerous - literally to the point of ordering an innocent American woman to die, and willfully disregarding congressional subpoenas. They can't be stopped - solely because the entire country has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as the word of God. The only power courts have is that everyone jumps when they say "jump." (Also, people seem a little intimidated by the black robes. From now on we should make all judges wear lime-green leisure suits.)

President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.

If Gov. Jeb Bush doesn't say something similar to the Florida courts that have ordered Terri Schiavo to die, he'll be the second Republican governor disgraced by the illiterate ramblings of a state judiciary. Gov. Mitt Romney will never recover from his acquiescence to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's miraculous discovery of a right to gay marriage. Neither will Gov. Bush if he doesn't stop the torture and murder of Terri Schiavo.

Ann Coulter is host of AnnCoulter.org, a Townhall.com member group.

Ellie

thedrifter

03-25-05, 06:27 AM

If Terri Schiavo Could Talk

March 24, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tom Purcell

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Terri Schiavo could talk, maybe this is what she would say:

I’ve been humbled and amazed that my life could generate so much attention and discussion, but please don’t worry about me.

No matter what happens to me -- and I may be gone before you even read this -- I’ll be well. If my feeding tube is reinserted and I live, I’ll be surrounded by people who love me. If I die, I’ll go to a better place, where I’ll wait patiently to be rejoined by the people I love so much.

No, it is America I am worried about.

A Fox News poll showed that 59% of Americans believe my feeding tube should be removed. I’m not on a respirator, mind you, but merely need nourishment to live, and yet many Americans are eager to withhold my food and water until my body slowly shuts down.

The “reasoning” behind this thinking is what is troublesome. If you were in my situation, some of you say, you wouldn’t want to go on living, and that is your justification for letting me die.

Others among you won’t say it aloud, but you view me as an inconvenience. In your minds you compare me to your elderly parents or grandparents who may require extraordinary love and care one day -- sacrifices you’re too selfish to make.

So you determine that if I am not 100% of what I was -- if part of my brain is damaged and I cannot take care of myself -- then I should be left to die. You feel this way, even though I clearly display a level of awareness, and even though my voice and facial expressions show that part of me is still there.

I think you are willing to believe I should be left to die because you have become a cynic. Your cynical worldliness blinds you to the fact that I am a human of extraordinary blessings.

Look at the love that surrounds me every single day. My parents, sister and brother adore me, nurture me and shower me with compassion. It is a gift that I wish everyone could experience.

I have given to them, too. Yes, they wish I was healthy and vibrant and had a family of my own. But the tragedy that befell me brought us all together -- it brought out a depth of love they did not know they were capable of.

Millions go to bed praying for me every night, and you have no idea how this calms my soul. I feel the pull of their spirits connecting me more closely with our God, who I know is watching over me.

Of course, the cynics among you say that if God existed, He never would have let such a tragedy befall me, but there you go again.

Whether or not you understand it, every human life has meaning and purpose -- even a life like mine. God works in mysterious ways -- ways that no human can fully grasp. And maybe this has been my purpose in this life.

Maybe God is letting my “husband,” with the full sanction of the courts, rush me to my end to see how you respond. Maybe it’s time that a country that celebrates individual freedoms and rights rethinks how the most vulnerable among us are treated.

Maybe God is using my pain and suffering to remind us all that there is nothing more precious than life, and that all life should be treated with dignity and compassion, as my family has done so beautifully.

Maybe God is trying to remind us all that it is His role, not ours, to determine when life shall be taken. And make no mistake, withholding food and water is tantamount to taking life.

I don’t know why this fate has befallen me, but please don’t worry about me. It is hard for some to see, but I’ve been very blessed. It is you I worry about.

Tom Purcell

Ellie

thedrifter

03-25-05, 10:56 AM

The War on Michael Schiavo/The War Over Life
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 25, 2005
by Nicholas Stix

Do you hate Michael Schiavo?

The sociologist Peter Berger once said that from a few facts (education level, magazine subscriptions, religion, etc.), a competent sociologist could correctly guess about most of the rest of a person's public life (politics, among other things). Well, regarding the Terri Schiavo case, if I know how a person feels about Michael Schiavo, I can draw a great many other conclusions about him, with a high degree of accuracy.

If you hate Michael Schiavo, you're likely opposed to abortion, a Christian, a Republican, and a religious conservative. If you do not hate him, you're likely a liberal, a Democrat, pro-abortion, and while you may have been born a Christian, you are of the lapsed or hostile variety. I said likely, not certainly.

What about Terry, you ask? This isn't about Terri. As liberal Harvard University constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe observed on the Lehrer Report in a brilliant stalemate of a debate with Jay Alan Sekulow of the religious conservative American Center for Law and Justice on Monday, there are hundreds of cases in America identical to the Schiavo case, but without Congress getting involved, and seeking to violate the principles of law (such as crafting a law intended to apply to only one person, or seeking to usurp the judicial branch).

So that we're clear, I do not support removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. The removal, had I any say in it, would make me feel uncomfortable.

I can imagine a Schiavist responding, 'This isn't about your feelings.'

Oh, but it is, I would respond. It is entirely about feelings - mine and yours.

As far as I can see, the Schiavists are not primarily motivated by principles. This case is primarily about blind passion, specifically the blind hatred that the people driving the case have for Terri's husband, Michael. On a thread at the Free Republic message board discussing a particularly libelous rant against Mr. Schiavo, the psychotic rantings of the FReepers dominating the thread elicited a rational response from FReeper HMFIC:

"No doubt. I'd HATE to have some of these people on a jury trying me for something.

"The HELL with the FACTS of the case. It's all gut reaction. So if they don't like your suit, that's that, you're getting the chair."

If you don't believe me, just read a few of the countless anti-Michael articles and message boards. If you do, you will learn such "facts" as:

Michael wants to murder Terri out of greed.

Michael wants to murder Terri, in order to keep her from talking about the abuse he visited upon her, which caused her condition.

Michael has withheld care which would help Terri recover and lead a normal life.

Michael fits the "profile" of an O.J. Simpson.

Convicted murderers' civil rights have been respected more than Terri's have.

Michael and everyone supporting him are crooks.

Terri is a disabled person; we need greater legal protection for disabled people.

The spouse of a disabled person should not have legal power over that person, but must have to share that power with the disabled person's birth family (parents and siblings).

The Terri Schiavo case is ultimately about whether one is pro-life.

Like many a popular movement, the one on behalf of Terri Schiavo did not arise from a great love, but from a great hatred. The Schiavists hate Michael Schiavo to the depths of their soul.

'Greed': If Michael Schiavo were greedy, he would have found a way to do away with his wife ten years ago, just after he received a $1 million malpractice settlement. But he didn't. He put the money into a trust for her case, where it has been virtually exhausted - perhaps $50,000 remains.

Granted, the first guardian ad litem in the case for Terri Schiavo, Richard L. Pearse Jr. did say in 1998, that Mr. Schiavo's attitude towards prolonging his wife's life seemed to change when he came into a $1 million malpractice judgment against her former doctors. However, on Nightline a few days ago, the second guardian ad litem, Jay Wolfson, said that doctors had told Mr. Schiavo from the beginning that his wife's case was hopeless, and that after five years of caring for her, he seemed finally to accept what they had been saying all along. Note that unlike just about everyone else who has weighed in on the case, Jay Wolfson, a lawyer and professor specializing in health law, has not aligned himself either with Mr. Schiavo or his in-laws, Bob and Mary Schindler, and appears to have no ox to gore.

Wolfson emphasized that Mr. Schiavo had demanded and gotten an extraordinarily high level of care for his wife, and during the first five years had even trained as a nurse, in order to assist in her care. Wolfson said that Mrs. Schiavo had suffered no decubitus ulcers (aka bed sores), which patients in such a condition typically suffer.

A patient who has no control over her body must be turned in bed or otherwise moved approximately once every four hours. Otherwise, her skin will break down and disintegrate, which can lead to death. I once assisted a nurse in changing the dressing on a patient with a stage four decubitus ulcer, and in the most horrible sight I ever saw, the tissue and bone were fully exposed. It is as if a person's body were slowly decomposing, while she was still alive.

My wife, who is a nursing home nurse, informs me that when patients leave to be temporarily treated in hospitals, they typically return with stage one decubitus ulcers, because the quality of hospital care for such patients is typically negligent.

Note that it is far from clear that what Mr. Schiavo is doing is murder.

'Michael wants to shut Terri up.'
Terri is not talking, and never will, feeding tube or no feeding tube. Her cerebral cortex liquefied years ago, for crying out loud. And what is he seeking to silence her about? According to many Schiavists, he beat and strangled her, causing her brain damage.

Nonsense. Mrs. Schiavo suffered a heart attack, due to her going on an iced tea diet, and suffering a potassium imbalance. The brain damage followed from a lack of oxygen during the heart attack.

Many of the "strangulation"/"Michael wants to shut Terri up" stories seem to have originated with the Schindlers themselves. Schiavists have portrayed Mrs. Schiavo's parents as angels locked in mortal combat with her demonic husband. The truth is, that the Schindlers are no angels. Their hatred of their son-in-law runs so deep, that they have for several years engaged in a ruthless campaign against him. The legal term for making horrendous criminal accusations against a person without a shred of proof, is defamation.

'Michael has withheld care which would help Terri recover.' No such care exists for someone in Mrs. Schiavo's condition. Only divine intervention could have helped her, and even if Mr. Schiavo were as demonic as he has been portrayed, he would not be able to stop such intervention.

'Michael fits the "profile" of an O.J. Simpson or Scott Peterson.' The psychiatrist who has made such assertions, "Dr. Carole Lieberman, M.D.," promotes herself in her press releases as "a Board Certified Psychiatrist on the Clinical Faculty of UCLA" (yup - she puts out press releases, which are distributed by a PR firm, in effect advertising her lack of professional integrity).

"Having interviewed Terri's father on her radio show ('Dr. Carole's Couch' on voiceamerica.com), Dr. Lieberman uncovered the fact that Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, fits the profile of a wife-abuser - the same profile that fit O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson."

The source of the above claim is none other than Dr. Lieberman, who enjoys discussing herself in the third person. (Any headshrinkers in the house to do a thirty-second psychoanalysis of Dr. Lieberman?) Profiles aren't facts, they're theories. And note that the good doctor based her "fact" solely on a radio interview with a man who hates Mr. Schiavo's guts, and thus is not a credible source. But Dr. Lieberman fails to or refuses to distinguish between ascertained facts and defamatory gossip.

continued...........

thedrifter

03-25-05, 10:57 AM

Lieberman, who comes straight out of the Sigmund Fraud school of psychiatry, ought to lose her medical license, though she probably won't. Such talk is voodoo psychiatry and defamatory, and has no...

thedrifter

03-25-05, 10:57 AM

Well, you know what? I didn't marry my mother; I married my wife. And if I were to become a turnip, and my mother or father or sister could get a judge to force my wife to somehow "share" or cede altogether her power to make decisions on my behalf, the judge would, in effect, be dissolving my marriage. No one can dissolve the Schiavo's marriage but Mr. Schiavo.

Judge Greer ruled, "By clear and convincing evidence, it was determined she did not want to live under such burdensome conditions and that she would refuse such medical treatment-assistance."

Schiavists insist that the feeding tube is not even basic care. They foresee Mrs. Schiavo receiving every kind of physical and occupational therapy, which, they assure us, would have miraculous effects on her. And the fact that she has not received such therapy over the past 15 years is proof, they say, that Mrs. Schiavo has suffered medical neglect.

In the real world, very few nursing home patients get such care. The record books will show that the patients receive therapy, but in most nursing homes I'm familiar with, the nurse aides simply lie, and say they gave the patients therapy. If they don't lie, the home will face sanctions and fines, and the nurse aides will be fired. In many homes, the nurse aides simply don't have the time; in others, they are too lazy. (Nurse aides also lie about patients' pulse rates, and simply copy the previous reading, in most cases because they don't know how to take a pulse.) The remarkable thing about the nursing home and hospice where Mrs. Schiavo has resided, is that the aides kept such honest and accurate records.

In Mrs. Schiavo's case, however, the feeding tube is a form of life support, the functional equivalent of a ventilator. Hundreds of thousands of people receive nourishment through a "feeding tube," known in nursing as a "g-tube" (gastric), but thousands of those people simply have a problem swallowing or a related gastric problem. They can speak or otherwise communicate with the world; Mrs. Schiavo can't. Her only connection to the world is through that g-tube.

When my grandmother was felled by a series of strokes just before her 80 th birthday, although she was in a persistent vegetative state, or as folks said at the time, "vegetating," she could still swallow. And so for over three years she was fed pureed food by her nurses. And at the beginning, unlike Mrs. Schiavo, Nana did occasionally talk, as if in a dream. I recall her once talking about "paper," telling someone to get her some paper. (She had been an executive secretary, and later served as our hometown's deputy registrar for about thirty years.)

But soon thereafter, my nana stopped talking. She wasted away, and after three years, she died.

I realized after the first year, that my nana was dead, even though her heart was still pumping. I grieved for her in private. But my aunt would not face reality. Like Mrs. Schiavo's parents, she projected signs of mental life onto my nana.

Schiavists insist that the Terri Schiavo case is ultimately about whether one is pro-life. They insist that Mr. Schiavo is committing euthanasia, in other words, murder, and that supporting life in the Schiavo case is no different than opposing abortion. They believe that they have the law, morality, and God on their side.

Well, the courts have unanimously disagreed with the Schiavists regarding the law, and so have I. I also refuse to believe that they have the moral high ground, even aside from their lies about the case. They have to redefine an extraordinary means to maintain life as basic or even less than basic care.

But even their religious claims are suspect.

Acting on my suspicions, I spoke with my Chicago-area writer friend, Jim Bowman. Jim is a veteran journalist who has written on religion for some 37 years, as well as literature, politics and the newspaper trade. He wrote the book, Priests at Work: Catholic Pastors Tell How They Apply Church Law in Difficult Cases, and maintains the blogs Blithely, Blithely , Chicago Newspapers , and The Churches.

But before Jim went into journalism, and before he married and raised six wonderful children, all of whom are grown, he was a Jesuit priest. And so I asked him about the Schiavists' allegations of adultery and murder against Mr. Schiavo.

Adultery: "As long as she's alive, strictly speaking, he's an adulterer. They would punt, frankly."

In other words, the priest would likely withhold making a judgment.

"If the guy came up to him and said, "Forgive me, Father," I don't know what they would say, but it's quite possible they would say, "Do the best you can," and they wouldn't try to be in judgment in this particular case … now that he's got the children that are depending on him.

In this regard, Bowman was speaking analogous to the case of the "bad marriage" in Priests at Work. A "bad marriage" is a euphemism for one that is forbidden, according to Church law, since it follows a divorce, which is forbidden by Church law. Priests are not supposed to accept such errant sheep into the flock. But of course, they do.

What about the issue of murder? "That has to do with so-called extraordinary means…. That is a consecrated expression in moral theology.

In the standard teaching that I heard years ago, long before any liberalization might have taken place, was that you're not obliged to take any extraordinary means to keep the patient alive.

"Now, some may say, well, look, the feeding tube maybe once was extraordinary but it isn't anymore….

"So, that would be one issue, whether it's extraordinary care or not.

The other question is what is her state, whether she's in a vegetative state. But that wouldn't matter anyhow, I mean the question is keeping her alive by an extraordinary means. That's the whole issue. Is it extraordinary or isn't it? If it is, then you're not obliged to …

Bowman then spoke of how when his extended family faced the coming death of his aged in-laws, the family bonds ultimately came out stronger.

"There are philosophical issues and there are governmental issues. So that's why the stakes are so high. The thing is loaded. And it's a battle in terms of the whole life issue."

Jim brought up Robert Novak's column that day, in which Novak told of journalists yelling at each over across the generations and across dinner tables in the most cantankerous intramural disputes seen since the Vietnam War, and in which typical political positions were often being switched.

That reminded me of the battle royal last Monday night on the Lehrer Report, in which liberal Laurence Tribe argued for states' rights, and religious conservative Jay Alan Sekulow argued for federal intervention into a state matter.

"There are two things operating in the Christian framework. One is to protect life, and the other is to accept death.

"[Regardng the Schiavo case, Jim's wife] said, 'Well, what do you think Dr. White would do?' Dr. White was our doctor for many years. A very big pro-life doctor. He founded the La Leche League, promoting breastfeeding. He delivered his kids at home …

"He didn't believe in pain, but he sure was very skeptical about medicine, and what you would use on this or that. He died recently at 80. He and his wife had 10 or 11 kids. And he delivered his own kids at home, after about the third or so, when they got fed up with the hospital experience. Anyhow, in the middle of raising those kids, a lovely late teenaged daughter, a poet, got sick and died of natural causes. And died at home. Born at home, died at home.

"In the middle of the night, when she expired, they woke up the other kids, 'Come on in and let's say a prayer.'

"There is an acceptance of it that doesn't fit with a frenzied, all-out effort to save life, no matter what, see? And that's part of the Christian business too, you know. You're not going to be callous about it. On the one hand you don't want to be callous about it, but on the other, you've got this fact of the Christian existence. You accept death. You don't rage against the dying of the light, with Dylan Thomas. That's not the Christian approach at all.

"And you could question the approach of, say, the parents, who are absolutely frenzied in their wanting to keep the flicker of life.

[Stix:] The weird thing is, this may sound very cynical, but a lot of this for me boils down to the war between the parents and the husband. It's like an ugly divorce.

"And at the same time, you've got these other [religious/political] issues, whether you like it or not. They're a part of it."

If I take Jim Bowman's perspective seriously - and I always take Jim seriously - what we may have in the Schiavo case and others to come, is beyond the mundane hatreds, a confused melding of mutually incompatible Christian religious and American secular ideas regarding the sanctity of life.

Ellie

HardJedi

03-25-05, 11:09 AM

all i really have to say abput any of this is that it is Qaulity OF LIFE THAT MATTERS, NOT EXISTING. LET THE WOMAN DIE ALREADY.

Crockett,CR

03-25-05, 01:04 PM

If it were me... I wouldnt want to put my family through all the torment that her family has gone thru. I personaly think the woman has spent the last 15 years in her own personel hell.
For God's sake...let her go...
Another good case for a living will!

thedrifter

03-25-05, 09:46 PM

Terri Schiavo: Death Be Not Proud 
 
March 24, 2005 
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
by Frank Salvato 
...

thedrifter

03-25-05, 09:47 PM

thedrifter

03-25-05, 09:55 PM

Friday, March 25, 2005
The Hard Lessons of the Schaivo Crime
Terri Schaivo is going to die. Very probably well before her expected lifespan would have been. Short of divine intervention, it will happen in the next few days. May God forgive those responsible.

Folks, I say that last, because it is we who are the guilty, not judge Greer, not the Liberal mainstream media, not the doctors or nurses, not the police enforcing the ruling, only us. That's right, you and me. It is we who have allowed our nation to stray too far into the realm of the irreligious, the unspiritual, the non-belief in God. We who have allowed our nation to become a secular, unfeeling, uncaring, unGodly nation of sheep. I use the word sheep advisedly, because we have devolved to our baser animal natures. We worship the material and reject the spiritual. We have allowed crudity and vulgarity to become commonplace in our society.

There was a time, not too distant in the past, when a person could be arrested for using the kind of language, on the sidewalk, that we now hear on a daily basis on television and radio. We watch near-pornographic soap-operas in the afternoon, and applaud grotesque and bizarre behavior on so-called "reality TV" at night. Tune into the nightly news cast, and we see cameramen and news crews fighting to be the first to broadcast live from a murder scene, and seemingly to see who can show the most blood. Presumably, they would broadcast the murder live if they could manage it. While not lifting a finger to stop it for fear of "compromising their impartiality."

Our kids play video games that expose them to more blood and violence in a single session, than a hardened combat veteran would see in a lifetime. Movies show killings, dismemberment, and butcherings by the hundreds, and kidnappings and rapes by the dozens. Rap music talks about "bustin' a cap" in someone just for "dissin' me," and objectifies women as "*****es and 'ho's." We now find or young people who (thanks in great part to our "esteemed" former president) don't believe that engaging in anal or oral sex is having sex at all, and consequently are engaging in extremely risky behavior. Young women are buying into the "*****es and 'ho's" routine and feeling the pressure to give up their virtue just to be accepted because they have no self-esteem.

All of this behavior alienates us from our true nature and from God. The continuous exposure to graphic violence desensitizes us to real non-Hollywood violence. How many people watching the tragic events on September 11th, 2001, had the eerie feeling that they were watching a George Lucas spectacular, rather than an actual terrorist attack? How many people felt strangely detached from the events of that day, experiencing the uncomfortable feeling that the collapse of the Twin Towers should have generated more shock and sorrow within them than they actually felt? Was a lot of the anger we expressed the result of what we truly felt as all of those people died, or was it an intellectual anger as a result of guilt we felt because we didn't have a visceral, emotional, reaction?

We have allowed our culture to be hijacked by the non-believing, hedonists in our society, while we sat around allowing ourselves to be made to feel guilty for "judging" those whose behavior was, and still is, unacceptable. We ourselves have become so inured that we participate in behavior or speech that would have shocked us thirty or forty years ago. We have corporate executives who see nothing wrong with destroying the lives of their employees by stealing their retirement funds. We send these criminals to federal country club prisons and expect that kind of treatment to be a deterrent to any further misbehavior by their peers. We have child molesters (a reportedly incurable abberational mind-set) serving a few years behind bars, then being paroled out into "polite" society provided they "register" wherever they go.

Is it any wonder that the judges we have put on the bench would rule as Greer has? In Roe vs. Wade we sewed the seeds of the society that we now reap. By divorcing ourselves from basic moral, social, and cultural, norms, we have allowed anti-American special interest groups with their own social and moral agendas, like the ACLU, to gradually rip away at the fiber of our culture, all under the guise of "protecting our freedoms." In reality, and paradoxically, part of the beauty of our American way of life is the surrender of some of our so-called freedoms for the sake of having a civilized culture. We don't allow people the "freedom" to kill anyone they like, we have speed limits for our mutual safety, and up until the judicial activism of the Warren and later courts, we valued life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness above the power of the state.

The next time you vote for a representative or senator (state or federal), the next time we have a presidential, or gubernatorial election, ask yourself, "What kind of laws these men will write in the books?" "Which of our rights will they abrogate next?" "What kind of judges will these men put on the bench?" The next time you vote for a judge, ask yourself, "What kind of judge will this man be? "Will he be true to the Constitution, or will he make law from the bench?"

For too long, we have allowed these questions to be secondary to other more immediate personal issues. We have allowed an out of control judiciary to seize power that was not given to them by the Constitution. The Supreme Court appointed itself the final arbiter of which laws were constitutional and which laws were not. This was not a power granted to them in the Constitution.

So remember, when Terry Schaivo dies, don't direct your anger at Judge Greer, or anyone else involved with this case, just look in the mirror for the culprit. Look in the mirror, and next election, remember that voting is not a priviledge, it is a responsibility, an obligation given us by our forefathers. It is an obligation not to be taken lightly or carelessly. It is an obligation that may decide who will live and who will die.

Hard Lessons: An Addendum

Well I wasn't going to include this in the article, but I feel compelled to be completely honest in this posting. The real problem with judicial activism started long before the Roe vs. Wade ruling. It began in the '50's during desegregation. Alright, I know that I am going to be called "racist," "biggot," and other worse names, but just hold on a minute. The court rulings that led to the integration of schools and colleges, were justifiable on moral grounds alone, even though they came about from federal intervention into states rights (funny, I seem to have heard the Left shouting "states rights" just this week), because what was involved is a moral imperative. As human beings (as well as taxpayers and citizens), all people have the "unalienable" rights granted by God and ennumerated by the constitution. Was a state to institute a law legalizing murder, I would expect the feds to jump in and re-establish the rule of sane law. However, having said this, when the courts ruled, arbitrarily, that a private business or individual could not discriminate, on any basis whatsoever they chose, they left the bounds of constitutional interpretation, and entered into the scarey realm of law by judicial fiat. It was at that point that Americans began to surrender their freedoms.

How is it that a court (or any individual for that matter) can justify sticking its nose into the affairs of a private business? How it is that a business, which pays taxes to support the government, that receives no federal (or local) funding, and doesn't engage in any criminal activities, can be remotely construed to be fertile ground for governmental intervention escapes me. It was when these rulings came down and the American people, cowed by their fear of being called "racist," or "unfeeling," or even worse "unsophisticated" (uncosmopolitan, whatever), by arrogant, busy-body, America-hating Liberals, failed to stand up and resist these unconstitutional, activist rulings, that we began to slide down the slippery slope that has finally led to Terri Schaivo's court endorsed termination.

You can agree or disagree with my opinion, but those are the facts of the matter.

Ellie

HardJedi

03-25-05, 11:46 PM

well tom, keep on worrying. You seem like a busy body moron trying to push your morality off on other people. I hope someday you DO suffer a fate like hers. and then you will know for sure how it feels. heck, maybe then you won't be so worried about what the rest of us think. You'll be too concerned with your OWN never ending torment and pain.

Matt Starbuck

03-26-05, 01:49 AM

I would not want to be in the position to decide a loved ones fate. I think it's interesting to look at motives, obviously her parents love her, her husband may not. The determining factor will be whether her parents have any legal rights over their daughter or not after she is married. It sounds pretty cut and dried but there are toooo many emotions involved and not enough relevant answers. I will go on record as being against euthanasia, and I don't want the "state" to determine my quality of life and pull my plug. It certainly makes the case for a "living will " and the importance of making your wishes known if you should be in a similar situation.

thedrifter

03-26-05, 08:04 AM

I Come To Bury Terri Schiavo, Not To Praise Her

March 25, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by John Hawkins
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, in the political game, we too seldom take the time to appreciate the efforts of our adversaries on particular issues. So, with the clock running out for Terri Schiavo, I feel compelled to take a moment to congratulate the people who've fought so long and so hard to help Michael "When is that b*tch gonna die?" Schiavo feed his wife into the bureaucratic machine.

I mean seriously, you folks really kept your eye on that trophy corpse and wouldn't let anyone dissuade you...which was tougher than it might seem and not just because the Florida Legislature, the Republican Congress, and even the President are fighting so hard to save her life. In one sense, that's the easy part.

Personally, were I in your position, the tough part would be ignoring her family. You know, I'll fully admit that I like to think of myself as a rational, logical, tough minded sort of guy -- but wow, here we have a mother and father sobbing and begging for someone to help them save their daughter, and it doesn't move you a bit. I mean just look at these quotes:

"Mary Schindler has pleaded with state lawmakers to save her daughter's life.

"Please, senators, for the love of God, I'm begging you, don't let my daughter die of thirst," she said Tuesday outside her daughter's hospice, before she broke down and was escorted away.

...In court documents, the Schindlers said their daughter began "a significant decline" late Monday. Her eyes were sunken and dark, and her lips and face were dry. The feeding tube was removed Friday afternoon.

"While she still made eye contact with me when I spoke to her, she was becoming increasingly lethargic," Bob Schindler said in the papers. "Terri no longer attempted to verbalize back to me when I spoke to her."

They're offering to take care of her, to try to rehabilitate her, to have more tests done to see if she can partially recover...but that doesn't phase you. You were tough enough to just look these suffering people right in the eye and say, "Sorry, we'd rather err on the side of death." Is that playing hardball or what?

Heck, a lot of people might have questioned how much sense it made to allow Michael Schiavo to be his wife's guardian in this situation given that he denied Terri therapy & that he has been banging another woman for ten years. But hey, if the court says he's her guardian and he wants her dead, then it's gotta go, gotta go.

So again, let me congratulate the "pro-death lobby" & the judges that fought so hard to see Terri Schiavo turned into grease on the wheels of the bureaucratic machine. Because of your efforts, it looks like she's going to die of thirst soon, even while people are being arrested for trying to bring her water.

What a "great victory" you are about to claim over those of us who wanted to do some more testing to find out if a woman's life might just be saved. So here's to you: Clap -- clap -- clap....

John Hawkins

Ellie

thedrifter

03-26-05, 12:13 PM

Let Not Terri’s Starvation Be In Vain

March 26, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Kerry L. Marsala
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an innocent life slips away, due to methods used by those of Nazi Germany, the spinning heads of the media circus continue to flap their lips over the case of Terri Schiavo and nothing within this mess makes any sense. Parents who love their children today here in the United States have had all their rights stripped from them by a system that has gone mad. What has happened America to our rights as citizens? What has happened to our freedoms? Where will this case take us America? Where will we end up? Will we end up lying in limbo between life and death- between mate and parents- between judicial courts and mercy? I shutter to think of what our future holds now more than ever.

I can’t help feeling numb in my utter disbelief over the fact that a husband (who obviously wishes release from his wife so he can pursue “marriage” to his common law wife and their two kids) would pursue the murder of someone he promised to love and honor. …What happened to in sickness and in health…till death do us part…? Prior to the seven year mark of Terri’s unfortunate state Mr. Schiavo had been quoted as saying he didn’t know what Terri would have wanted. Now justification for her termination occurs due to sworn testimony given in court at that seven-year mark because Mr. Schiavo stated his wife wouldn’t want to be kept alive on life support. So which is it? Prior to the seven year marker Mr. Schiavo didn’t know what Terri would have wanted done because she never stated, but somehow around that seven year period all of the sudden Mr. Schiavo had a revelation in the court room?

Evidently, the surreal freezing of time we are experiencing within America this hour is being felt not only by the citizens of the United States but by the world over. Remember when Lady Liberty used to sing with arms open wide… give us your tired, your poor, your hungry, your down trodden… Sadly, the world is witnessing the slow deliberate death of not only an American citizen but the death of American justice, care and safety.

When did we become as gods and decide to define what living a “higher quality of life” means? This case isn’t just a case of secularism or Christianity- nor a question of liberal or conservative. This is a case of an innocent human being, who is at the mercy of their legal guardian, being entangled in a web of selfishness, injustices and ultimately her cruel death. Not only are we starving Terri to death, but also we have begun to starve the American public’s safety to death…beware is this the path we really want to go down?

As sides are sharply drawn, does Michael Schiavo realize he has within his power the ability to end this madness? Mr. Schiavo I plead with you…just let Terri’s parents take over her complete care and you sir may go on with your life. What do you have to loose Mr. Schiavo? You’ve got your partner, your children, your quality of life that you desire and you’ve given the Schindler’s a gift…their precious daughter that they love and desire to care for in her state.

Take the questions out of whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state or not. Where are her rights of equal protection and due process? I am not a lawyer, nor a great student of our judicial system…but something just stinks about this whole case. How are we letting an innocent human being lie upon her bed of death and not feel sadness, anger and disbelief? Grasp this please…we are letting a runaway judiciary system and a husband deny a human being food and water.

Terri’s kidneys are failing rapidly, her skin is becoming dry and cracked, her tongue is beginning to swell, her eyes are becoming sunken and all the media can report to us is- according to many doctors dehydration leaves its victims in a state of “euphoria.” For all that is good and right- are we as a nation really going to find comfort in this statement that when human’s find themselves without sustenance they feel “euphoria?” I am sorry; truly, I cannot fathom this turning point in our country’s history.

When the United States began its journey into denying protection for those who cannot defend themselves several years ago, never did I imagine that one-day this denial would begin to include those who are disabled or not living what one might deem as a life of quality.

What else can be said? What other views can be explored? What else is next for a country that used to protect those who couldn’t protect themselves?

Make out your living wills tonight America. Pray that when you reach the point of being unable to communicate your own wishes that those who say they love you don’t begin to misinterpret your living will and push a judicial system, a governmental system, a country, a family, or you and I into the corner that is leaving Terri Schiavo as good as dead.

Terri, I am sure at the time when your chemical imbalance occurred (which has caused this situation to arise) you hadn’t thought of writing a living will, nor had you ever thought that you might be needing your obituary written at 41 years of age.

Terri I never knew you personally, but without a doubt, part of your memorial needs to include this: Parents love your children; they are a gift from God. Terri’s parents- Mr. and Mrs. Schindler- loved you Terri so much that they have been more than willing for the last fifteen years to care for you on a daily basis. Your parents and family have fought for your life all the way up to the Supreme Court of our land Terri- you must have been a very special girl to all your loved ones. A nation Terri- liberals and conservatives- alike have been writing letters on your behalf to help bring justice and protection your way. There have been people of all races, cultures, economic standards, and beliefs who have prayed for you Terri in their own way. Terri most of this world never knew you, but you’ve left an impact on the rest of this world that has rallied us all to take a good long look at our need to write laws of protection to save innocent life. Does our constitution really mean anything in its desires to protect those who cannot protect themselves? This is what we need to ask ourselves Terri.

Terri, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler and family you’ve moved the masses to action. Terri you never intended to become such an important figure to the American people, nor to the world, but Terri you’ve left your mark on this planet…everyone no matter who they are, no matter their religion, no matter their skin color, no matter where they stand…all deserve the rights of protection under our constitution. Terri you life has not been in vain. Shine brightly on Terri, those of us who believe that life is precious will continue to fight for those who cannot defend themselves.

Schindler family thank you for sharing your daughter with the world, take comfort in knowing that we all grieve with you and understand your pain.

Parents love your children while you have them, life is short and it is precious.

God be with you Terri, go in peace and find the comfort and love you deserve. Remember a full and glorious life flows through the power of change. Let Terri Schiavo’s life be a catalyst for change.

Kerry L. Marsala

Ellie

thedrifter

03-26-05, 12:21 PM

Let Terri die
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Mar 26, 2005, 00:16

For God’s sake, let Terri Schiavo die.
To her parents: Let go. Your daughter is a grown woman who told her husband she did not want to be kept alive on life support. Honor her life and wishes by allowing her to die as she wished.

To the elected officials who have used the Schiavo tragedy as a political opportunity: Shame on you. Your callous manipulation of this issue is a new low in the already tarnished history of American politics.

To the so-called right-to-lifers: Drop it. Your heartless use of Terri Schiavo as a poster girl to your cause showcases your lack of humanity and insincerity.

To the media: Stop turning this into a typical cable news network circus. Turn the cameras off and most of the demonstrators will go home. This is a media event because you choose to make it so.

It’s over. The lame attempts by the President of the United States and Congress to circumvent the law failed. The courts have spoken. Terri Schiavo has spoken.

Let her die. It’s the only decent thing left to do.

Ellie

Phantom Blooper

03-26-05, 12:41 PM

A letter to Michael Schaivo
March 26,2005
REV MIKE TURNER

Dear Michael:You and your wife Terri are today among the most famous people in the country. Your long and very public struggle to allow Terri's death by removing her feeding tube has captivated the nation's attention, bringing into sharp relief our core convictions about life and death and the government's involvement in both.

Now that Terri's life seems to be near its end, I write to you out of a sense of profound sadness. She will almost certainly die in the next few days, and I'd like to share with you a few of my thoughts, for whatever they're worth, as all of us try to understand what we've been through.

Terri's brain is apparently damaged beyond repair. The term used to describe her condition is "persistent vegetative state." Terri has been thoroughly examined by competent medical authorities and found to have no cognitive functions. According to them, her brain is dead with no hope of recovery.

With her condition being irreversible, and because she apparently left no living will directing otherwise, you, as her guardian, decided to remove her from the feeding tube that is her only means of sustenance. Terri herself apparently indicated to you years ago that she had no desire to remain on artificial life support under these kinds of conditions.

The many and various legal and political maneuverings in the last few years have all been about your authority as her husband to make that decision. And, to be sure, all the hearings in your home state of Florida have supported your right to do so.

But a couple of things bother me in all this, Michael, and the more I think about them, the more they seem to me to be even more important than all the legal and political hoopla we've recently witnessed.

First, why didn't you just do the obvious? News reports indicate that you've been living with another woman for several years, a woman with whom you've had two children. You've obviously moved on with your life.

Terri's parents, meanwhile, have said they would assume all financial responsibilities for the care of their daughter, if you would simply assign those responsibilities to them. So why wouldn't you do what most people would do under similar circumstances? What would it cost you? What would you have to lose by simply walking away? After all, you're no longer her husband in any meaningful sense; you're only her legal guardian.

But you wouldn't. You wouldn't release the legal guardianship of your disabled wife, even to her parents who would have cared for her with no further responsibilities on your part. Instead, you have consistently and vigorously fought to retain that guardianship and have her feeding tube removed so that she might die.

Maybe there's some rationale to your decision, Michael, but I'm not able to understand what it might be.

Another part of Terri's situation may well be more symbolic than substantive, but it's an important symbol. And this second aspect of her situation grieves me more than anything else because it reveals an underlying dynamic that has far-reaching implications for the entire nation.

I don't know what if any rational comprehension of her condition Terri may have. Various medical authorities say she is unaware of her surroundings. But does that mean that she has no physical sensation of hunger or thirst? Can she feel pain? Does she have any awareness of her body as it moves inexorably through the agonizing process of death by starvation?

Meanwhile, hired security forces posted outside her hospice room prohibit anyone doing anything to help alleviate her suffering. As you're well aware, Michael, no one can lay a hand on Terri Schiavo as she dies, not her supporters, not her friends, not even her parents.

And here's the part that bothers me: have we actually reached the point as a nation where armed guards keep a mother from giving her dying daughter a sip of water?

We wouldn't treat a dying dog like this. We wouldn't treat a convicted murderer like this, as he awaited execution. And yet, Michael, a woman who at one time was your loving wife, a woman who remains the well loved daughter of two grieving parents, is denied the most basic care by those who love her.

I know, I know. You may say that I'm over-simplifying the situation or that I'm grandstanding Terri's condition or that there are serious legal and political implications involved and we can't get too caught up in the small details. Yes, I imagine there are all sorts of ways to rationalize and explain and excuse it all.

But really, Michael, don't you think that at the heart of it all, there's a human being who is loved, if not by you, at least by some others? And don't you think that President Bush, whatever your opinion may be of him, at least said something we ought to consider, that in a complicated case like this we ought to err on the side of life?

You see, Michael, what disturbs me and many other Christians is the callous disregard for human life that is revealed by the circumstances around Terri's death. We believe in life. We believe all life is the gift of God. We believe that human beings are made in the image of God and for that reason, all human life has intrinsic value - even the life of mentally disabled people like your wife.

The Rev. Mike Turner is pastor of First Baptist Church on Gum Branch Road in Jacksonville. His column, "Outlook of Faith," appears on Saturday in The Daily News. Readers can contact the Rev. Turner in care of The Daily News, P.O. Box 196, Jacksonville, NC 28541-0196.

HardJedi

03-26-05, 03:31 PM

to the rev, Mike Turner. Nice letter. it's none of your buisiness to begin with, so butt out ;)

Phantom Blooper

03-26-05, 06:45 PM

HardJedi, I knew when I posted this letter that it would stir controversy. As always,that is why I posted it. I agree that he along with all have the right to voice or pen his opinion. That is what this letter is his opinion. And being Marines we all know or should know the saying about opinions. But as always I will defend his right to voice his opinion to the grave.I don't agree with him,I just think it is an interesting take on this matter. I don't believe that the girl should be starved to death,if she can take substance by mouth,give it to her.If she can't then... But I do beleive that any artificial life support should be stopped and stay stopped. I also believe that the husband, right or wrong should make all decisions. I am not a quoter of scripture,but somewhere in the the good book it says words to the effect of "cleave unto your spouse and forgo all others." If he is doing this by ulterior motives then he along with allot of us will find his hour at the judgement throne.

Politicians in this matter have over stepped their bounds. I don't hold very many politicians in high regard. In a matter of national security or war of this country I may not agree but,I would obey all lawful orders. However since my time on the front is over it is again an opinion...."Politicians and dirty diapers are the same. They need changed regularly." Enough said. Semper-Fi! Chuck Hall

thedrifter

03-27-05, 02:03 AM

America Agrees: Government Should Butt Out of Schiavo Case

March 25, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Robert Paul Reyes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

America is a patchwork quilt of blue and red states, we disagree on everything from abortion to same-sex marriage to the sexual orientation of cartoon characters. But our polarized nation agrees on one thing: We are outraged at the government's overbearing intrusion in the Terri Schiavo case. Eighty-two percent of respondents to a CBS News poll said Congress and the president should stay out of the Schiavo matter, an astonishing consensus in today's culture wars environment. Congress views everything through the prism of political expediency, would you want this "Hallowed Body" to make a decision regarding the life and death of your spouse, mother or child? Does anyone really believe that ethically-challenged House Republican leader Tom Delay, who is on political life support, is acting in the best interests of Mrs Schiavo? As the all-Schiavo cable news outlets breathlessly report every new development from the White House, the courthouse, the Capital and the Florida Legislature, Americans steadfastly have held the view that the government should stay the hell out of this tragic case.

There is a clear consensus that the government should stay out of the Schiavo dilemma, who then should decide if Schiavo should be allowed to die with dignity? Well, state and federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have refused to overrule Florida Circuit Judge George Greer's 2000 order to remove Schiavo's feeding tube based on "clear and convincing" evidence that if reflects her desires.

In other words, the courts have ruled that it's clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Terri expressed the view, when she was alive and lucid, that she did not want to be kept alive by a breathing machine or feeding tube.

Mrs. Schiavo has been in a brain-dead vegetative state for over a decade -- it's time for this poor woman to be set free. This case has been litigated to death -- it's time to put an end to this judicial merry-go-round. Her parents have prolonged Terri's agony long enough -- it's time for them to let her spirit escape her brain-dead body. The Terri Schiavo disaster has dragged on for many interminable years, it has been an unbearable burden on her husband, parents and loved ones - at this point there can be no happy ending. When Schiavo finally dies, whether it's in the next few days, or in a few years, everyone, on both sides of the issue, will shed tears. The only good that can come out of this nightmare is that it has demonstrated to us the utter necessity of having a living will. Before writing this essay, I drafted a living will. You may agree or disagree with my essay, but I hope that you will follow my example and get a living will.

Robert Paul Reyes

Ellie

thedrifter

03-28-05, 07:44 AM

March 28, 2005
Medical Fact Should Decide Terri's Fate, Not Partisan Posturing
By Mort Kondracke

Having personally experienced the agonies that propel both sides in the Terri Schiavo case, I come to this conclusion: The best solution would be to keep her alive long enough to determine, for once and for all, if she is indeed in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of improvement.

If the diagnosis of PVS is correct, then she should be allowed to die, as her husband argues. If it isn't, then she should receive rehabilitative therapy, which her parents are willing to oversee.

The amazing fact is that, through the 15 years of her illness and 11 years of bitter legal wrangling - now highly politicized -Schiavo has never had an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) or a PET (positron emission tomography) scan, which would quickly determine whether she is really beyond hope of recovery.

She once received a CT scan (computed tomography) that supported one of several past diagnoses of PVS, but MRIs and PETs are more modern technology that would give definitive information.

Chances are, she is beyond recovery, based on information collected in 2003 by Jay Wolfson, a lawyer and public health expert appointed to advise the Florida courts and Gov. Jeb Bush (R) on the case.

After reading 30,000 pages of court records, interviewing health professionals who had treated Schiavo and dozens of other experts, and after visiting her and interviewing her husband and parents, Wolfson concluded that Schiavo's "neurological tests and CT scans indicate objective measures of the persistent vegetative state. These data indicate that Theresa's cerebral cortex is principally liquid, having shrunken due to the severe anoxic [oxygen deprivation] trauma 13 years ago.

"It is noteworthy to recall that from the time of her collapse, and for more than three years, Theresa did receive active physical, occupational, speech and even recreational therapy. ... In the observed circumstances, the behavior that Theresa manifests is attributable to brain stem and forebrain functions that are reflexive, rather than cognitive."

Last week, this medical consensus was challenged, principally by Senate Majority Leader (and heart surgeon) Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and a neurologist from the esteemed Mayo Clinic.

The thalamic implant makes an MRI impossible, but a PET scan would tell whether there is any activity in Schiavo's cerebral cortex.

If there's anything encouraging to be taken from the Schiavo controversy, it's this: The public is overwhelmingly on the side of allowing someone to die who is beyond hope of recovery.

That's important for the future of medicine and the economy in this country. A significant proportion of overall U.S. medical costs are paid to care for people in the last weeks of life.

Where lives can be saved, obviously the cost is "worth it." And, in unclear circumstances, it is right to "err on the side of life."

At the same time, the hospice movement and the growth of "palliative medicine" offer humane alternatives to heroic medical intervention when a person's case is hopeless. Polling on the Schiavo case indicates strong public support for these developments.

It's also encouraging that, amid the mad rush by most Republicans to the "right to life" side of the Schiavo argument and most liberal Democrats to the opposite side, some politicians managed to think independently.

Democrats such as Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa), a longstanding defender of the disabled, sided with Republicans on the Schiavo case, only to be pilloried by liberal columnists for lacking the guts to stand up to the forces of right-wing "theocracy."

I can sympathize with the passions felt by the participants in the Schiavo dispute, husband Michael Schiavo and Terri's family, the Schindlers. What's harder to stomach is the certitude of the political combatants.

My wife, Milly, descended in late 2003 into something like PVS because of a "Parkinson's-plus" syndrome known as Multi-Aystem Atrophy. A PET scan confirmed this was happening.

Yet like Schiavo's parents, I hoped beyond hope that Milly was "there." I was sure I saw signs of responsiveness that others - including my daughter, a doctor - said were not there.

Last summer, like Schiavo's husband, I finally concluded that Milly was "gone." In conformity with her "living will," I resolved to stop her feeding tube in August. She died naturally on July 22, sparing me the final agony.

But I understand why Michael Schiavo would resist an outside intervention in what was inherently - and legally - his business, and declared to be so in past cases by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Wolfson report shows that, contrary to allegations of neglect, he provided consistent, loving care to Terri.

"It is notable that through more than 13 years after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore," Wolfson wrote. On the other hand, I can understand the Schindlers' desperate desire to keep their daughter alive and their rage at Michael Schiavo's decision to "kill" her.

What's dismaying is the knee-jerk tendency among liberals and conservatives to rush so passionately to one side or the other in this case. It has more to do with winning the culture war than helping Terri Schiavo, whose fate should rest on medical fact, not political posturing.

Ellie

thedrifter

03-28-05, 08:36 AM

Mary’s Child
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Susan Konig
National Review Online
March 28, 2005

When I saw The Passion of the Christ, the moment that affected me the most was Mary trying to get to Jesus as he labored under the cross through the streets of Jerusalem. A disciple led her through the back streets past the crowds to her son and the whole time I'm thinking, what will she say when she gets to him? What could anyone say to someone who is suffering so much, who is so seemingly without hope? When she finally reaches him she says the perfect thing — the words any child wants to hear from his mother, "I'm here."

It was so moving because it was so right. Director Mel Gibson imagined this meeting, the dialogue. But how precise.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately — I'm writing this on Good Friday. Watching Terri Schiavo's tragedy unfold in front of the world, I think of the videotape where her mom moves her daughter's head to be able to look into her face and suddenly Terri's eyes brighten and she seems to smile. Her mother, Mary Schindler, is there saying, "I'm here."

What else is a mother to do? Some say Terri is not cognizant of anything going on around her and that her expressions are just reflexes. Tell that to any mom whose baby smiles for the first time and hears from the "sage" onlooker, "It's just gas, babies can't smile." Baloney. Mothers know differently. Now with the super-level sonograms, we even see photos of babies smiling in the womb. We've seen the famous photo of the baby, being operated on in utero, reaching out of its mother's womb to grasp the doctor's gloved finger. A need for human contact or just a reflex? Humans, in all stages of development, display their natural yearning for a human touch, a soft word, a smile.

I've been married to my husband for 14 years and I trust him implicitly. I trust him with the lives of our children. We named each other as the responsible parties in our wills. We filled out those living wills less than two years ago at the suggestion of our lawyer but I can't remember what I said. Probably that I would want them to hook me up to as many machines as they could find while they tried to figure out what was wrong with me. If I become that ill, I figure the Lord will take me if He wants me. In any case, the wills are in the filing cabinet if push comes to shove.

So here I am with a written directive and I honestly can't remember specifically what I directed or what my husband's wishes are. If Terri Schiavo, as her husband claims, said she wouldn't want to live that way, I wonder how sure he is. She was in her early twenties at the time of her collapse. If she had written it down, we would have to respect her wishes. And yet, would they have specified something beyond life support, which she was not on, beyond a comatose state, which she was not in?

And if this man had been by her bedside true to his marriage vows for all these years, I might cut him some more slack — but he has moved on and should have been disqualified as her legal guardian years ago because of the flagrant conflict of interest of living with another woman who has given birth to his children.

Her parents on the other hand, have no such barriers to their interest in their daughter's well being. And they have not been visiting an unconscious person all these years. They have interacted with the disabled person their daughter has become. Being able to touch her, to nurture her, and to get a smile or a sound from her seems to have been enough for the woman and her mom and dad.

Your child is always your child. And the thing that a parent can do for a child as long as they live is to always be able to tell them, "I'm here."

— Susan Konig, a journalist, is author of the upcoming Why Animals Sleep So Close to the Road (And Other Lies I Tell My Children).

Ellie

thedrifter

03-29-05, 05:28 AM

Terri's Videos - What's Missing?
March 29, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Kevin McCullough
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you haven't watched them for yourself then you need to. The compelling videos of Terri Schiavo doing a number of things are some of the most telling pieces of evidence as to whether or not Terri is in fact in a "persistent vegetative state".

For the record, a Nobel Prize nominated medical expert Dr. William Hammesfahr - whose specialties include advancements in diagnosis and treatment of severe brain injured/damaged people - noted in his official report in the Terri Schiavo case - that she is not in a vegetative state. That's his expert medical diagnosis speaking there.

He examined Terri personally for more than 10 hours, examined her medical records and video tapes for more than 300 hours in total. Listen to his explanation of the totality of his examinations here, these segments were from my show.

Michael Schiavo's "right to die" activist doctor - Dr. Ron Cranford - examined her for only 48 minutes and stated unequivocally that Terri was PVS.

But a number of other doctors have also examined the video that Dr. Cranford produced, and based on the viewing of that tape believe that Terri is not in a "persistent vegetative state".

The democrats warned us that "no one else" could accurately diagnose Terri to determine whether she was PVS or not, unless they had seen her personally. (Actually it is rumored that the democrats who argued to kill Terri on the floor of the U.S. House last week were just miffed that none of them were bright enough to make it through medical school.)

The Republicans in Congress however - are loaded with doctors. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is in fact highly decorated as one of the nation's finest heart surgeons. (Thus making the democrats "doctor envy" understandable when their leading spokespersons were Barney Franks and Robert Wexler.)

Dr. Frist, Dr. Weldon, and numerous additional medical doctors in Congress, along with Nobel Prize nominated Dr. Hammesfahr, and some 33 additional brain specialists from such schools as UCLA, Tulane, and LSU, all testified to the fact that Terri has not been in a persistent vegetative state.

Of course you also have the sworn testimony of not one but several nurses who have said under oath that Terri used to sit with them at the nurses station in the hospice, interact with them, laugh at their jokes, and even say hello to other residents and visitors.

But all of this evidence from what is easy to decipher as much stronger expert testimony than, Dr. "Quickie" Cranford, we are told - is not to be believed by Judge Grim Reaper - uh I mean - George Greer.

But then I had this question. I was sitting re-watching the Terri videos again and I kept asking myself - what's missing?

As the father of a son who experienced mild disability, and having dated someone in the past whose true love was helping the disabled, and having worked with co-workers who have been parents to severely disabled children - I knew from my experience that something was missing in Terri's case.

And when I read Dr. Hammesfahr's report on Terri, it slammed the door shut confirming my hunch.

You see one of the definitions of someone who is PVS is that they can not swallow. A "liquified cortex" would prevent someone from being able to swallow the saliva that they infact produce. Doctors will testify that the average human can produce up to two liters of saliva a day.

You know how it is at homes for disabled children and adults. Many of them regularly have large amounts of saliva dripping all down the front of their shirts. Saliva and centers for people with disability go together like a hand in a glove. I have spent many a visit to centers - only to leave with one if not several residents' saliva attached to my clothing, sleeves, and hands. It just goes with the turf with many who have disabilities. And for people who are "brain dead" or PVS - it should be everywhere.

But with Terri... it's not. It's missing. It's just not there.

Her chin, lips, corners of her mouth, neck, and face are never slimy. How is this possible?

I admit - I'm not a Nobel Prize nominated brain injury expert - luckily for Terri - Dr. Hammesfahr is. And he testified that she is swallowing, and as such is not PVS, and as such - should be allowed to live.

But then again - that wouldn't really fit the democrats "culture of death agenda" now would it?

Terri's missing saliva is a simple, but extraordinary - proof of life.

That is - unless you're as thickheaded and as intelligent as the human "life" forms known as "Quick Draw" Cranford, Robert Wexler, Barney Frank, George Felos, George Greer and that serial adulterer Michael Schiavo.

Kevin McCullough

Ellie

thedrifter

03-29-05, 05:02 PM

On Terri Schiavo

March 29, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Jonathan David Morris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A longtime reader emailed me after last week’s article to ask why I wrote about steroids instead of Terri Schiavo. The honest answer is, because I didn’t feel like writing about Terri Schiavo. That’s right. It’s that easy. I didn’t feel like writing about her. In fact, I still don’t. The only reason I’m writing this is to tell you I don’t feel like writing it. I can’t look at Terri Schiavo for more than thirty seconds without hearing my mom saying, “Jonathan, don’t stare,” in the back of my mind. Everything about this story freaks me out. There’s no other way I can say it. The footage freaks me out. The debate freaks me out. Even the fact that I’m freaked out freaks me out. I’m not used to this. I don’t freak out very often. That’s why I’ve kept quiet until now.

The way I see it, there are two schools of thought here. There are people who think Terri Schiavo should live and people who think she should die. Now, ordinarily, I’d choose life over death by default. If someone held a gun to Ryan Seacrest’s head, for instance, I would vote not to kill him—even though I could easily imagine living without him. After all, he’s a young, relatively healthy person. Killing him would be inhumane. But Terri Schiavo is different. She’s bedridden and brain-dead. And some people say the only humane thing to do is to simply let her pass on.

That said, I spent the entire weekend trying to write this column. What you’re looking at right now is Take 29. I kept starting over. And as we speak, I still have no clue where I stand.

On the one hand, how can you call Michael Schiavo’s decision to remove Terri’s feeding tube “murder”? I understand she was surviving just fine when the tube was still connected. But that’s all she was doing, though. Surviving. It seems selfish to hook her up to a machine in the faint hope that she’ll return to form. The law—and the bible, for those biblically inclined—puts Michael Schiavo in the unenviable position of determining Terri’s fate here. This guy has endured fifteen years of endless headaches and lawsuits. That’s love. True, he moved on and started another family. But he also turned down a million-dollar offer to walk away and wash his hands of this. It’s hard to imagine him doing that unless he truly believes this is what Terri would have wanted.

On the other hand, is this what she wanted? Michael Schiavo says yes; Terri’s parents say no. I’m not questioning her husband’s motives, but I understand why her parents are. After all, his decision to remove her feeding tube is based on something she supposedly told him over a decade ago. No one will ever be able to prove it. To be honest, that makes me a little uncomfortable. Over a decade ago, I swore I’d wear Skidz forever. Things change. And it would be one thing if you held me to that promise. But to starve me for it? I don’t know. That seems a bit mean—especially when you could just as easily walk away and leave me with people who want to give me food.

So like I said, I’m not sure where I stand on this issue. If I sided with Michael Schiavo, I would have to side with others who’ve sided with him. I don’t want to do that. Those folks seem to be rooting for Terri’s death just to prove a point. But if I sided with Terri’s parents, I’d be looking to rob Michael Schiavo of his duties as Terri’s husband. That’s an anti-family position. The “sanctity of marriage” is a bond between husband and wife—not husband, wife, and in-laws. We should respect that. And we should respect the decision he’s made on her behalf.

Then again, if a life is at stake…

Whatever. I’m done trying to pick a side here. I’ve been avoiding a Terri Schiavo column since the first time I heard about her. Now you know why: Both sides are wrong.

People want to make this out to be a huge political crisis. I would tend to agree with President Bush when he says we should “err on the side of life." But the same conservatives who would err on the side of life for Terri Schiavo would also err on the side of collateral damage and capital punishment. And liberals, for their part, would sooner give the benefit of the doubt to suspected murderers and terrorists than unborn babies and women in persistent vegetative states. You want a political crisis? There it is. Personally, I’d rather err on the side of not erring and simply not kill people at all. But if Americans want to kill people—fine. Let’s kill people. But for God’s sake, at least be consistent. Enough with the drama. You’re freaking me out.

Jonathan David Morris

Ellie

thedrifter

03-29-05, 09:35 PM

The Legacy of Terri Schiavo

March 29, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Doug Patton

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Easter Sunday morning, a fellow church member said to me, “I just wish that Terri Schiavo could be completely healed today? Wouldn’t that be a miracle?”

Of course, such a divine intervention and miraculous restoration would have been wonderful. But it did not happen, and God may very well have had a good reason. Perhaps He had a greater miracle in mind.

What miracle could possibly be greater than Terri Schiavo being healed? After all, no one could have denied the value of Terri Schiavo’s life if she had suddenly sat up in her hospital bed on Easter Sunday morning and announced, “I’m back!” Based on the predominant medical view that said she would never recover from her “persistent vegetative state,” how could anyone have questioned such a miracle? Her very “quality of life” would have told us that she deserved to live.

But do any of us really believe this is God’s standard for measuring the value of a human life? Would it not be a much greater miracle for us as a society to begin to value the Terri Schiavos among us just as they are?

Such a reversal of our societal thinking will require a shift in the worldview of our leaders. Now that they have opened the door just a little, will members of Congress, as the people’s elected representatives, finally begin to exercise their constitutional authority to rein in our tyrannical judiciary? Or will they buckle to perceived public opinion concocted by the so-called mainstream media through phony push polls designed specifically to elicit a particular response?

There is little doubt that the Terri Schiavo case has moved us another hundred yards down the slippery slope we have been on for three decades. The right to kill is now entrenched in the law of our land, a law created by judges elected by no one and accountable to no one. And yet, who among us now has the right to decide who lives and who dies? Is there a person out there who thinks that actor Christopher Reeve should have been starved to death? After all, Reeve also was unable to feed himself. What made him more valuable than Terri Schiavo? Were they not both created in the image of God?

Terri Schiavo can become the mirror held up before our faces to show us the selfish people we have become, the poster girl for our own narcissism. Her tragedy can be the turning point. But that will require a soul-searching this nation has so far been unwilling to accept. It will require that we go back to the source of life and consult His rules, rather than making up our own. It will require us to reexamine the culture of death that began on January 22, 1973, when Roe vs. Wade unleashed a holocaust of abortion on this nation.

American civilization is peering into an abyss of our own making. As the largest generation in the history of the country enters into its retirement years, with people living longer and health care costs skyrocketing, the Terri Schiavo case is pointing us straight down the road toward euthanasia.

As I write this, Terri Schiavo clings to the life God gave her. Her legacy will be that she became a public figure at a time when we wanted our public figures to be beautiful and entertaining, not crippled and helpless. While our nation watches her die, she forces us all avert our gaze from the hideousness of what we allowed to happen to her. As she struggles to hold on, let us all examine ourselves and spend a few minutes in shame. Then, let us go forth and demand change from our leaders.

Doug Patton

Ellie

thedrifter

03-30-05, 05:50 AM

Runaway Courts Bring on Constitutional Crisis

March 30, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Lee Duigon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one has rescued Terri Schiavo. Convicted of no crime, she is dying because a judge has so decreed.

"I have no power," says the man who might have saved her, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. "I cannot violate a court order."

As Gov. Bush sees it, whatever comes out of a judge's mouth is "the law," and he can't go against "the law." Whatever the judge says--no matter how crass, stupid, indecent, or illogical--is "the law."

And here we were thinking a "law" was something passed by an elected legislature and signed by a governor or president.

Jeb Bush is not the only one who has a defective understanding of "the law." According to the U.S. Supreme Court, "the law" can be divined from opinion polls, European Court decisions, the acts of the Jamaica Privy Council, brainstorms in the minds of individual justices--anything but the original words and intent of the U.S. Constitution. According to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, "the law" allows four cracked judges to order the state legislature to enact homosexual "marriage."

What is "law"? Every poll you take shows at least 90% of the America people wishing to abolish partial birth abortion. So their elected representatives in both houses of Congress passed a law to do so, the president signed it--and partial birth abortion is still the law of the land, because a judge says so.

If one judge has this much power, why do we bother to elect a Congress and a president?

There is, to be sure, a partisan political dimension to all this. Defeated in referendum after referendum, in election after election, liberalism is saying to America, "You people can elect conservatives until the end of time, and they can pass whatever laws they please: none of it matters because we've got the courts! So we're going to outlaw the Ten Commandments, ban Christmas, ram gay marriage down your throats, protect murderers and terrorists and cater to illegal aliens, and there's not a thing you can do about it. Hah!"

When a judge nullified the abolition of partial birth abortion, our elected representatives let it go at that. When federal judges expelled Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore from his elected office, and removed the Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of his court, Alabama's governor and legislature permitted it.

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned state laws to find a constitutional right to sodomy, and to block the execution of murderers who happened to be under 18 when they took human life, Congress and the president did nothing.

The constitution of Massachusetts allows a simple majority in the legislature to remove a state judge for any reason it sees fit--a wise provision by its author, John Adams, to counter judicial insolence. But has the legislature used this power? Of course not!

Our elected representatives have the power to curb judicial despotism; but where is the will?

Have they pressured abusive judges to resign? No. Have they impeached judges for exceeding their authority? No. Have they invoked Article III of the Constitution to redefine the jurisdiction of the courts? No. Have they used their control of the public purse to cut off funding to runaway courts? No.

All we get from them is plaintive pap: "We have no power," and "A judge's word is law." They have tied their own hands.

As Terri Schiavo's life dribbles away, and Gov. Bush pleads legal impotence, America slides into a full-blown constitutional crisis. The combination of an imperial judiciary and the craven servility of the legislative and executive branches is apt to prove deadly to our republic.

As deadly as it's proved for Terri Schiavo.

Lee Duigon

Ellie

Phantom Blooper

03-30-05, 07:54 AM

When they going to pull his plug? 
 
 
 
 
March 30, 2005 7:26 AM EST 
VATICAN CITY - Pope John Paul II is getting nutrition from a feeding tube through the nose, the Vatican said Wednesday, shortly...

kentmitchell

03-30-05, 08:10 AM

Re Tom Purcell's article (above): If bullfrogs had wings . . .
The overkill on the Schiavo case had one positive effect. My wife and I both got living wills.

thedrifter

03-30-05, 10:31 AM

Terri's tragedy 
 
 
By Nat Hentoff 
 
 
 
 
Readers: This column contains a graphic description of dehydration following a tube removal.

thedrifter

03-30-05, 01:08 PM

Terri
Matt Towery

March 29, 2005

I rarely devote two consecutive columns to the same issue. But the tragic case of Terri Schiavo needs some additional light shed upon it.

First, the nation is wrong if it has the impression that Florida is some sort of strange beast whose footsteps are out of sync with the rest of America. Our InsiderAdvantage flash poll conducted late last week revealed that 65 percent of Floridians agreed with the court decisions not to order the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube.

A more far-reaching story remains what I touched on in my last column. The emergency congressional action two weekends ago that tried to save Schiavo's life could potentially have a boomerang political effect on the White House and the Republicans in Congress. My update is that the boomerang has come whizzing back even faster than expected.

Many GOP members of Congress privately groused about being summoned back to Washington in the first place. Doubly annoying to them was that the special weekend session was convened to address an issue that both their philosophical and political guts told them was against many of their most basic Republican instincts.

By the end of last week, the level of consternation among Republicans on Capitol Hill had grown. It had become painfully clear that much of the nation felt Congress had overreached in its actions.

Even more frustrating to Republicans was the verbal beating that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was taking from fanatical, save Schiavo activists. They urged him to have state law enforcement officers storm Schiavo's hospice and take her into custody. They even accused both President George W. Bush and Jeb Bush of not helping at all!

How absurd. The president flew back to Washington early from vacation to sign the eleventh-hour congressional bill (apparently, we now learn, against his own best instincts). And Gov. Bush used up every reasonable legal resource to save Schiavo, not to mention much of the political capital he had stored up with his GOP-dominated state legislature.

The Bush brothers fell victim to the "no-good-deed-goes-unpunished" syndrome. With self-promotional characters liked longtime "Christian activist" Randall Terry leading the right-wing media assault on the Bushes, it's becoming clearer by the day that the Schiavo situation has spilled over the margins of decent political dissent, and is now at least partly in the province of some who have little regard for the basic rule of law.

As I've said before, I'd like to see Florida legislation that specifically addresses an incapacitated or comatose person's lack of written instructions when questions of their life or death arise. Or perhaps new laws that deal with a spouse, such as Michael Schiavo, being able to hold the keys of life and death over a wife or husband, even as he or she has in essence started another family altogether.

And yes, it enrages me that this woman is literally being starved to death right before her parents' eyes.

But there remains the need to face issues like this one both creatively and calmly. The alternative is to act or speak under a spell of emotion only, even though you know a fit of indignant pique isn't going to change the final outcomes, but only draw more attention to yourself.

Jeb Bush should be hailed for his intense political and legal efforts on behalf of Schiavo and her parents. He deserves at least equal praise for displaying the sound judgment it took not overstep the boundary of his executive authority. This helped preserve the integrity and workability of Florida's constitution and legal system.

On the flip side, the GOP in Washington, D.C. has sustained a self-inflicted blow, perhaps temporary. What had been concerted action on virtually every important issue before them -- except maybe Social Security -- has now splintered.

For the past several years, Republican congressmen in Washington and legislators in many states have controlled the lawmaking reins. They have operated in a top-down, our-way-or-the-highway style that is likely to spur the kind of mini-revolt against party leadership that happens from time to time.

Rest assured there are plenty of GOP elected officials who are suddenly wondering if they are now appearing to be the party of big budgets, intervention and expansion of government power.

The Terri Schiavo tragedy may serve as a turning point in how Republicans and other conservatives react to the issues of today -- and what may be their political success or lack of it tomorrow.

With a 45 percent approval rating, it's clear that President Bush will need the help of all Republicans to redirect GOP policy initiatives. Party loyalists now need to somehow regain the high ground of preserving the Constitution and restricting the role that government plays in our lives.

Supporters of these concepts are the ones that comprise the critical "Republican base" that must be held together and energized for action -- not the Randall Terrys of the world.

Ellie

thedrifter

03-30-05, 04:13 PM

George Washington Votes for Life

March 30, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Chris Davis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 229 years, we’ve come from Nathan Hale’s immortal words—“I regret that I have but one life to give for my country”—to, “Terri Schiavo will be better off if we just remove the feeding tube.” After all, she’s in a persistent vegetative state, hooked up to a ventilator and in a veritable coma from which there is no return. She can’t speak. She can’t communicate in any way, shape or form. She is a merely a vegetable that is living by Michael Schiavo’s benevolence and medical technology. Right?

Wrong. It’s time for Americans—liberals and especially, ‘the government shouldn’t be involved here conservatives’—to wake up! The judicial system is a part of government and this is not an ideological issue, but rather an issue on the sanctity of life. Both courts, federal and state, have continuously ruled to yank the feeding tube. To get a grip on all the facts, read “The Whole Terri Schiavo Story” by Dianna Lynne of World Net Daily. And yet, here we are at a crossroads in American history, once again, waging a battle on the front lines of morality.

Are we, as a society, prone to preserve the sanctity of human life? If you believe polls, the answer is no. Or are we to let the words of Nathan Hale echo so hollow as to set an inevitable course of events that would make a return near impossible? Much like abortion, we are going down that slippery judicial slope of no return. By leaving courts, federal or otherwise, as final arbiters of any issues, we are stripping the very power held within the Constitution of representative government.

So I wondered what George Washington would think? Becoming lonely and wondering through the halls of my house, I pondered the question of Terri Schiavo’s plight. In his farewell address to the country, Washington said, “ The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together.”

We should, as Americans, have the same view of morality. It has become a sad day in America when we think of convenience of the living while discarding a life. By God, we are citizens of the United States of America! We fought and have defended a way of life for 229 years for the safety of our posterity and ourselves. We have established a Constitution and three branches of government to ensure that “We the people…,” determine the course of events that we as a country should take. Through our elected representatives in Congress we attempt mold our country for the better. And yet, we have tyranny within our borders, manifesting itself in state and federal courts. It’s high time we cleaned it up for the future of every individual.

Washington continued in that same address: “It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism....”

Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity are right. The courts have usurped their authority as intended by the United States Constitution. They have overreached their bounds and are attempting to encroach upon decisions made by the legislators that are representatives of the American people. Congress’ involvement in the Terri Schiavo case was more than appropriate. It was Constitutional. It was their sworn duty, as representative governors, to enact legislation in the interest of the American people.

“Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice,” George Washington asked in his farewell addressed. “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

The federal and state courts—through fifty years of liberalism—have lost their soul. They are attempting, as they did in abortion, to force their view of morality upon America, her children and the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen that defend her. But Washington wasn’t finished. He continued to define the affect of morality on government. “It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened,” Washington said.

There are men like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity that are attempting to educate those misguided Americans in their attempt to better America. There are also women like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and Laura Schlessinger that are attempting to educate the masses of misinformed individuals. These fellow citizens understand the ramifications of the Terri Schiavo case. They understand that to sit by and do nothing is to promote atrophy. These men and women are Americans: red, white and conservative. They continue to fight this attempted oligarchy of the citizens of the United States. They understand that liberalism has warped the values that were once held dear by our Founding Fathers. And they understand that morality and religion are forever intertwined to promote the health, welfare and safety of our posterity.

“Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence,” Washington remarked.

It isn’t hard to understand what George Washington’s position would be on the Terri Schiavo case. Being a patriot, he would in no uncertain terms, vote for life. For Washington understood, that a moral nation is a nation that endures far longer than those of Rome and any iniquitous society.

If everyone in America voted for life, like George Washington, this would be a wonderful Republic. If misguided Americans stopped projecting—as if they were Terri Schiavo—this would be a wonderful Republic. If the media would stop polling morality, this would be an enduring, wonderful Republic. And if judges stopped trying to hijack the U.S. Constitution, this would be a wonderful Republic.

Chris Davis

Ellie

thedrifter

03-31-05, 05:40 AM

Schiavo and the Slippery Slope
By Hunter Baker
Published 3/30/2005 12:05:25 AM
Democrats have joyfully jabbed conservatives who have hoped to use any potentially legitimate path of government power to save Terri Schiavo.

"Don't you like limited government?"

"What about federalism?"

"I thought you hated judicial activism!"

There is some validity to these criticisms. Not as much as the Democrats would like, considering that states' rights was their strongest issue for a long time, but some validity nonetheless. If I were going to suggest the Republican distinctive, I would say it's the dignity of the individual in a moral universe. Fits with being against slavery, for the women's vote, against socialism, for freedom of contract, and against abortion.

Although we like federalism and limited government, as means not ends, conservatives (and libertarians, I think) are also quite attached to slippery-slope arguments. Terri Schiavo's case is pregnant with possibility as regards the slippery slope. Let's see what this one looks like.

America watches Terri Schiavo die over a prolonged period from dehydration/starvation.

More attention is paid by everyone to things like living wills and other legal instruments. More commonly, husbands and wives will be explicit with each other about detailed situations.

Many stop and ask, why did Terri have to die of dehydration? Why couldn't she have been well-cared for to the end and finally delivered via an overdose of morphine or some other quick, painless finisher?

The euthanasia movement gains significant momentum.

Assisted suicide is legalized in a significant portion of the states or the Supreme Court federalizes the issue as it has abortion. Justice Kennedy's "sweet mystery of life" reasoning extends private discretion to decisions about the life and death of dependent, helpless persons.

America attains the moral status of, say, the Netherlands.

Having broken through the barrier of taboo, euthanasia is eventually applied to the disabled newborn population.

It is no longer assumed that a disabled child is going home with parents. The "fourth trimester" becomes as potentially deadly as the first three for "defective" children, who are already targeted for destruction as part of the campaign to reduce birth defects.

We begin to hear about therapy groups for post-euthanasia parents in the same way we hear about post-abortive women suffering psychic trauma.

Post-euthanasia parents receive as little sympathy as post-abortive women.

Everyone outside the hard core religious communities forgets what a Down Syndrome child looks like, or sounds like, or loves like.

Ellie

thedrifter

03-31-05, 07:48 AM

THE EMPEROR'S NEW ROBES
March 30, 2005
ANN COULTER

On the bright side, after two weeks of TV coverage of the Terri Schiavo case, I think we have almost all liberals in America on record saying we can pull the plug on them. Of course, if my only means of entertainment were Air America radio, Barbra Streisand albums and reruns of "The West Wing," I too would be asking: "What kind of quality of life is this?"

There are a few glaring exceptions. On the anti-killing side, to one extent or another, are: former Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis, former Gore lawyer David Boies, former O.J. lawyer Alan Dershowitz, Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, McGovern and Carter strategist Pat Caddell, liberal blogger Mickey Kaus, Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader and Rainbow Coalition leader Jesse Jackson, as well as several of my friends who are pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage but not Pro-Adulterous Husbands Who, After Taking Up With Another Woman, Suddenly Recall Their Wives' Clearly Stated Wish to Die.

Opinions about the Schiavo case seem to break down less on morals than on basic knowledge of the facts of the case.

There are a lot of telling facts, but two big ones are:

— The only family member lobbying for Terri's death is her husband, who is affianced to a woman he's been living with for several years and with whom he already has two children. (Today's brain twister: Would you rather be O.J.'s girlfriend or Michael Schiavo's fiancee?)

— Terri's husband has refused to allow her to be given either an MRI or a PET scan, which are also known as: "The tests that could determine whether Terri is even in a permanent vegetative state." (I believe his exact words were, "PET scan? MRI? What do I look like, a guy who just won a $1 million malpractice settlement?")

On the basis of these facts, Pinellas County Judge George Greer found that it was Terri's wish to be starved to death. She requires no life support; all she needs is food and water. If being (a) on a liquid diet, and (b) unresponsive to one's estranged husband are now considered grounds for a woman's execution, wait until this news hits Beverly Hills!

Despite the media's idiotic claims that scores of courts have made painstaking findings of fact over 15 years that Terri is in a permanent vegetative state and would have wanted to die, only one judge made such a finding. Other courts have not made any factual findings whatsoever. They simply refused to overturn Greer's findings of fact as an abuse of discretion.

Greer made his finding based on the testimony of Terri's husband that Terri said she wouldn't want to live like this — a rather important fact the husband only remembered many years after Terri was first injured, but one year after he won a million-dollar malpractice award and began living with another woman. (Maybe when Terri said, "I wouldn't want to live like that" she was referring to being married to Michael Schiavo.)

Supporting the idea that positions on the Schiavo case are correlated with IQ, on the pro-killing side is Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., who denounced the legislation granting federal courts jurisdiction over Terri's case, saying the Republican Party "has become a party of theocracy." Yes, you remembered correctly: The House passed the bill overwhelmingly in a 203-58 vote, and the Senate passed it in a voice vote also with overwhelming support. (Surely, if anyone would defend the practice of being on a liquid diet, you'd think Ted Kennedy would.)

Also on the pro-killing side are conservatives still ****ed off about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 who are desperately hoping to be elected "most consistent constitutionalist" by their local Federalist Society chapters.

You can't grow peanuts on your own land or install a toilet capable of disposing two tissues in one flush because of federal government intervention. But Congress demands a review of the process that goes into a governmental determination to kill an innocent American woman — and that goes too far!

It's not a radical extension of current constitutional doctrines — even the legitimate ones! — for the federal government to assert a constitutional right to life that cannot be denied without due process of law under the Fifth and 14th Amendments. Congress didn't ask for much, just the same due process John Wayne Gacy got.

But people even stupider than lawyers have picked up on the vague rumblings from "most consistent constitutionalist" aspirants and begun to claim that Congress' action is an affront to "limited government."

Of course, the most limited of all possible governments is a king. We don't have that sort of "limited government." What we have is divided government: three branches of government at the federal level and 50 states with their own versions of checks and balances.

Or at least that was the government designed for us by men smarter than we are. We haven't had that sort of government for decades.

Alexander Hamilton's famous last words in "The Federalist" described the judiciary as the "least dangerous branch," because it had neither force nor will. Now the judiciary is the most dangerous branch. It doesn't need force because it has smoke and mirrors and a lot of people defending the moronic scribblings of any judge as the perfect efflorescence of "the rule of law."

This week, an indisputably innocent woman will be killed by the government for one reason: Judge Greer of Pinellas County, Fla., ordered it.

Polls claim that a majority of Americans objected to action by the U.S. Congress in the Schiavo case as "government intrusion" into a "private family matter" — as if Judge Greer is not also the government. So twisted is our view of the judiciary that a judicial decree is treated like a naturally occurring phenomenon, like a rainbow or an act of God.

Our infallible, divine ruler is a county judge in Florida named George Greer, who has more authority in America than the U.S. Congress, the president and the governor. No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church!

It's a good system if you like monarchy and legally sanctioned murder. But spare me the paeans to "strict constructionism" and "limited government."