Hypocrisy
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
that is the sadest thing dsdsds. That they CANT od her on morphine or whatever. Think about this, your dying of canser in ENORMOUSE pain as your eaten alive, there is NO chance of recovery but you may live for another year or so. You might want that but i wouldnt.
You cant lump the death penelty with unthanasia, they are compleatly different. One is about the state chosing to kill someone because they are too lasy to lock them up properly or for revenge or whatever, the other is about an indervidual or that persons chosen reperentive chosing that its there time to die with no chance of recovery and no quality of life. Abortion is another totally different one AGAIN which comes somewhere in the middle (to which side it goes for each person shows how they view the issue)
I totally agree with you, dont starve her. Shoot her, stab her, give her an injection but for the love of life DO IT!!!!!!!!!! its not fair on her, its not fair on her family and its not fair on the hospital system that is strugling for beds as it is that she should be FORCED to live on against the requests of her legal repersentive
You cant lump the death penelty with unthanasia, they are compleatly different. One is about the state chosing to kill someone because they are too lasy to lock them up properly or for revenge or whatever, the other is about an indervidual or that persons chosen reperentive chosing that its there time to die with no chance of recovery and no quality of life. Abortion is another totally different one AGAIN which comes somewhere in the middle (to which side it goes for each person shows how they view the issue)
I totally agree with you, dont starve her. Shoot her, stab her, give her an injection but for the love of life DO IT!!!!!!!!!! its not fair on her, its not fair on her family and its not fair on the hospital system that is strugling for beds as it is that she should be FORCED to live on against the requests of her legal repersentive
A wheelchair is a machine. So is a pacemaker....
It's about one person (or group of persons) MAKING a decision about the life or death of another person. This, in my viewpoint, is moraly wrong. I beleive LIFE is a right that only the individual himself can forfeit.
Suicide is moral, even for the mentally handicaped. But if at least one other person (A) is aware of the suicide intentions of the person (B), Person A has a moral obligation to do everything he can to stop person B. Otherwise it is as if person A is killing person B. So unfortunately, one can't write a letter saying "If I become a vegetable, kill me" because suicide is something done ALONE (without the presence or aid or decision of anyone else). As soon as someone else is involved, it becomes murder. By removing a feeding tube, they are ignoring which is the same thing as putting a gun to her head and pulling a trigger. They have the ability to keep her alive. Is it moral for a pregnant woman commit suicide? No. Not if what is inside her is defined as being human.
Note: If someone I loved had cancer eating away at them, and they wished to die, I would probably help. This is imoral but there are some worse things in life than commiting imoral deeds.
Last edited:
Why Congress Can Bite My Rod
Checks And Balances
Congressional tyranny
It has occurred to me that Congressional intervention in the Schiavo case might, like a recent failed attempt to circumvent judicial review, be an attempt by Congress to bitch-slap the courts:
A Washington Post editorial accuses Congress of diminishing the rule of law by changing the rules "on behalf of politically favored parties" in a legal system that "is not supposed to be one of legislative 'do-overs'". Looking through "Terri's Law", I'm rather stunned at the breadth of Congress' offense.
As Nancy Pelosi stated in a March 20, 2005 press release, "Michael Schiavo is faced with a devastating decision, but, having been through the proper legal process, the decision for his wife's care belongs to him and to God."
She is, of course wrong. Congress has decided that the sanctity of marriage does not extend this far. According to "Terri's Law", "Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have the standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo .... In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo ...."
Perhaps more grim is this way of looking at it:
This law is a sick joke. Fifty-six lines of pure offense. After all that bitching about trial lawyers, Congress goes and sets up a frivolous lawsuit. Of course, conservatives need not worry about this blatant overextension of government. Daily Show footage mocking Congress for, well, the whole charade, included Democrats supporting the bill. It's quite likely that when the time comes for candidates facing the public to mock Congress appropriately, the Democrats will be blamed. After all, it's always their fault.
That partisan note aside, those folks who whine about "judicial tyranny" ought to sit up and take note. In one astounding shot, Congress has given two fingers to the sanctity of marriage, spat on equal protection, and attempted to assert political influence over the judiciary. And reading Section 9, it looks as if Congress intends to take these issues out of the states' hands entirely.
Let me take a moment to applaud my fellow voting Americans. This is what you wanted. Those who willfully abstained certainly are less-deserving of respect, but those of you who went out and helped make this happen: Good freakin' job. I hope you're proud of yourselves.
Remember: in fights between the branches, the judiciary always wins, because even when it loses, it's still the judge giving out ribbons, and neither Congress nor President nor any state governor has the balls to call out armed force to put down the judges. It's the only branch of this government that has a say in when it wins and loses. Both Congress and the president ought to think a bit more carefully before rushing to stick their heads up their asses. Er, I mean, before pissing on the courts like that.
Congress has done nothing more with this law than cheapen itself further. That, in itself, is an impressive feat. Of course, they've managed to do it in spectacular form, so we can thank them for the morbid entertainment at least.
____________________
Notes:
Checks And Balances
Congressional tyranny
It has occurred to me that Congressional intervention in the Schiavo case might, like a recent failed attempt to circumvent judicial review, be an attempt by Congress to bitch-slap the courts:
A Washington Post editorial accuses Congress of diminishing the rule of law by changing the rules "on behalf of politically favored parties" in a legal system that "is not supposed to be one of legislative 'do-overs'". Looking through "Terri's Law", I'm rather stunned at the breadth of Congress' offense.
As Nancy Pelosi stated in a March 20, 2005 press release, "Michael Schiavo is faced with a devastating decision, but, having been through the proper legal process, the decision for his wife's care belongs to him and to God."
She is, of course wrong. Congress has decided that the sanctity of marriage does not extend this far. According to "Terri's Law", "Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have the standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo .... In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo ...."
Perhaps more grim is this way of looking at it:
Section 1: Assigns jurisdiction to one court to hear suits pertaining to one person.
Section 2: Assigns standing to specific parents of specific married adult the legal right to challenge decisions previously left to the spouse. Authorizes suits against anyone the parents feel like suing. Instructs the court to ignore all prior rulings in this case.
Section 3: Instructs the court in its business.
Section 4: Sets time limit for suits beyond expected endurance of Terri Schiavo.
Section 5: Limits power of precedent.
Section 6: Limits power of precedent.
Section 7: Limits power of precedent.
Section 8: Limits power of precedent.
Section 9: Expresses sense of Congress.
Section 2: Assigns standing to specific parents of specific married adult the legal right to challenge decisions previously left to the spouse. Authorizes suits against anyone the parents feel like suing. Instructs the court to ignore all prior rulings in this case.
Section 3: Instructs the court in its business.
Section 4: Sets time limit for suits beyond expected endurance of Terri Schiavo.
Section 5: Limits power of precedent.
Section 6: Limits power of precedent.
Section 7: Limits power of precedent.
Section 8: Limits power of precedent.
Section 9: Expresses sense of Congress.
This law is a sick joke. Fifty-six lines of pure offense. After all that bitching about trial lawyers, Congress goes and sets up a frivolous lawsuit. Of course, conservatives need not worry about this blatant overextension of government. Daily Show footage mocking Congress for, well, the whole charade, included Democrats supporting the bill. It's quite likely that when the time comes for candidates facing the public to mock Congress appropriately, the Democrats will be blamed. After all, it's always their fault.
That partisan note aside, those folks who whine about "judicial tyranny" ought to sit up and take note. In one astounding shot, Congress has given two fingers to the sanctity of marriage, spat on equal protection, and attempted to assert political influence over the judiciary. And reading Section 9, it looks as if Congress intends to take these issues out of the states' hands entirely.
Let me take a moment to applaud my fellow voting Americans. This is what you wanted. Those who willfully abstained certainly are less-deserving of respect, but those of you who went out and helped make this happen: Good freakin' job. I hope you're proud of yourselves.
Remember: in fights between the branches, the judiciary always wins, because even when it loses, it's still the judge giving out ribbons, and neither Congress nor President nor any state governor has the balls to call out armed force to put down the judges. It's the only branch of this government that has a say in when it wins and loses. Both Congress and the president ought to think a bit more carefully before rushing to stick their heads up their asses. Er, I mean, before pissing on the courts like that.
Congress has done nothing more with this law than cheapen itself further. That, in itself, is an impressive feat. Of course, they've managed to do it in spectacular form, so we can thank them for the morbid entertainment at least.
____________________
Notes:
Editorial. "A Damaging Intervention". Washington Post. March 22, 2005; page A16. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55441-2005Mar21.html
"The Schiavo Bill". See http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/schiavobill.htm
Press Release. "Statement of Nancy Pelosi". March 20, 2005. See http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=44633
"The Schiavo Bill". See http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/schiavobill.htm
Press Release. "Statement of Nancy Pelosi". March 20, 2005. See http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=44633
Last edited:
And the Federal judge ruled this morning that the parents didn't have enough evidence to prove their assertions, and the feeding tube would NOT be reinserted.
They can appeal, but the law is still the law. The Judicial branch makes sure of that despite the cries and bullshit from Congress.
They can appeal, but the law is still the law. The Judicial branch makes sure of that despite the cries and bullshit from Congress.
Sound and Fury
The sound and fury in response to today's developments is incredible: it's officially becoming difficult to decide which is greater, the situation itself, or the injection of thoroughly inappropriate humor into the situation by Congress.
I mean, how many words do I and others spend on huge issues and slow dramas? And yet, like a stunt fighter to the Death Star, Congress manages to turn up the heat and reiterate its role as the aggressor in the dispute over judicial review.
The transcripts of MSNBC's Dan Abrams should be as blackly hilarious as it gets. I fled the room because Dan was missing the point and managing to be self-righteous about the self-evident. ("Stop hurting America ....") But I did pick up before bolting a tidbit from one of his guests.
The question had to do with the ... I think immaturity and petulance of the pro-life argument. It was clearly too aggressive for the circumstance, but that's what happens when idiots try to be provocative. In consideration of Abrams' characterization--which pointed out that the save-Terri crowd said the problem was that they needed another tool and now they're upset that, having gotten it, they've found it ineffective--the problem, said the guest, was with the nature of the legal argument put before the court. It wasn't so blatant, as the save-Terri guest would have had it, a disregard for Congressional instruction: the case presented by the plaintiffs spared the court that question.
Where Congress overstepped itself most egregiously comes in Section 3: "After a determination of the merits of a suit ... the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States ...."
In instructing the court to consider the case de novo, Congress intended to cause the court to issue a temporary restraining order forcing the preservation of Terri Schiavo's life until any number of federal suits brought by her parents could repeat the whole legal process all over again. This would have the effect of keeping her alive until another way could be found, or until the legal process completed. Either of those periods could be measured quite possibly in years.
Whether or not Congress' trespass is Constitutional or merely one of custom, decency, taste, and propriety, is sort of a fine line. Congress is empowered to establish courts, but telling them their business like this: perhaps the most dangerous precedent will be if this law is not officially overturned, and simply becomes moot. Regardless of what Congress says its intentions are, that would become a precedent.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution establishes in Section 8 a list of powers given to Congress. Furthermore, the Congress is empowered
It would be a hard push to include the power to tell courts what and how to rule in such a direct manner within the authority to constitute tribunals inferior to the Superior Court. Add to that the Tenth Amendment:
The power to do what "Terri's Law" attempted is not among those granted to Congress, and it is not easily, or in this case, sufficiently obtained.
A strange nexus has occurred. Perhaps that in itself is an indicator of the absurdity of this situation. Bloggers, random authors like us, pundits, analysts, lawyers, commentators, and even the Daily Show have all commented on certain aspects of the Schiavo Show:
Not only is Congress overstepping itself, but even the president is putting on a macabre show. The dimensions of this outrage are staggering.
____________________
Notes:
The sound and fury in response to today's developments is incredible: it's officially becoming difficult to decide which is greater, the situation itself, or the injection of thoroughly inappropriate humor into the situation by Congress.
I mean, how many words do I and others spend on huge issues and slow dramas? And yet, like a stunt fighter to the Death Star, Congress manages to turn up the heat and reiterate its role as the aggressor in the dispute over judicial review.
The transcripts of MSNBC's Dan Abrams should be as blackly hilarious as it gets. I fled the room because Dan was missing the point and managing to be self-righteous about the self-evident. ("Stop hurting America ....") But I did pick up before bolting a tidbit from one of his guests.
The question had to do with the ... I think immaturity and petulance of the pro-life argument. It was clearly too aggressive for the circumstance, but that's what happens when idiots try to be provocative. In consideration of Abrams' characterization--which pointed out that the save-Terri crowd said the problem was that they needed another tool and now they're upset that, having gotten it, they've found it ineffective--the problem, said the guest, was with the nature of the legal argument put before the court. It wasn't so blatant, as the save-Terri guest would have had it, a disregard for Congressional instruction: the case presented by the plaintiffs spared the court that question.
Where Congress overstepped itself most egregiously comes in Section 3: "After a determination of the merits of a suit ... the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States ...."
In instructing the court to consider the case de novo, Congress intended to cause the court to issue a temporary restraining order forcing the preservation of Terri Schiavo's life until any number of federal suits brought by her parents could repeat the whole legal process all over again. This would have the effect of keeping her alive until another way could be found, or until the legal process completed. Either of those periods could be measured quite possibly in years.
Whether or not Congress' trespass is Constitutional or merely one of custom, decency, taste, and propriety, is sort of a fine line. Congress is empowered to establish courts, but telling them their business like this: perhaps the most dangerous precedent will be if this law is not officially overturned, and simply becomes moot. Regardless of what Congress says its intentions are, that would become a precedent.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution establishes in Section 8 a list of powers given to Congress. Furthermore, the Congress is empowered
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. (Art. I, Sec. 8)
It would be a hard push to include the power to tell courts what and how to rule in such a direct manner within the authority to constitute tribunals inferior to the Superior Court. Add to that the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. (Amendment X)
The power to do what "Terri's Law" attempted is not among those granted to Congress, and it is not easily, or in this case, sufficiently obtained.
A strange nexus has occurred. Perhaps that in itself is an indicator of the absurdity of this situation. Bloggers, random authors like us, pundits, analysts, lawyers, commentators, and even the Daily Show have all commented on certain aspects of the Schiavo Show:
Not only is Congress overstepping itself, but even the president is putting on a macabre show. The dimensions of this outrage are staggering.
____________________
Notes:
Roig-Franzia, Manuel and William Branigin. "Judge Refuses to Intervene in Schiavo Case". WashingtonPost.com. March 22, 2005. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56022-2005Mar22.html
Thomasson, Dan K. "Politics plays out in Schiavo case". SeattlePI.com. March 22, 2005. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/216938_thomasson22.html
Babington, Charles and Michael A. Fletcher. "Analysts: GOP May Be Out of Step With Public". Washington Post. March 22, 2005; page A06. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55214-2005Mar21.html
"The Schiavo Bill". See http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/schiavobill.htm
"U.S. Constitution". See http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html
Thomasson, Dan K. "Politics plays out in Schiavo case". SeattlePI.com. March 22, 2005. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/216938_thomasson22.html
Babington, Charles and Michael A. Fletcher. "Analysts: GOP May Be Out of Step With Public". Washington Post. March 22, 2005; page A06. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55214-2005Mar21.html
"The Schiavo Bill". See http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/schiavobill.htm
"U.S. Constitution". See http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html
Last edited:
I will try to make a short summary of the intricate developments of this case, as seen by a person with European law background. It seems to me that there are at least three distinct issues concerned here:
1. Whether the trial courts erred in determining Mrs. Schiavo presumed wish to terminate life-supporting procedures, should she have known in advance her present state. I assume they did not and their decision was correct. I am of course unable to even consider another possibility, without having access to all the 'clear and convincing' evidence presented during trial.
2. It is quite another issue whether the law as it is, is good or bad. This is not about law anymore, but philosophy, religion, public policy and the like. In the law, however, it is the responsibility of the legislative branch to state what it is good or bad and to make 'good' laws, that is laws that reflect the predominant view of the society concerning various aspects of its life. The Fla. Legislature seemed to think that the law that was used to justify the decision of removal of life-supporting devices for Mrs. Schiavo was bad, and enacted Chapter 2003-418 on Oct. 21, 2003. They had the right to change the law, of course, but the way they did is flawed. Its narrow scope, its short period of duration and its retroactivity (among other things) made it clear that is was issued not to address a general concern but to provide means for executive overturn of a judicial final decision and prompted the Fla. Supreme Court to unanimously ban the act as unconstitutional on Sept. 23, 2004. The US Supreme Court denied certiorari and in a very short time the dispute (apparently) ended. I find the arguments of the Fla. Supreme Court very convincing and I think everybody feels the same way. However...
3. The Congress passed a bill and the President signed it on March 21st, 2005, specifically giving jurisdiction to the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida to "hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life" (Sec. 1). It seems that the Congress felt also that the law, as it is, is bad, since it expressed its desire to consider the matter more carefully and said that it "should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care". (Sec. 9). Before that consideration, however, it chosed to pass this particular act, an action which brought two problems:
3.1 Considering the act constitutional, it seems that it is not enough for a decision to reconnect Mrs. Schiavo to the life-supporting devices and the Court issued yesterday an order denying the motion for a TRO to that effect, since Mrs. Schiavo's parents have not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. An appeal will probably follow and will probably uphold this decision, since it is clear that the P. does not have a case here and it is only trying to get law support for emotional distress. The government urged the injunction to be granted on the basis of All Writs Act, 28 USC 1651, thus trying to determine the court not to apply the standard for 'traditional' injuction, which is much stricter. However, this injuction is statutory, because it is brought under Sec. 3 of "Terri's Law" and "the standards for granting statutorily-authorized injunctions are necessarily controlled by the statute itself" (Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 11th Circ. 2004). I believe the court erred when it chosed to apply the traditional standard. However, this error was not prejudicial, because Sec. 3 specifically instructs the Court to make a "determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act", prior to the issue of an injunction. As such, the decision was good, although the general standard applied was not chosen correctly.
3.2 On the other hand, is it the Congress' act constitutional ? That is probably a tough question, since unlike the Fla. act, this does not directly affect the judicial decision, as it was seen from the Order issued the next day. It only creates a possibility for yet another judicial review, a decision which might be controversial but not plainly unconstitutional. I do not agree with tiassa that the act purported "to tell courts what and how to rule in such a direct manner". The only question should be, in my opinion, whether the Congress has the constitutional right to enact procedural means for the development of a specific trial and whether this ability does not contravene the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment.
1. Whether the trial courts erred in determining Mrs. Schiavo presumed wish to terminate life-supporting procedures, should she have known in advance her present state. I assume they did not and their decision was correct. I am of course unable to even consider another possibility, without having access to all the 'clear and convincing' evidence presented during trial.
2. It is quite another issue whether the law as it is, is good or bad. This is not about law anymore, but philosophy, religion, public policy and the like. In the law, however, it is the responsibility of the legislative branch to state what it is good or bad and to make 'good' laws, that is laws that reflect the predominant view of the society concerning various aspects of its life. The Fla. Legislature seemed to think that the law that was used to justify the decision of removal of life-supporting devices for Mrs. Schiavo was bad, and enacted Chapter 2003-418 on Oct. 21, 2003. They had the right to change the law, of course, but the way they did is flawed. Its narrow scope, its short period of duration and its retroactivity (among other things) made it clear that is was issued not to address a general concern but to provide means for executive overturn of a judicial final decision and prompted the Fla. Supreme Court to unanimously ban the act as unconstitutional on Sept. 23, 2004. The US Supreme Court denied certiorari and in a very short time the dispute (apparently) ended. I find the arguments of the Fla. Supreme Court very convincing and I think everybody feels the same way. However...
3. The Congress passed a bill and the President signed it on March 21st, 2005, specifically giving jurisdiction to the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida to "hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life" (Sec. 1). It seems that the Congress felt also that the law, as it is, is bad, since it expressed its desire to consider the matter more carefully and said that it "should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care". (Sec. 9). Before that consideration, however, it chosed to pass this particular act, an action which brought two problems:
3.1 Considering the act constitutional, it seems that it is not enough for a decision to reconnect Mrs. Schiavo to the life-supporting devices and the Court issued yesterday an order denying the motion for a TRO to that effect, since Mrs. Schiavo's parents have not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. An appeal will probably follow and will probably uphold this decision, since it is clear that the P. does not have a case here and it is only trying to get law support for emotional distress. The government urged the injunction to be granted on the basis of All Writs Act, 28 USC 1651, thus trying to determine the court not to apply the standard for 'traditional' injuction, which is much stricter. However, this injuction is statutory, because it is brought under Sec. 3 of "Terri's Law" and "the standards for granting statutorily-authorized injunctions are necessarily controlled by the statute itself" (Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 11th Circ. 2004). I believe the court erred when it chosed to apply the traditional standard. However, this error was not prejudicial, because Sec. 3 specifically instructs the Court to make a "determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act", prior to the issue of an injunction. As such, the decision was good, although the general standard applied was not chosen correctly.
3.2 On the other hand, is it the Congress' act constitutional ? That is probably a tough question, since unlike the Fla. act, this does not directly affect the judicial decision, as it was seen from the Order issued the next day. It only creates a possibility for yet another judicial review, a decision which might be controversial but not plainly unconstitutional. I do not agree with tiassa that the act purported "to tell courts what and how to rule in such a direct manner". The only question should be, in my opinion, whether the Congress has the constitutional right to enact procedural means for the development of a specific trial and whether this ability does not contravene the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Last edited:
The Precious Art of Learning Nothing
Politicians have had six years to change the laws
The Washington Post reports on a 1998 Virginia case, that of Hugh Finn. Both sides of that debate see the same troubles playing out:
Interestingly, it does not seem that Congress has ordered that Mrs. Schiavo's pain be monitored and recorded for future considerations; after all, the sense of the Congress is that they should look into possible legislation concerning these issues (see Sec. 9 of "Terri's Law"). There are certain aspects of what Mrs. Schiavo is about to go through that have not been studied.
However, despite all that, one thing that can be said with some certainty:
This is where we need that pro-life expertise. Mr. Finn says such a death is painful as hell. Doctors say, "There is absolutely no indication that the body reacts to this with stress." Okay, what is it that the doctors are overlooking? What evidence are the "Save Terri" folks looking at that the doctors have so callously ignored to warrant accusations of murder? Even if you want to blame "the media conspiracy", there's always FOX News and the Washington Times, at least.
Really, lost in the politics is a very simple idea: If Mrs. Schiavo will recover, what are the signs of progress? If Mrs. Schiavo will feel pain, where and how will that signal be manifested?
Show us that she will feel pain.
In the meantime, having had at least these six years to consider everything from the definition of persistent vegetative state on up to what pain is felt by someone who allegedly doesn't perceive, process, or remember pain, the politicians have failed to address the issue.
Apparently, what they needed was some hysterical public demand. Foresight, or, as such, prudence, just aren't electable attributes in the sound-bite culture.
What is electable, however, is incompetence:
Nor have those years leading to this Congressional circle-jerk been devoid of the issue. Sara Rosenbaum, the chair of George Washington University's School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy, noted that hundreds, if not thousands, of similar cases find their way into the courts all the time.
It is easy enough to wonder where Congress was for those people, but more substantially we might focus on the question of, "Why now?"
There is very little dignity left in Mrs. Schiavo's situation. One wonders if the pro-lifers are proud of themselves for that diminution.
____________________
Notes:
Politicians have had six years to change the laws
The Washington Post reports on a 1998 Virginia case, that of Hugh Finn. Both sides of that debate see the same troubles playing out:
Interestingly, it does not seem that Congress has ordered that Mrs. Schiavo's pain be monitored and recorded for future considerations; after all, the sense of the Congress is that they should look into possible legislation concerning these issues (see Sec. 9 of "Terri's Law"). There are certain aspects of what Mrs. Schiavo is about to go through that have not been studied.
However, despite all that, one thing that can be said with some certainty:
This is where we need that pro-life expertise. Mr. Finn says such a death is painful as hell. Doctors say, "There is absolutely no indication that the body reacts to this with stress." Okay, what is it that the doctors are overlooking? What evidence are the "Save Terri" folks looking at that the doctors have so callously ignored to warrant accusations of murder? Even if you want to blame "the media conspiracy", there's always FOX News and the Washington Times, at least.
Really, lost in the politics is a very simple idea: If Mrs. Schiavo will recover, what are the signs of progress? If Mrs. Schiavo will feel pain, where and how will that signal be manifested?
Show us that she will feel pain.
In the meantime, having had at least these six years to consider everything from the definition of persistent vegetative state on up to what pain is felt by someone who allegedly doesn't perceive, process, or remember pain, the politicians have failed to address the issue.
Apparently, what they needed was some hysterical public demand. Foresight, or, as such, prudence, just aren't electable attributes in the sound-bite culture.
What is electable, however, is incompetence:
Nor have those years leading to this Congressional circle-jerk been devoid of the issue. Sara Rosenbaum, the chair of George Washington University's School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy, noted that hundreds, if not thousands, of similar cases find their way into the courts all the time.
It is easy enough to wonder where Congress was for those people, but more substantially we might focus on the question of, "Why now?"
There is very little dignity left in Mrs. Schiavo's situation. One wonders if the pro-lifers are proud of themselves for that diminution.
____________________
Notes:
Brown, David. "Little Known About Starvation Death". Washington Post. March 23, 2005; page A05. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58175-2005Mar22.html
Dwyer, Timothy. "A Futile Fight Over Va. Man". Washington Post. March 23, 2005; page B01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58237-2005Mar22.html
Dwyer, Timothy. "A Futile Fight Over Va. Man". Washington Post. March 23, 2005; page B01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58237-2005Mar22.html
I have to disagree with these "experts".
Have you ever been thirsty or hungry?
Have you heard the moaning of a poverty strickened child on the verge of death by dehydration?
Dieing this way is not pleasant.
Conveniently untill now it was fairly unanimous that dieing of dehydration is about as bad as it gets. Fire more acutely painfull but, because it's quicker, less traumatic and horrible.
Now it may be debateable whether or not she can suffer.
But she seems to be able to blink and get a fix on people standing around her, to me she looks with it and just completely unable to control her movements.
On the off chance she's perfectly conscious under there, I find it bizarre they would opt for this cruel and unusual form of torturing someone to death.
I mean, I'm just surprised there isn't a much larger outrage than there is. I'm the last person that should need to be pointing this out.
I really have a feeling she's lying there, looking into the eyes of her parents and the lens of the camera and just thinking "what the fuck is going on? I couldn't be in any more pain, oh my god... please kill me".
It reminds me of metallica's "one" video.
Why not have her hung up and torn apart by wild dogs, more entertaining for the watching public and less bizarrely cruel.
Is there a precedent for starving people to death?
It seems so very extreme.
I don't get why they can't hit her on the head or smother her with a pillow or whatever. This is ridiculous.
I might advocate violence against humans, but you'll note I've spoken out against people dieing of old age before. It's unnaturally cruel for any organism to endure that, and I believe they should be preyed upon or murdered and die a death the way nature intended.
This is even worse.
She's probably wishing someone would put some meat ants on her right about now or something, anything to speed up this agonising process.
If they're going to "let" her die, rather than kill her, put her out in the wild where the job can be done competently, rather than forcing her body to eat itself and run out of fluids.
They're making it as bad as they possibly can. And her parents have to sit there watching her dry up like a prune.
This is one of the most bizarre cases of negligence that has occurred in my lifetime.
Creepy norweigan serial killer pedophiles have let their victims wither away in boxes in their underground dungeons and so on, but this is stranger because everyone is aware of this as it is happening, it's endorsed by a 1st world government, and we're all just sitting here watching.
If she is conscious, imagine how much she's spinning out right now, it's like the world just went insane and decided to use her as some morbid experiment to see what happens when you deprave a gimp of fluid and sustenance.
I'm enjoying this in a perverse kind of way, I see it as fairly historical. But I'm really stunned by you so called moral people just sitting on your hands like this is normal.
After she dies, I predict this will be looked back on as a major blunder.
Have you ever been thirsty or hungry?
Have you heard the moaning of a poverty strickened child on the verge of death by dehydration?
Dieing this way is not pleasant.
Conveniently untill now it was fairly unanimous that dieing of dehydration is about as bad as it gets. Fire more acutely painfull but, because it's quicker, less traumatic and horrible.
Now it may be debateable whether or not she can suffer.
But she seems to be able to blink and get a fix on people standing around her, to me she looks with it and just completely unable to control her movements.
On the off chance she's perfectly conscious under there, I find it bizarre they would opt for this cruel and unusual form of torturing someone to death.
I mean, I'm just surprised there isn't a much larger outrage than there is. I'm the last person that should need to be pointing this out.
I really have a feeling she's lying there, looking into the eyes of her parents and the lens of the camera and just thinking "what the fuck is going on? I couldn't be in any more pain, oh my god... please kill me".
It reminds me of metallica's "one" video.
Why not have her hung up and torn apart by wild dogs, more entertaining for the watching public and less bizarrely cruel.
Is there a precedent for starving people to death?
It seems so very extreme.
I don't get why they can't hit her on the head or smother her with a pillow or whatever. This is ridiculous.
I might advocate violence against humans, but you'll note I've spoken out against people dieing of old age before. It's unnaturally cruel for any organism to endure that, and I believe they should be preyed upon or murdered and die a death the way nature intended.
This is even worse.
She's probably wishing someone would put some meat ants on her right about now or something, anything to speed up this agonising process.
If they're going to "let" her die, rather than kill her, put her out in the wild where the job can be done competently, rather than forcing her body to eat itself and run out of fluids.
They're making it as bad as they possibly can. And her parents have to sit there watching her dry up like a prune.
This is one of the most bizarre cases of negligence that has occurred in my lifetime.
Creepy norweigan serial killer pedophiles have let their victims wither away in boxes in their underground dungeons and so on, but this is stranger because everyone is aware of this as it is happening, it's endorsed by a 1st world government, and we're all just sitting here watching.
If she is conscious, imagine how much she's spinning out right now, it's like the world just went insane and decided to use her as some morbid experiment to see what happens when you deprave a gimp of fluid and sustenance.
I'm enjoying this in a perverse kind of way, I see it as fairly historical. But I'm really stunned by you so called moral people just sitting on your hands like this is normal.
After she dies, I predict this will be looked back on as a major blunder.
I believe it is a question of hypocrisy. Letting her die is one thing, they must say to themselves, than killing her altogether. Anyway, the case here is about self - determination. Since we admit that Mrs. Schiavo would have chosen to die rather than to live like that, we must also admit that she would have chosen to die in a few seconds or minutes via a lethal injection than to die via starvation in a few days of agony. Also, by letting her die naturally, they are tremendously enhancing parents' grief without any compensation. I agree with Dr. Lou Natic that, if society chooses not to help anymore, it is also compelled to do it in the less painful way, absolutely presuming that the patient would have chosen this second approach to terminate her life.
Dr. Lou Natic said:
So I'm sure you can show us where in the data we can look to witness Mrs. Schiavo's pain. I'm sure you can show us where in the body it is occurring, and where in the brain it is registering, and tell us approximately how much pain that signal indicates Mrs. Schiavo is experiencing and remembering.
There's also no "data" proving otherwise. Tiassa, you would object to a decision that would have her die quickly by lethal injection or firing squad? I find it way too convenient to draw a line between "ending medical treatment" and "killing" for the sake of satifying our conscience.
Last edited:
And why is there no data?
If Mrs. Schiavo feels pain, we should be able to detect the electrical signal in her body and brain.
As it is, the pain people seem to be arguing she will feel is something like the soul: there's no evidence of it, yet we should believe in it, anyway? With pain, though, we should be able to see it.
That there's no data proving otherwise may, in fact, be the result of there being no data to collect.
Why is there no data?
If there is no nervous signal to detect, how is she perceiving pain?
Certain evidence would prove mighty effective for those arguing to extend Mrs. Schiavo's life: evidence of recovery processes, evidence of pain. Evidence of mere perception would be a good start.
Doctors are using politically-motivated videotapes to make diagnoses (e.g. Sen. Dr. Frist) and assert such harsh words as murder. Were Mrs. Schiavo's life not in question, we might find such a condition laughable. However, such morbidity in vicious politics only inspires a couple words here and there. And those words are well-enough reserved for when I encounter a picture of Bill Frist.
What's absent from the discussion right now is evidence in support of the pro-life position.
For instance, the medical consensus says there is no evidence of pain. Hugh Finn, whose brother died amid a similar debate, says that's wrong, that such a death "hurts like hell". However, we haven't a scrap of evidence to support that assertion.
That's what I'm asking for. Anything to start.
The politics of this issue make positions difficult to define. I, for instance, am furious at the procedural irregularities undertaken for superficial and unnecessary reasons. I am furious at the denial of any reverence or dignity of toward human life evident in the pro-life crowd. But all of that hinges on a few basic realities. Despite all their rhetoric, the "Save Terri" crowd has failed to provide anything to address those realities.
As Judge Whittemore noted:
For instance, all I'm asking is one piece of information: evidence of pain. Had that data been available and entered into argument, the judge most likely would have granted the TRO.
So yes, it's annoying enough that someone has been given special privileges under the law. It is annoying enough that in addition to violating the sanctity of the Schiavo marriage, Congress has denied due process to Michael Schiavo. We, who support Mrs. Schiavo's right to determination, who acknowledge the sanctity of the Schiavo marriage, and who respect such societal notions as due process (a guarantee) and equal protection (a guarantee), are waiting for the pro-lifers to come up with any piece of substantive evidence. Anything. We're confident in our position because, unlike Congress, many have been paying sufficient attention to understand the legal issues as they pertain to sociomoral issues. What is needed in order to extend the life of Mrs. Schiavo's body is, essentially, something new.
Right now, as far as pro-life politics are concerned, the long-discredited late-80s phenomenon of psychospiritual regression, which had patients hypnotized in order to "remember" attempted abortions--adults curled up screaming, "Mommy, Mommy! Why are you hurting me! Why are you angry at the Lord?"--has a little more credibility than the assertion that Mrs. Schiavo will feel pain. Despite the victimizations caused by therapists in that movment, we could at least see the process and judge for ourselves.
In this case, we don't even need corrput therapists and unstable patients. All we need is contact. All we need is a signal. And despite the rhetoric, despite the anguish of Mrs. Schiavo's parents and siblings, what the pro-life crowd has failed to provide is even that small bit of evidence that can give us a place to start.
If Mrs. Schiavo feels pain, we should be able to detect the electrical signal in her body and brain.
As it is, the pain people seem to be arguing she will feel is something like the soul: there's no evidence of it, yet we should believe in it, anyway? With pain, though, we should be able to see it.
That there's no data proving otherwise may, in fact, be the result of there being no data to collect.
Why is there no data?
If there is no nervous signal to detect, how is she perceiving pain?
Certain evidence would prove mighty effective for those arguing to extend Mrs. Schiavo's life: evidence of recovery processes, evidence of pain. Evidence of mere perception would be a good start.
Doctors are using politically-motivated videotapes to make diagnoses (e.g. Sen. Dr. Frist) and assert such harsh words as murder. Were Mrs. Schiavo's life not in question, we might find such a condition laughable. However, such morbidity in vicious politics only inspires a couple words here and there. And those words are well-enough reserved for when I encounter a picture of Bill Frist.
What's absent from the discussion right now is evidence in support of the pro-life position.
For instance, the medical consensus says there is no evidence of pain. Hugh Finn, whose brother died amid a similar debate, says that's wrong, that such a death "hurts like hell". However, we haven't a scrap of evidence to support that assertion.
That's what I'm asking for. Anything to start.
The politics of this issue make positions difficult to define. I, for instance, am furious at the procedural irregularities undertaken for superficial and unnecessary reasons. I am furious at the denial of any reverence or dignity of toward human life evident in the pro-life crowd. But all of that hinges on a few basic realities. Despite all their rhetoric, the "Save Terri" crowd has failed to provide anything to address those realities.
As Judge Whittemore noted:
For instance, all I'm asking is one piece of information: evidence of pain. Had that data been available and entered into argument, the judge most likely would have granted the TRO.
So yes, it's annoying enough that someone has been given special privileges under the law. It is annoying enough that in addition to violating the sanctity of the Schiavo marriage, Congress has denied due process to Michael Schiavo. We, who support Mrs. Schiavo's right to determination, who acknowledge the sanctity of the Schiavo marriage, and who respect such societal notions as due process (a guarantee) and equal protection (a guarantee), are waiting for the pro-lifers to come up with any piece of substantive evidence. Anything. We're confident in our position because, unlike Congress, many have been paying sufficient attention to understand the legal issues as they pertain to sociomoral issues. What is needed in order to extend the life of Mrs. Schiavo's body is, essentially, something new.
Right now, as far as pro-life politics are concerned, the long-discredited late-80s phenomenon of psychospiritual regression, which had patients hypnotized in order to "remember" attempted abortions--adults curled up screaming, "Mommy, Mommy! Why are you hurting me! Why are you angry at the Lord?"--has a little more credibility than the assertion that Mrs. Schiavo will feel pain. Despite the victimizations caused by therapists in that movment, we could at least see the process and judge for ourselves.
In this case, we don't even need corrput therapists and unstable patients. All we need is contact. All we need is a signal. And despite the rhetoric, despite the anguish of Mrs. Schiavo's parents and siblings, what the pro-life crowd has failed to provide is even that small bit of evidence that can give us a place to start.
You guys are just as "guilty" of using "law" and politics to justify your beliefs by using "it's what she would have wanted" arguements and mask killing by " ceasing medical treatment". It's all bullshit. The only unethical and immoral thing I see here is the massive hypocrisy being commited on both sides. Both sides claim that ordering death of a human is ok in one situation while not ok in another. This is the largest human injustice!. The life or death of single handicap person, and however one uses the law to justify it, is irrelevant.