[Ninong]

The courts have repeatedly ruled that if you are incapacitated and unable to speak for yourself, the responsibility for making life-support decisions rests on your spouse, if married. The chain of responsibility then goes to the eldest adult child. After any and all adult children, it falls upon the parents and finally the brothers and sisters of the patient.

Terri Schiavo's case has been heard by at least 19 judges in six courts. She has been examined by no less than 12 court-appointed neurologists. All of them have agreed that she has absolutely no cognitive function whatsoever and that her brain is so severely damaged that it is impossible for her to ever regain cognitive function. She has been subjected to intense pain with no response.

Her parents do not agree with the decision made on her behalf by her husband. Her husband says that he is carrying out his wife's wishes. The courts have agreed that he is acting responsibly and in the best interests of his wife. The courts granted his wife's wishes to die more than seven years ago but her parents, because of their strict religious beliefs, do not agree with that decision. They have asked the federal government to prevent the courts from carrying out her wishes.

Senator Bill Frist, a cardiologist, has made his own diagnosis on the basis of viewing a home video supplied by her parents. He has disputed the findings of all 12 court-appointed doctors who have examined this patient extensively to say that in his opinion she does have cognitive function and is capable of communication. How outrageous! I hope the A.M.A. has the guts to publicly rebuke him. This is another instance of his pandering to the religious right in his party at the expense of his hypocratic oath.

It is a shame that a woman's welfare has been turned into just another opportunity for political gain: "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue. This is a great political issue because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."

Methinks Karl Rove shouldn't put things in writing from now on. Even John McCain has publicly distanced himself from the GOP's official talking points on S.529, from which that little quotation was taken.

So what do we have here? We have the party of states' rights deciding that the states have no rights if it involves something of interest to their "pro-life base." We have the party that believes in the "sanctity of marriage" (Bush's phrase) taking away spousal rights in favor of the parents. And we might even hear that they are hoping for a miracle cure based on stem-cell research. That wouldn't surprise me at this point.

[Biomanjcs72]

Didn't they just vote themselves a raise too? They aare milking the clock for overtime.

Seriously - This is a sad case - I think that it's a case of congress overstepping their boundaries; this is/was a legal matter - we have 3 separate houses of government for that reason.

I sincerely hope that the supreme court strikes this bill down as unconstitutional. I'm so Glad that GW got up in the middle of the night to sign this bill into law...

Realistically - medical technology can prolong anyones' life indefinately - Dialysis; Respirators; pacemakers/defibrulators (spelling) - etc...

I guess we're all supposed to end our lives hooked up to numerous machines and never actually die..

I'm going to begin making out my living will tonight. I'd do it sooner if I could.

[Reefland]

I don't know what to take of it. Unfortunately in our world today there are spouses that would rather have their significant other dead, regardless of their medical condition. Is this the case here? If one could decide that her husband is not rationally acting in her best interest then perhaps it would be better for her parents to be able to override his decision. If on the other hand he is acting in her best interest, and there is some documented proof that this is also her wish, then I think they should let him decide.

It's a difficult situation I guess since no one knows the husbands intentions nor her wishes.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Reefland

I don't know what to take of it. Unfortunately in our world today there are spouses that would rather have their significant other dead, regardless of their medical condition. Is this the case here? If one could decide that her husband is not rationally acting in her best interest then perhaps it would be better for her parents to be able to override his decision.

Her parents have already had that claim turned down by the courts. They say that he just wants the balance of the $1.5 million settlement that was intended to provide for her care. Funny, but thanks to their repeated legal actions against him, his legal bills have exceeded a million bucks. He just turned down another cash offer last week from someone who offered to pay him $1 million to divorce Terri. He was reportedly offered $10 million previously and turned that down, too.

I don't know. I'm just going by what 19 different judges have decided based on the professional recommendations of 12 different court-appointed doctors. BTW, quite a few Florida Republicans in state office agree with the courts on this issue.

If on the other hand he is acting in her best interest, and there is some documented proof that this is also her wish, then I think they should let him decide.

If there were documented proof of her wishes, there would be no basis for litigation. She did not leave a living will. In such cases the spouse gets to make the call. Terri's husband doesn't have to prove that he is acting on any expressed wishes of his wife, he can make that call even if he says that she never talked about it. It just so happens that in this particular case, he has said that his wife once said to him that she would never want to be kept alive indefinitely if she were totally incapacitated.

Her parents, devout Catholics, disagree with that decision. They believe in miracles. Good for them. That still doesn't give them the right to make the decision for her. That right belongs to her husband.

It's a difficult situation I guess since no one knows the husbands intentions nor her wishes.

The courts have repeatedly upheld his right to make this decision. This is a hot-button issue for the religious right of the Republican Party and that's why they are grandstanding right now. The official position of the Catholic Church is that life must be protected "from conception to natural death." They have stretched that to mean that withholding artificial life support amounts to euthanasia.

This is indeed a difficult topic. But it is one that affects thousands of people every month. The most troubling cases are the ones where the living will or the surviving responsible guardian requests that all measures be taken to sustain life for as long as possible but the hospital makes the call to disconnect life support because of the expense. Those calls are extremely rare and are reviewed and rereviewed by bioethics boards in advance but it does happen.

[Biomanjcs72]

What's annoying me about this the most - is from my cursory readings - Congress passed a law specifically for this case alone to allow her parents to ask a Judge YET AGAIN to review the case.

and according to literature - 19 judges have already upheld the husbands' right to decide.

Personally - If I'm ever vegetative and on a feeding tube or other "mechanical means" to sustain my life - i don't want to be here.

[Reefland]

I agree that if it is decided the spouse is acting in the best interest than that should be it. The courts should make that decision once and that's it. It shouldn't have to go more than a dozen times and it surely shouldn't go to congress. If however the spouse is not acting rationally, and the courts determine that, then the next relative should be able to make the decision.

[Ninong]

She has been incapacitated for 15 years. The first court decision granting her husband's request to terminate life-support was made 7 years ago.

This is a judicial matter. The separation of powers in our form of government gives the courts the responsibility for the administration of law. It is improper for the executive and the legislative branches of government to interfere with the courts just because it would please their "pro-life base."

Jeb Bush passed "Terri's Law" in Florida to reconnect her feeding the tube the last time and that law was ruled unconstitutional by the Florida State Supreme Court. It is very likely that this new federal law would also be ruled unconstitutional if it ever makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court (Justice Scalia's hysterical dissent notwithstanding).

[zhenya]

Well, as sad as this story is, for everyone involved, it will probably be a prolonged agony for quite some time. Shameless and very selfish for the legislation to interfere with judicial rulings in this case and I personally agree with Ninong on this matter( not that it means anything to Terri's husband), I sincerely hope that it will be ruled as unconstitutional "law".

I hope that my wife will be left in charge of my last wishes and that no one will pass a law that my living will is no longer applies( I know it is not the case here), for the sake of some political gain by whomever is running this country at the time.

[Ninong]

Gene,

What Congress has done is to pass a law that specifically applies to this case alone and transfers it from Florida state courts to the federal court. This allows her parents to press their case all over again before a federal judge. There is nothing that guarantees that the federal judge will rule any differently than the previous 19 state judges. Not being a lawyer, I can't tell you what the potential appeals process may be if they don't like this judge's decision.

Should the federal judge rule in their favor, I'm sure the husband could challenge the constitutionality of the law that transferred this case into federal court. This could go on ad infinitum et ad nauseam.

And, especially if this tactic works, what is to stop either political party from pushing through special laws for individual cases where they don't agree politically with the decision of the courts? Does anyone seriously think that it won't be tried again if it works?

I doubt that it will come to this, but I believe the U.S. Supreme Court would strike down this law in a heartbeat. This issue will be extremely interesting to the justices from a self-preservation point of view.

[Ninong]

Here is a good question for all those politicians who want to keep Terri Schiavo alive: Would you want that for yourself?

[Michelle]

Good question Ninong, I know being in her state I sure don't consider it living and I would never want to be like that. Pull the plug and let me go, especially after 15 years. I sure wouldn't want any politicians deciding on my fate either, they make enough choices for me now.

[Poseidon]

Does this case fit the description of a "courthouse circus" or what?? I think it is just TERRIBLE that it has come to this... I'll bet if Terri was from a family with less means, then it all would have been settled 7 years ago. I am not saying that a family with less money would love their daughter any less, only that they would not have had the money to put up such a fight...

I think it is in everyones best interest to let go, and let her rest. Having watched my grandfather bury his only son, and being a parent myself, I do NOT make that statement lightly....

[Samper]

If it absolutely HAS to be done I think they could atleast come up with a better way to do it other than dehydration and starvation I mean come on....Dogs that get hit by a car and have to be put down have a much more humane death than she will experience. They say she can't feel pain .......well let me ask you this. What if she feels everything they are doing to her but just can't react to it? Maybe her mental state keeps just such reactions from showing.

You've heard about people coming to during surgery but the drugs working enough to just keep them from reacting right? There are thousands of cases of this happening and I think the estimate is 1 out of every 2000 patients experience such a phenomenon. She could be in just such a boat but the mind is doing it not the drugs.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Gene,

What Congress has done is to pass a law that specifically applies to this case alone and transfers it from Florida state courts to the federal court. This allows her parents to press their case all over again before a federal judge. There is nothing that guarantees that the federal judge will rule any differently than the previous 19 state judges. Not being a lawyer, I can't tell you what the potential appeals process may be if they don't like this judge's decision.

Should the federal judge rule in their favor, I'm sure the husband could challenge the constitutionality of the law that transferred this case into federal court. This could go on ad infinitum et ad nauseam.

And, especially if this tactic works, what is to stop either political party from pushing through special laws for individual cases where they don't agree politically with the decision of the courts? Does anyone seriously think that it won't be tried again if it works?

I doubt that it will come to this, but I believe the U.S. Supreme Court would strike down this law in a heartbeat. This issue will be extremely interesting to the justices from a self-preservation point of view.

George,

Now why would a Congress pass a law for just this case, what kind of a law is this? What would preclude other lawyers from using this law in the future and try to clutter courts with all sorts of appeals? I just don't get where is the sense in this?

I sure hope that Supreme Court sees it the same way and as a danger to the judicial system.

Having said all that, I do understand this woman;s parents and how terrible they probably feel but I honestly think that they are prolonging the agony for their child and themselves, and for another person that their daughter loved and I am sure trusted.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Samper

If it absolutely HAS to be done I think they could atleast come up with a better way to do it other than dehydration and starvation I mean come on....Dogs that get hit by a car and have to be put down have a much more humane death than she will experience. They say she can't feel pain .......well let me ask you this. What if she feels everything they are doing to her but just can't react to it? Maybe her mental state keeps just such reactions from showing.

It will be a painless death. She will feel nothing. She feels nothing right now. This is not the same as someone under anesthesia. It's not even the same as someone in a coma.

Why in the world would you think that the courts or the doctors charged with her care would allow her to suffer? She is in a persistent vegetative state and has been for 15 years!

All 12 of the independent court-appointed doctors who have examined her over the years have reached that diagnosis after examining her. I'm sure they did an EEG plus the usual physical neurological stimuli. You can stick pins in her and there is no response of any kind.

Her family has rounded up a few doctors who disagree with the diagnosis of all of the court-appointed doctors. I guess that goes to prove that you can get an expert witness for every possible position. Defense lawyers are well aware of that fact and they keep lists of which "experts" can be counted on to provide "appropriate" testimony. The more "reliable" they are, the higher their fees.

This entire thing is turning into a three-ring circus. Are we to believe that 19 different Florida state judges in six different courts are all incompetent? Are we to believe that all 12 court-appointed neurologists who examined her extensively are all quacks? That would be a conspiracy almost as large as the conspiracy that supposedly planted the blood evidence in O.J.'s car and bedroom but not quite as large as the conspiracy that faked the moon landing.

[Samper]

Hospice is taking care of her...it's govt/state funded aka taxpayer money. There is no financial burden on the family. Why would Congress want to get involved? Publicity?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by zhenya

Now why would a Congress pass a law for just this case, what kind of a law is this?

Motivation is something we don't usually see but in this case we do have the leaked Republican Party's talking points on this bill. See my post above for the quotation in blue. Obviously the Republicans see this as an opportunity to appease their "pro-life base" (their phrase). They also see it as an opportunity to put the Democrats in a difficult position. At least Senator McCain has publicly repudiated that little document.

What would preclude other lawyers from using this law in the future and try to clutter courts with all sorts of appeals? I just don't get where is the sense in this?

You can't use this statute for any other case because it applies to Terri Schiavo and no one else. The House considered drawing up a more general bill but it wouldn't have passed the Senate.

I understand your point but it would require additional specific bills or a new general bill. I seriously doubt that this statute or any similar to it would pass constitutional muster by the Supreme Court. I would love to see the individual decisions on this should it go all the way to the Supreme Court. Here we have an example of the other two branches of government specifically usurping the power of the courts. I can think of possibly only two votes on the court that would uphold this statute: Scalia and Thomas. Rehnquist would almost certainly be against it. He is constantly preaching about defending the independence of the courts.

I sure hope that Supreme Court sees it the same way and as a danger to the judicial system.

If this is legal, then any time the Congress disagrees with a decision in a state court, they simply pass a bill transfering it to federal court. The very idea that something like this is being perpetrated by Republicans is what is so surprising.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Samper

Hospice is taking care of her...it's govt/state funded aka taxpayer money. There is no financial burden on the family. Why would Congress want to get involved? Publicity?

It is considered a "right to life" issue. It is a religious issue. The Republican Party is especially responsive to the issues that are important to what they themselves call their "pro-life base." (See my comments about their talking points earlier in this thread.)

Her parents are Catholics. They believe in miracles. They are praying that God will find a way to cure their daughter. They also believe that life must be protected "from the moment of conception to natural death." That is the official position of the Catholic Church. A lot of other churches agree with that position but not all. That is why the Catholic Church is against using two and three-day-old pre-embryos for stem cells. It Britain it is lawful to use human embryos for stem cell research provided they are destroyed prior to the 14-day mark. That's when the cells begin to differentiate. That's also why the Catholic Church (and many others) consider the morning after pill murder. It is a basic tenet of their faith that life begins at the moment of conception (fertilization) because they believe that that is the moment life is infused with an immortal soul.

The Mormons have a slightly different take on that. They believe that the souls of all children reside in heaven with God and that they don't come down to Earth to take up residence in the fertilized egg until after it has attached in the womb and become viable. That little wrinkle has allowed all six Mormon members of the Senate (5 Republicans and 1 Democrat) to favor stem cell research while being against abortion. Fertilized eggs in a petri dish don't count because they haven't yet attached themselves in the womb.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Ninong

If this is legal, then any time the Congress disagrees with a decision in a state court, they simply pass a bill transfering it to federal court. The very idea that something like this is being perpetrated by Republicans is what is so surprising.

That's exactly what I was thinking,George.
I am also thinking that this should be a civil case and I don't see why Congress should interfere with the state judges ruling in this case. Unless, like you said, a big chance to score some political points. At who's expense?
And, what about that husband? Is he now being portrayed as money seeking beast or something?

[Ninong]

Gene,

Every conceivable aspect of this case has already been adjudicated in state courts. That includes questions about the husband's motives, questions about Terri's wishes, questions about who is responsible under Florida law for making this decision for Terri and questions about her medical condition and prognosis.

To make a federal case (literally) out of this is absurd and an insult to the Florida state courts and the 12 doctors who have examined Terri. It is amazing that Senator Frist, a cardiologist, can determine from looking at a home video that Terri Schiavo is exhibiting cognitive awareness. Doctors who have examined her in person say that her eye movements are consistent with a persistent vegetative state and that she is not responding to any outside stimuli or commands.

Her parents continue to talk to her and they believe that she understands them and responds with changes in her expression. That's wishful thinking. All of the court-appointed doctors say that she is not responding to her parents or anyone else in any way. Only her brain stem is still functioning. That's the part that is the oldest and that regulates the heart and respiration.