I'd point out that:

1. In most cases, the spouse and children are considered the "immediate family" of a married person. Thus, 100% of Terri's immediate family are for ending her non-sentient existence.

2. The courts aren't ordering that she die, merely allowing it. A not insignificant difference legally, although the same thing practically.

Actually, the courts have imposed a death sentence on the flimsiest of "evidence". Evidence that, if this were a capital trial, wouldn't even be considered by the courts.

As for that BS poll, it asks whether people would want to be kept on "life support" if there was no opportunity for improvement. They don't define "life support", which I'm sure most all Americans think of as a machine that does your breathing for you.

According to the court, the utensils, plates, and bowls in my kitchen are "life support" and "medical treatment", I mean - those are the implements used to deliver food to my body.

When will the media make Judge Greer account for his actions? Why are judges above the scrutiny of the media? There is nothing sacred or holy about being a judge. One's opionions should not be exempt from the puclic record. Where are the enterprising reporters standing outside the doors of the courts askiing judges to explain themselves?

"The courts aren't ordering that she die, merely allowing it."

Since Judge Greer has even denied the attempted giving of food and water oraly, the courts are ordering her death.

Unreal how the over-the-top rhetoric continues to fly from the right on this. First of all, Kirby, she cannot swallow. This was tested and proven using (in the words of the court appointed Guardian in 2003) the "gold standard" testing method. Feeding her orally would almost definitely cause aspiration, infection, and death. How sympathetic of you.

Second, I'd like to reinforce what James said in that what the Florida court established in trial was "clear and convincing evidence" that the most important person in this - Terry Schiavo - would have wanted to die. You can disagree all you like, but it has nothing to do with what Michael or her parents "want". It's what SHE wanted. Oh, and a little trivia here, that determination was NOT made strictly on the testimony of her husband, but 2 other people as well.

Kirby is right on. If Terri's mother tries to give her dying daughter water to wet her lips, she will be arrested. This is what out country has come to. Pivital events in my life that changed me:
1- John Kennedy assasinated.
2 Martin Luther King assasinated.
3- Nixon resigning.
4- John Lennons murdered.
5- Challenger explosion.
6- Tanks rolling through WACO church.
7- Terri Schiavo being starved to death.

Each event makes me lose more faith in mankind and in particular our Justice system for each of the above.

The two other witnesses to Terri wanting to die are Michael's sister and brother-in-law. No conspiracy there.

And one further thing.... Her parents like to claim that Terry never told THEM she would want to die. In reading about this case, though, I discovered that leading up to her collapse, she was going through infertility treatment as she and Michael were trying to get pregnant. Guess who she DIDN'T tell about that treatment ? That's right, her parents. Suffice to say, if she isn't telling them about that, it's doubtful that she would have went out of her way to have a conversation with her devout catholic parents about her desire not to live through artifical means at the age of 24.

Just so you know some of the history that 99.9% of the people commenting on the issue don't know.

I would like to know if anyone can explain why CNN has for the past one hour had a headline stating that Greer HAS turned down the request to transfer guardianship to the Florida DCF, but Fox News is saying no ruling has been made as of yet?

Kevin...do you think this is a simple mistake or deliberate? I thought maybe they just 'scooped' Fox, but now I am changing my mind...

You are correct Kabuzz. Now tell me the conspiratorial motivation for them supporting Michael, ESPECIALLY his brother-in-law who is not a blood relative of Michael, and therefore would not have an interest in the outcome.

I know your answer already, but the fact that he sued her infertility doctor for malpractice pretty much exonerates him as having anything to do with her original collapse. You don't go around suing doctors if you have something to hide.

sherard, you're so full of shit I bet your eyes are brown.

1. In most cases, the spouse and children are considered the "immediate family" of a married person. Thus, 100% of Terri's immediate family are for ending her non-sentient existence.

Depends on your definition of spouse. Terri's legal husband now has a girlfriend and two children. That is clearly not Terri's moral spouse. Therefore, her immediate family is her parents, both of whom want Terri to live. You and every fucking doctor on the planet does not know if Terri is "non-sentient". This line of reasoning is illogical. If ONE doctor claims that Terri is not in PVS but rather in minimal consciousness, is that enough to keep her alive??? Hell, in a criminal trial, if one juror cannot find guilt, the jury is hung and the suspect may walk. But not Terri, if one doctor disagrees with a previous diagnosis/prognosis, too bad, she's dead.

Once again, the sensitive, tolerant, intellectual, leftist judiciary has made an insensitive, intolerant, immoral decision. Yes folks, it is now okay in this country to terminate life if its disabled. Its also okay to extinguish life regardless of what the loving parents want. Finally, its okay for the state to sanction the death of an invalid based on a spouse's unproven claim.

I believe if Terri was allowed to live, then abortion rights would have been in question too. But to preserve abortion rights, the judiciary fucked Terri's family. Terri was sacrificed for abortion rights.

Btw...

FL DCF can still move to seize absent a court order - I know. They can do it as sure as the INS seized ilian in 2000 even after the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the child stay with the parents.

Judge Greer ( a local magistrate) cannot stop this. The petition was merely a formality (a notice if you will), saying in essence - "We're coming".

Aint over by a long shot - not yet.

Even if they don't, and Terri dies a wrongful death suit is not being prepared. In a civil trial all the books will be openned again. If Mike had something to do with this in the beginning (as the Sheriff in that county believed then), then we are going to know.

Again, a civil judgement can - if it uncovers new evidence (criminal), there could be a criminal case to follow.

Thank you, James, for leading the way.

Kabuzz -- did you forget to put 9-11 on that list?

Sherard -- way to go babe

Bike Babe -- how glib and inventive.

Mac --

Fertile imagination, born of well-meaning, sincere and heartfelt beliefs. God bless you for caring.

Hope you're not a lawyer though.

Posted by: wavemaker at March 24, 2005 01:34 PM

Kabuzz -- did you forget to put 9-11 on that list?
Why should that bother you??? Maybe he was changed before 9/11???

Bike Babe -- how glib and inventive. AND ACCURATE.

Is it just me or does Michael Schiavo look like a bad-guy cop in an action movie? He reminds me of the guy that tells his partner that he'll cover him and then shoots him in the back when he's not looking. Seriously, has anyone taken a look at this guy? I'm not trying to make light of the situation, but I saw a picture of this guy for the first time and that's all I thought.

If she does die, and she most likely will now, I hope someone beats the everliving shit out of him. I know violence doesn't solve anything, but the man is pure evil. I can't believe someone can be so cold and heartless on the nation's stage and then skip off in the sunset with a million bucks. Wonder how long it is until he marries his girlfriend, strangles her and yanks the feeding tube from her as well.

TT - Just askin a question. Pick a fight with someone else. BB can defend herself.

RE: Sean's post (March 24, 2005 12:16 PM)
According to the court, the utensils, plates, and bowls in my kitchen are "life support" and "medical treatment", I mean - those are the implements used to deliver food to my body.

Let's be precise about what the law states and what the court must ("mis-")interpret since the focus is quite narrow (Schiavo is why people are attentive.):

The 2004 Florida Statutes, Title XLIV, CIVIL RIGHTS
Chapter 765 HEALTH CARE ADVANCE DIRECTIVES

765.101 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:

...

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.

...

I won't even get into polls, their dubious nature, or its impact on anything except calculating politicians who, by necessity, depend on them. I will say this - Americans recognize that there are medical interventions that are not "a machine that does your breathing for you" yet are artificially life-sustaining. While some may or may not be aware of each and every tool, that does not mean that they do not acknowledge that they exist and disregarded such alternate intervention in their polled response. People are much smarter than that and your assumption is by no means a certainty. If you are speaking of your own limited understanding of "life-support", then fine.

Truthteller---you need to read his entire post. He said that each of the listed events "makes me lose more faith in mankind and in particular our Justice system for each of the above."

If you ask me, 9/11 doesn't fit that category. It helped wake us up to the reality of SOME evil men, yes. But it also helped us see some incredible outpouring of compassion and heroism in others, and our country's resolve to act when attacked, etc. etc.

In other words, I did not lose faith in mankind or our justice system as a direct result of 9/11; and if I understand Kabuzz52 correctly, neither did he.

Truthteller, wavemaker---sorry, my previous post should have been directed to wavemaker, not truthteller. I misread the quoting.

Thanks, MCG -- I guess I deserve this for being a smart ass. I actually wasn't trying to be critical of Kabuzz at all. I was honestly surprized that he would have considered the murder of John Lennon more life-changing to him than 9-11. So I figured maybe he typed his comments and sent them before he realized.

Kabuzz, if you're offended, my bad.

I wouldn't be Judge Greer or Michael Shiavo for anything after this. These 2 and perhaps Judge Whitmire(?) in Atlanta will be such Pariahs the rest of their life.

Sherad, In the Wolfson report it says she was NOT given the swallow test. Her brother said this morning that she has NOT been given a MRI either. I find it hard to believe that he would lie over something that is easily verified.

This is just so awful.

I just don't want the left wing to ever claim to be for the "vulnerable" of our society again. They have proven over and over that they no longer are.

The swallowing tests are spelled out in the 2003 Guardian Ad Litem report as required by Jeb Bush. She was given the barium swallowing test three times in 1993 /1994 timeframe. Those tests proved she cannot swallow.

Per a CNN article:

Wolfson also recommended that "swallowing tests" be performed on Schiavo, tests her husband opposes because he says they were done several years ago and showed she could not swallow. Her parents believe that with swallow therapy, Schiavo could be taught to eat again, eliminating the need for the feeding tube.

Frankly the idea of "swallowing therapy" is laughable. The woman has no cognitive capability whatsoever. To think she could somehow magically regain motor functions that could support being able "eat again" is utterly ridiculous.

An excerpt from the Wolfson Report (page 28 of 38):

The recognized gold standard test is the modified barium swallowing test, generally done
in a hospital or at a facility that has radiology equipment. Theresa’s three previous tests
were barium swallowing tests.

Not sure where you get the idea that Wolfson said they hadn't been done. He did suggest doing it again to be 100% sure, maybe that is the source of the confusion.

...she was going through infertility treatment as she and Michael were trying to get pregnant. Guess who she DIDN'T tell about that treatment ? That's right, her parents.

Well, no shit. Maybe she didn't want to get their hopes up about grandkids.

PS - if you like, you too (meaning anyone) could read the entire Wolfson Report

Agreed, Mark. It's hardly telling that they would not tell her parents about fertility treatments. We kept the same from our folks until it was successful.

wavemaker---well, let me just say, Lennon's murder wouldn't have been on MY list, either :)

Sorry, Mark, but considering that my wife and I have been there, once you see an infertility specialist, you are long since past the point of "getting hopes up about grandkids". You can rationalize it all you like, but it was just one of many pieces of information that were used to establish a pattern of behavior in which the claim that "she didn't tell US" is rendered meaningless.

For that matter...

http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/

RE: DaveyBrink's post (March 24, 2005 01:44 PM)
Is it just me or does Michael Schiavo look like a bad-guy cop in an action movie? He reminds me of the guy that tells his partner that he'll cover him and then shoots him in the back when he's not looking. Seriously, has anyone taken a look at this guy? I'm not trying to make light of the situation, but I saw a picture of this guy for the first time and that's all I thought.

Seriously, are you kidding me?!

In view of the sentiment in your second paragraph and the fact that what you have concluded is that it is just a "thought", do you think maybe you have a preconceived bias of M. Schiavo based on your view of events and might be trying to demonize him with an external observation of his physical presence? If not, I sure hope that you are never on a jury where I'm the defendant seeing as you might be overtly biased based on my appearance either inside or outside the courtroom.

Posted by: Mark Flacy at March 24, 2005 02:47 PM

That's exactly the way my wife and I did it. We didn't tell anyone. In fact, we haven't told them to this day that we used IUI.

Isn't this Sherard character a complete ass???? Quoting medical/court records and all the time completely ignoring the immorality of what is happening. Ignorance seems to be bliss in his case too.

The comparison to not telling her parents about fertility treatments is ridiculous. My wife and I went through the same things, we now have a daughter and to this day we still haven't told our parents.

However, my parents are aware that I would not want to be kept on life support.

A quick question for all of those who are making the argument that removing that feeding tube will cause this woman terrible pain and suffering and to do that is a moral outrage.

Would you be making this argument if there was a will that stated explicitly that Terry did not want to be keep alive by a feeding tube? I mean it seems that this issue turns on whether or not you believe that she absolutely wanted to be keep alive by any means necessary or that you think in absence of an explicit statement the error should be on the side of keeping her alive.

But would it be a moral out rage to allow the tube to be removed even if such an explicit statement existed despite that fact that you feel she will suffer and agonizing death?

AnonymousDrivel:

driv·el

noun

1. silly talk: silly and irrelevant or inaccurate talk
They’re talking drivel.

2. drooled saliva: saliva dribbling from the mouth

intransitive verb (past driv·eled, past participle driv·eled, present participle driv·el·ing, 3rd person present singular driv·els)

1. talk nonsense: to talk silly and irrelevant or inaccurate nonsense

2. drool: to let saliva dribble from the mouth

[Old English dreflian , of uncertain origin]

Stick to what you know. :-)

Does anyone but me wonder why a legally-blind judge -- Judge Greer -- is passing judgement on a case in which he is incapable of seeing Terri Schiavo himself? He's relying on others to give him a visual picture of Terri's condition. I know this is poltically incorrect, but isn't it part of due process that a judge be able to see the subject of a court proceeding on a life and death matter?

Rick your point is an interesting one, but if she did have a living will or written document with her wishes expressed on it, we would not be in this situation right now. She would have died 15 years ago. That is the major issue for me, the judge accepted the word of her husband when he made his ruling when it was pretty clear that at the time the husband had moved on and could have been perceived as not speaking for the best interests of Terri.

But to answer your question, if someone had a living will in place not to insert a feeding tube to help sustain their life in a unrecoverable state, then I would not have a problem with it. It should be noted that most living wills also have a provision to allow for comfort care to help with the pain, something Terri is not receiving to the best of my knowledge.

RE: G.'s post (March 24, 2005 03:24 PM)
driv·el

...

Stick to what you know. :-)

Hmm. Now that you mention it, this never dawned on me before. ;) Perhaps a namechange is in order.

If she had a written living will, then I would consider to have at least considered to some degree what having a feeding tube might entail, and thought it worth it to have it done. If her wishes were in writing, I also would argue that those wishes be honored, even if I personally wouldn't choose it.

"Frankly the idea of "swallowing therapy" is laughable. The woman has no cognitive capability whatsoever. To think she could somehow magically regain motor functions that could support being able "eat again" is utterly ridiculous."

#1 her parents argue that she is not in PVS, and there is some dispute among docotrs as to her cognitive capabilities.

#2 swallowing therapy is very common, and many a stroke or accident victim has had it, and has often recovered the ability.

So their arguments that she could benefit from swallowing therapy is not implausible, if their argument that she isn't in PVS is valid.

Agressive, extended rehabilitation was given to Terry for several years - AND IT DIDN'T WORK!

The Wolfson Report

Please folks, let her rest in peace

Mike and Just Me,

OK so the arguments about any pain and suffering Terrie might experience are really irrelevant given that the dispute hinges on Terrie's wishes and not about the right to make such a decision for yourself, would I be correct on that score?

Let me be more clear. you would all agree that people should have the right to make the decision for themselves as to whether or not that want to live for any lenght of time in the condition that Terrie is in. Is that right?

Glenn-You might want to read through that report again... it talks about how a previous GAL found MIchael to have a conflict and Michael didn't present clear and convincing evidence...Pearse and Wolfson both agreed Terri should have her own guardian...The issue of guardianship should have been determined and actually changed a very long time ago... then we wouldn't be having this tragedy.

Rick stop leading your argument, what's your point? What are you trying to make us say?

Crystal - you mean the previous GAL who was dismissed? And why would you have taken guardianship from her husband?

Posted by: wavemaker at March 24, 2005 01:47 PM

TT - Just askin a question.
Pick a fight with someone else. BB can defend herself.

This is a question? > Bike Babe -- how glib and inventive.

Once again, you are trying to tell other people what they can and cannot do; what they can and cannot post.

You're starting to sound like cindy, the brokenangelthigamajig. Therefore, be afraid wavemaker; be very afraid.

Mike,

I'm not trying to "make" you say anything. I am trying to strip away the irrelevancies and get down to brass tacks on what exactly the issue is in this case.

Most of the people in the broader meta discussion are all over the map on this saying nasty things about the other side. The argument about whether or not Terrie will experience pain seems to me to be irrelevant because if they were convinced that those were in fact her wishes then they, presumably, would not be making the pain and suffering argument (at least the people who have responded to this question on other boards have said that same thing).

There are people who do not believe that US citizens should have the right to decide how to end their life if they are faced with the kind of predicament that Terrie has been in for the last 15 years. If you are one of those people then the issue is simple, no one should be allowed to take any action that would result in someone else’s death under any circumstances.

The reason this is important is because if this is your view then the issue of whether Terrie did in fact not want to live this way is also completely irrelevant because you would not favor it even if she had a living will. Arguing one way or another on issue of what Terrie did or didn’t want, for those people, is disingenuous.

Personally I don’t know what to think, I think that the issue has taken on a life quite aside from Terrie’s current “predicament” so I am trying to discover what the central issue is for those who want Terrie to continue to get sustenance because there are a bunch of side issues being tossed around that are not helping the discussion.

And I’m not “leading the argument”, I haven’t made an argument, I’m trying to understand yours. If more people did what I am doing, public discourse might be a bit more civil, no?

julie, I believe the just asking a question was in reference to 9/11 not being in pinotal event in kabuzz's list. Not his reference to biker babe.

Thank you mike --- and I already straightened that out with kabuzz. Bike babe apparently didn't care. Why julie does is beyond me.

Thanks, Mike. His writing isn't very clear.

Thank you mike --- and I already straightened that out with kabuzz. Bike babe apparently didn't care. Why julie does is beyond me.

Tsk. Tsk. But you cared enough to criticize BB and then TruthTeller for sticking up for BB. I care because I don't like hypocrities and you seem to fit that discription quite a lot these days.

W. or Jeb could end this I think just by executive order. It's apparent they would both have the backing of Congress. They just have to take up their roles and openly defy these judges and put them in their place.Of course that would open up one helluva can of worms. But Judicial fiatism,anti-constitutional grandstanding has got to stop. Otherwise under the right circumstances, eventually, any one risks death by Judicial whim. Perhaps a few Judicial impeachments by congress would cause other Judges to back up and realize who REALLY has the power.

Julie, I've never had a disagreeable word to say to you. Why must you insist on being disagreeable to me? Why are you butting into a trivial matter than is none of your concern? Because I am a hypocritie (sic)? Please explain to me what I have said "of late" that you find hypocritical.

Lord above, isn't there something more important you can find to argue about than whether or not I choose to (gently) scold Biker Babe for telling someong they're "so full of shit their eyes are brown" without adding anything to the discussion???? Is that what you want this comment section to devolve into? Mindless bickering?

Julie, I've never had a disagreeable word to say to you.

Obviously, you do not see your tendency to boss people around as to what they can and cannot post or discuss as disagreeable. I do.

Why must you insist on being disagreeable to me?

See above.

Why are you butting into a trivial

See above. So trivial that you have insulted three people over it.

matter than is none of your concern?

You made it my concern when you started sniping at other people. That you complain when I snipe back at you, is well, again hypocrisy. And this is a public forum, I'll post what I want until told to do otherwise by the owners, which, last time I checked, is not you.

Because I am a hypocritie (sic)? Please explain to me what I have said "of late" that you find hypocritical.

Sorry, I've already told you now for the fourth and last time.

Is that what you want this comment section to devolve into? Mindless bickering?

If you don't want to hear mindless bickering, try shutting up.

Hey, everybody, take a coupla deep breaths and calmmmdownnn. We like Wizbang so let's keep the place moving forward.

Wow, -S-.

You bang a mean gavel. Are any of your names "Wapner" or "Judy"?

James Joyner,
Judge Greer has issued an order preventing anyone from even attempting to feed Terri Schiavo.

That is not "allowing her to die."

It is ensuring that she will die.

Rick, there will always be the possiblity of error, but the error should be in same sense that we require for criminal trials. That is, we should err on the side of making people live when they don't want to, if we cannot be 100% sure.

I'm not morally opposed to suicide or even assisted suicide. My problem with the Schiavo case is that the evidence for Terri's supposed wishes was held to a lower standard ("clear and convincing"--no jury) than we require for an accused criminal ("beyond reasonable doubt"--and a jury).

I guess we should just all let the government make decisions for us. Where we live. What we do for a living. How much money we make. How many kids we have. If we can marry the person we want to. Now... some are saying we should let them make decisions that have always been left to the next of kin..... and when you're married that is your spouse. When you leave your childhood home and venture off into this great big world you become an adult and leave the nurturing of your parents .... and often their values and their beliefs... as you take on your own. Our freedoms in this country are slowly being sucked away by the conservatives who believe it's OUR WAY OR NO WAY. This countrys foundation ... it's pricipal is based on SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. You think what you want and I'll think what I want.... just dont make laws that make your beliefs seem logical when they are just amendments to the bible. This great nation we live in is and always has been a melting pot of different nationalites and religions from around the world ... with one common goal...... EQUALITY. So enough of the religious right wing dictating RIGHT AND WRONG to the common population. Go to church and pray and leave personal decisions about life, liberty and the persuit of happiness up to the individual.Lets keep the government out of our personal lives.... they already have more control than the should have. Lets not give them more.