"...in order to force an outcome favored by Republicans."

"...the Republican take on the Schiavo case."

Except, you know, like...dozens of Democrats also voted for this law. And Democrats "...acting in the name of Christ cannot be allowed to govern the minutae of our lives.", right?

Polls show that they have an overwhelming 27% mandate to get all up in people's business, shit on federalism and other so-called 'conservative' values, and slander people they don't know/make medical diagnoses from edited videotapes.

That's double-digits, ladies and gentleman. Recognize!

Maybe they're doing it because they think it's the right thing to do, not because it's popular.

At least put a bullet in the woman's head if ya'll are going to be so gung ho for her to die.

Damn! The Inverse Mandate theorem! You're ever-so-precious, JSB.

Really, who's "gung ho" about letting her die? Seriously, JSB. Who?

What I see is that, a decade and a half after the woman *lost* virtually all of her cerebral cortex in the wake of a heart attack (*lost*, ie, it's not just not fuctioning, it's literally *gone*, replaced by spinal fluid), the doctors who remove her feeding tube will simply be following the law by acting in occordance with the patient's wishes (according to the court's reasoned and impartial judgment) to discontinue her medical treatment.

There's very little about 7 years of legal proceedings that strikes me as "gung ho" in any respect.

I'll retract the "gung ho", Dan. See Rob's post at http://burtonterrace.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_burtonterrace_archive.html#111137899959739210

I'd like to see some of the issues raised in that post resolved. Sorry about the accusatory tone in my comments. --s

Re: Rob's post...

On the issue of the settlement money going toward rehabilitation... It may well be the case that Michael Schiavo perjured himself; it may well be the case that Michael Schiavo is scum. But on the point that "Many doctors believe that Terri might respond to rehabilitation," I have to say: not from what I've read. If these "many doctors" are the 17 medical experts that have filed affidativs on behalf of Terri's parents, I suggest you look to Majikthise for the lowdown on their expertise. For the medical case in response to these experts, I defer to Rivka of Respectful of Otters who says:

I have a doctorate in clinical psychology. I have completed a year-long practicum in clinical neuropsychology. I'm not qualified to evaluate Terri Schiavo myself - that would take a board-certified neurologist or neuropsychologist - but I am certainly qualified to evaluate the adequacy or inadequacy of someone else's evaluation. And so I have read every one of the 17 affidavits, plus the report of the examining physician on whose findings Schiavo's parents are basing their case, plus the rulings from the trial court and the court of appeals.

None of the 17 affidavits are by providers who examined Schiavo. Only one of the 17 providers claims to have reviewed her medical records. The remaining 16 providers apparently based their statements primarily on six snippets of videotape, totalling 4 minutes and 20 seconds, which have been posted on Schiavo's parents' website and broadcast repeatedly on the news. Several of them explicitly say that they viewed these clips on the net, and the others all refer to the same short samples of behavior (e.g., Schiavo's eyes tracking a balloon). Many of them say they read news stories about Schiavo. One admits to only seeing news stories and photographs. They all reference their experience with "similar patients," but without qualifying what they mean by "similar." For example, one doctor draws comparisons to catatonic patients - but catatonia simply refers to an absence of voluntary motion or interaction, and can be caused by any number of things. Another references stroke patients, and two more talk about patients with Alzheimer's. As Ampersand points out, not one of them mentions the specific degree and type of brain damage that Schiavo has, as documented by her CAT scans:

Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. [...]

Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.

Do read the entire post. The bare fact is that Terri has no cerebral cortex. Virtually every medical professional that takes this fact into account seems to agree that rehabilitation is a fantasy at best.

As for Michael Schiavo's role in the removal of the feeding tube, as I understand it, he is not the one making the decision in this case. According to Hilzoy's history of the Schiavo case at Obsidian Wings:

Michael Schiavo petitioned the court to determine whether her feeding tube should be removed. Many press reports talk as though he just decided that it should be removed; in fact, he left that decision to the court. He and others testified that Terri Schiavo had said that she would not want to be kept alive in a condition like the one she was in; her family of origin testified that she had said that she would. The judge found (pdf) that there was 'clear and convincing evidence' that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to receive life-prolonging care in her current condition, and ordered that the feeding tube could be removed. (If you are wondering how the judge could have found 'clear and convincing evidence' given conflicting testimony, I urge you to read the pdf, which explains why the judge did not find her parents' testimony credible. In one case, for instance, they testified that she had made a remark supporting their position when she was an adult, but it turned out that she had said it when she was 11 or 12.) This was in 1998; in 2001, after this decision had been appealed as far as it could go and upheld, her feeding tube was removed for the first time.

Indeed, he did testify that Terri would have wanted life support removed. But his testimony was only part of the evidence the court took under consideration. Suffice to say that this is not a case of the spouse making the decision directly (though, absent the court ruling, it would be his decision to make).

As for the videos, I haven't watched the clips Rob links to (and can't now, at work) but we should bear in mind that the court reviewed a full 4 1/2 hours of unedited footage looking for evidence of legitimate response to stimuli and found it unconvincing. A minute of apparent response here and there is hardly proof, and more likely coincedence.

No doubt her parents think she's responding to their touch and their voices, but then the human capacity for hope is a powerful thing. Anyone who's seen a loved one unresponsive in a hospital bed is familiar with this hope and the way it can skew perception at times.

As for whether or not Terri is in "a dying process"... I'm no doctor or medical ethicist, but it seems to me that, while she is not terminal, she does require the life-sustaining medical intervention of a feeding tube inserted into her stomach. If this treatment were discontinued (as the courts have determined that Terri would want), she would indeed be in a "dying process."

For that matter, a terminal cancer patient may not be in a dying process, but they may yet resign themselves to one if they refuse life-prolonging chemo. And they most certainly have the right to refuse. Terri Schiavo is not capable of refusing care directly, but the courts have determined, after considering the available evidence, that she would have chosen to do so.

If she could be taught to swallow on her own by virtue of brainstem response, she probably could eat on her own. Absent other substantial rehabilitation (which, recall, is unlikely due to her lack of cerebral cortext), though, how this motor response would constitute an improvement in her quality of life is beyond me.

Furthermore, could it succeed in keeping Terri alive without medical intervention? For a while, possibly. But there's a pretty good reason they don't have people in vegitative states chewing and swallowing their own food, namely the dangers of choking and pneumonia from aspiration. And pneumonia is a far more horrible way to go than dehydration or starvation.

Determining an armchair prognosis on Terri from anecdotal observation of a poor kid at Ronald McDonald House is beyond ridiculous. Just because both were on feeding tubes and displayed "similar cognitive abilities" to a casual observer does not mean their situations have to be even remotely the same. Such apparently similar states could be due to a variety of different root causes, as attested to by Terri's parents' 17 experts. Such observations fail to account for Terri's particular situation.

Rivka, again:

I suppose that these statements are technically true. Speechlessness is not always due to destruction of brain structure, but if massive destruction of brain structure is present, that's certainly the way to bet. CAT scans tell you if tissue is present and structured normally, but not if it's working; however, if tissue is absent, you'd think its lack of functionality could be assumed. And yes, if Terri had the same fMRI results as a healthy person, that would bode well for rehabilitation - but as we sometimes say here at Respectful of Otters, it's equally true that if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. Terri Schiavo doesn't have a cerebral cortex. She's not going to have a normal fMRI pattern. She simply couldn't. So it's pointless to speculate about what it would mean if she did.

The only point in Rob's post I find terribly compelling is the "coalition of 17 national disability-rights organizations" that are against removal of the feeding tube. But I'm not sure a crew of amici curiae alone are enough to convince me to Monday morning quarterback seven years of court proceedings and the prognoses of doctors who have actually examined Terri Schiavo. And, anyways, it's not my decision to make.

"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life"

I swear to you: Bush took this phrase from Sunday night's episode of Boston Legal, in which the lefty Massachusetts lawyers fly to Texas to make a last-minute appeal for a death row inmate.

Read the two updates I made to my post at Burton Terrace.. They are particularly devastating to Dan's case.

Also, my main point about that kid at the Ronald McDonald house is that this new "standard" for determining when someone is no longer conscious is so fuzzy that it is a slippery slope where people like that kid will be "fair game" for "mercy killings".

The great thing about my "dying process" line is that it is less fuzzy and is a more traditional standard that has worked reliably with very few weird exceptions.

Disagree with it all you want... but, if you do disagree, at least be ready to provide a clear and well defined definition of where to draw that line... otherwise, you prove my suspicions about that Ronald McDonald kid correct!

How did she fall???????Maybe this time he wants to make sure that he gets it right?
Anywho, If I knew my dog had rabies or parvo I would do it quick and fast.I would not through away his dog food and withold his water.
This is going to turn into a political case,but not to Bush bash...but howmany people did he kill in Texas?

Agree: If they kill her do it fast and have a good bye serimony.
Disagree: To let her husband who has 2 kids and a "common law" wife decide on the fate of someone he wanted erased from his memory anyway.

Technically speaking, the case isn't necessarily one of separation of powers, or at least not in the traditional sense of the term; rather, the issue is one of the powers allocated between the state courts and the federal judiciary. Alternatively stated, the question is one of the degree of deference in federal court for decisions of state law previously made by a state court. Personally, it sends me into a constitutional apoplectic fit when I witness the Congress creating jurisdiction for the federal courts where there wouldn't otherwise be a question of federal law. Moreover, they are creating federal jurisdiction where the highest Florida Court has already ruled that the husband and not the parents gets to decide whether to remove the feeding tube (a question of state law as far as I can tell). It sure is interesting to see how a traditionally states' rights political party can overwhelming back a statute that so clearly abrogates judgments of state courts without even mentioning the probable unconstitutionality and dangerous precedential effects of such a statute (even if it is targeted at one person). Oh, how I wish the U.S. Supreme Court will give a stiff backhand to Congress on review.

FYI:
Normally, the federal courts are powerless to overturn rulings of state law by the highest court of the particular state even if the reviewing federal court believes that state court was clearly wrong in its interpretation of state law. But then again, things like national elections can sometimes cause even the U.S. Supreme Court to engage in a little handwaving to overturn a clearly erroneous interpretation of state law by the highest court of Florida, so who can tell...

this country is going to hell! We do not starve criminals to death we give them a shot...why does she have to suffer a cruel death...this country better wake up and Michael S. needs to be starved to death.

I hope michael starves a long painful death

nice "culture of life" guys...

So are you going to fight this hard for more help for disabled people AFTER this story fades away? Are you going to fight the Republican attempts to slash Medicare that helps people in her position?

Have you ever considered the fact that Medicare is terribly run and enourmously inefficient? (and I can provide quotes from famous liberal democrats saying so). Typically, an organization doesn't become more efficient until you stop throwing money at it like drunken sailors... which is what we do every year with well beyond rate of inflation increases to Medicare.

I know those other's comments about Michael are "over the top". However, there certainly would be more justice in someone who caused another to suffer an agonizingly painful death to have to go through the same kind of death than the justice of an innocent person experiencing that kind of death.

For example, I'd wouldn't be too upset if Saddam died in a horrific chemical accident since he did, in fact, gas innocent Kurdish women and children. Not to totally defend or claim these remarks... but I think that is their thought process.

ok then, work to reform medicare and to fix it. my point still stands - the same people who want to gut services for the poor and disabled are pushing this bogus "culture of life" - many support the death penalty - the DEATH penalty.

Conservatives are working hard to fix Medicare. The problem is that the Democrats love the campaign issue of accusing Republicans of wanting to "cut" Medicare more so than they love the idea of actually reforming Medicare.

This explains how/why a blue-ribbon commission of Democrats and Republicans was commissioned by Clinton in the 90s to study how to reform and improve Medicare. Among their many suggestions was to stop feeding it more money all the time. Once the report got back to the White House, it never went further.

Nobody is trying to gut services to the poor because cutting spending for an out-of-control agency doesn't gut service to the poor if (1) most additional spending is lost in bureaucracy to begin with (and, thus, never makes it to the poor) ...AND... (2) these "cuts" are actually mere reductions in the rate of growth. Therefore, it is disingenuous to say that someone is "gutting" when their plan still involves a net increase in revenues from the previous year.

A net increase that is below the rate of inflation means less actual money to do thing with - come on, we're not dumb here. Repubs want to save Medicare? Yes, like the soldiers that had to destroy a village in order to save it.

Other hypocrisy (sp?) examples: Bush's signature on a law in Texas letting medical professionals pull the plug; Delay pulling the plug on his Dad a few years ago; the rights unflinching support of the death penalty; the right's unflinching support of the war in Iraq, even after all justifications are gone and allegations of torture are rampant.

We can argue about Medicare, it's usefulness, it's problems, but the "culture of life" is a crock - it's a culture of right-wing politics.

I highly doubt that the net increase was below inflation... but even if I'm wrong on that one minor point... this would still be lightyears away from your description of "gutting it"

Why don't you do some research and find out why Bill Clinton dissed that blue-ribbon commission's proposals?

Both examples you give of "pulling the plug" involve terminal patients whose bodies are actually in a dying process and whose lives can't be extended but a limited amount of time using extraordinary means which go way beyond nutrition and hydration. You are comparing "apples to oranges".

>even after all justifications are gone
a little off topic, don't you think? Interestingly, the NY times recently reported that the Bush Admin was negligent via failing to prevent WMDs equipment and WMDs materials from being moved from Iraq to Syria shortly after the war started.

Sorry... but Liberals can't have it both ways. Basically, this is an admission by the Left that the WMDs did exist... and Saddam would have continued to have control of these to this day had we not gone into Iraq.

Plus, there is actually now a mountain of evidence that Saddam had WMDs... if ALL of this evidenc had be discovered in one day, we wouldn't be having this debate right now... but it trickled in little by little to a point where there is a ton of it, but liberals haven't noticed and still stick to their old talking points.

Also, entire MIGs illegally sold to Saddam have been found buried in the desert in Iraq. Photos here. (If enire MiGs can be buried, imagine what might STILL be buried out there.)

Basically, w craghead, I've just kicked your ass so badly in debate that I think you ought to check yourself into E.R. and get those wounds taken care of... but if you want to come back for another "wood shed whippin", help yourself.

I was about to comment on how civil our little conversation was, and how I liked that - that we could disagree but talk. Then the ol' ass whippin talk comes out... typical rightwing thug...

I said "slash" Medicare, and "gut" services to the poor, not "gut" Medicare. Whatever, the point is that those on the right consistently work to lower government's help for the poor - it's a legitimate philisophical position to believe that goverment shouldn't be helping people who can help themselves - you shouldn't be ashamed of it, though it does make you a bit of an un-christian Scrooge. I think it's wrong, but it's where the rightwingers are, the same ones who are up in arms about Ms. Schaivo's situation. Here's another angle - the same medical science keeping her alive comes from research using the scientific method - a way of learning and understanding the world that is also consistenly under attack by the religious right.

The other situations of feeding tubes being taken out aren't apples to oranges - feeding tubes were removed. No living wills. As I read on Slate, Delay was a better son than politician.

I mentioned the Iraq thing because I don't see how people dedicated to life can be for war. We weren't attacked by Iraq. We had dubious and now-discredited infomation that Hussein had WMD. The Bush Administration's own weapons inspectors reported that there were no WMD - you can wish and hope all you want, but they weren't there.

You still avoid my point about the death penalty. How can one be for life but also for the DEATH penalty? All the Catholics protesting outside the hospice (and women's health clinics too) in their religion's name are hypocrites if they don't also march against the death penalty and the Iraq war.

Lastly, I don't know how it is down in Georgia (apparently land of 1995-looking web design), but in the real world one doesn't win an argument by simply declaring they have kicked the other guy's ass. I'm willing to keep talking if you can keep it civil again, if not, I'll declare "Missions Accomplished" and move on.

PS The NYTimes doesnt speak for all liberals, does Rush speak for all conservatives?

Sorry for my lack of civility... I got a little frustrated when you started meandering into unrelated topics.... but, for the record, I NEVER called you any names... but you have called me a "right wing thug", "un-christian Scrooge"

>using the scientific method
I'll debate you on evolution/creationism anytime... but only in a comments section of a post that is actually about that topic... and on a blog (like G.P.) which actually gets a decent amount of traffic.... you just let me know when/where

Regarding the Government "helping" the poor... I'm all in favor of a minimal "safety net" ...but what we currently have is a monstrosity where excessive tax burdens on the middle-middle class, lower-middle class, and poor helps make and keep people poor. For example, someone making only 20K per year pays thousands in taxes (when you add them ALL up). You start paying just as soon as you get above the poverty line. Also, I believe that getting the Federal government out of the business of helping the poor, lowering the federal tax burden, shifting this to the States and local governments (who would then have more "room" to increase their local/state taxes, if needed)... all this would result in a more responsive and efficient government with less fraud ...where the money to help the poor would then be used more efficiently and effectively.

>death penalty
In **theory**, I support the death penalty and I see no contradiction between keeping innocent people alive and condemning axe murderers to death. However, in **practice** I support discontinuing the death penalty because it costs more to put someone to death and because I think the evidence to put someone to death should be beyond "a reasonable doubt". The whole thing needs a major overhaul and, until then, I support putting these people in jail for life without parole instead of executing them.

>NYTimes doesn’t speak for all liberals
So, are you saying that the Times is "wrong". Which is it? You've dodged this issue with a cute rhetorical trick.

>how people dedicated to life can be for war
Take this to its logical conclusion and we would all be speaking German right now and serving a dictator!!

>aren't apples to oranges
Delay's Dad had kidney failure at an old age (among other serious complications). They don't do kidney transplants for old people and the resources are not available to spend millions of dollars keeping such people on dialysis machines indefinitely year after year in a hospital. Delay's situation was a common one and he made a typical decision. In contrast, Terri's situation is very uncommon because her body is not dying. (How many times am I going to have to explain this to you?)

BTW - my own personal website does suck. I've been meaning to revamp it for a while... but I'm currently in the middle of retooling my business for different purposes.

Check out some other sites I've designed:

http://www.sheridansolomon.com/
http://www.shubee.com/

Cool - glad we're calming down - and sorry I called you those names - I too was getting frustrated.

Good point about creationism/evolution - not the time or place.

We're together on suspending the death penalty, though I don't think it should be used - it's no deterrent and is barbaric.

As for the Times, I think they're wrong and right. I believe they helped mislead us into war with some shoddy reporting by people like Judith Miller, but I think they TRY to get the story correct, unlike some nakedly biased sources like the Washington Times or Rush. Didnt mean to duck the issue, but I can't really stand behind them after all I've read on sites like DailyHowler.

And you're right about pacifism being taken too far leads to us speaking German (though some would argue we're on course towards dictatoship now!). I supported the Afghanistan thing - just not the Iraq one. I wouldnt expect a culture of lifer to ignore 9/11, but Iraq was a war of choice, not of defense and had nothing to do with 9/11.

As for the main point, I've always thought that this is about the rule of law - this case has gone through what seems like millions of courtrooms and has consistently been decided by both conservative and liberal, Democratic and Republican judges. There are LOTS of false claims and bogus "experts" out there saying things about a woman they've never seen or examined - Sen. Frist's pronouncements on her condition are almost laughable if they weren't so sad.

In the end, thats how I see this - sad. Sad for her andher family, sad for people who genuinely do believe in her and care for her, and sad because some slimy politicians are using her case to try to score points.

I appreciate talking to you, but I'm going to move on after this post. I'll read your reply, but I won't post in this thread again. Thanks for talking and keeping this going.

W

PS those sites are ok - My Dad's a realtor and he tells me how important a web presence is for him - and how much work it is for his designer! Sorry for the 1995 crack...

w craghead:

I finding a lot of pro-tube-pullers making the argument that a particular pro-keep-Terri-alive scientist or doctor (1) hasn't actually seen Terri ...or... (2) they have a "right-to-life" agenda.

The problem here is that I would bet that 90+% of the pundits giving interviews on the news ALSO either haven't seen Terri and/or have a pro-euthanasia agenda. To be fair, this criteria ought to be applied both ways.

Also, there is more to the Schievo story that many people realize. We have been mislead my faulty reporting.

I'd be curious whether this, this, this, and this might change your mind?

The last of these is a report by a Neurologist from the Mayo clinic who HAS examined Terri in person and his report is devastating to anyone who might believe that Terri is PVS.