News Plight of Terri Schiavo: Facts, Emotions, and Outcomes

[quantumdude]

I have a question:

Have Terri's parents ever attempted to press charges for adultery? If not, why not? It seems to me that they could use that as leverage, instead of tying up the Federal government.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Duh! The US Constitution, a federal document, guarantees the rights of the individual, not the states. The President is required to uphold those rights

Doh! "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". Amendment X to the Constitution.

Rights enumerated in the Constitution

Freedom of religion.
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of the press.
Right to peaceable assembly.
Right to petition government for redress of grievances. (All above in Amendment I)
Right to keep and bear arms (Amendment II)
Right to be free of unreasonable quartering of soldiers. (Amendment III)
To be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures (Amendment IV)
Right to a Grand Jury in criminal cases.
Right not to be tried twice for the same charge.
Right not to testify against yourself.
Right not to have property, life or liberty taken without due process. (These 4, Amendment V)
Right to speedy and public trial.
Trial by jury.
Right to confront witnesses.
Right to compulsory process for obtaining defense witnesses.
Right to counsel (These 5, Amendment VI)
Right to trial in suits for over $20, and freedom from aribitrary settlement. (Amendment VII)
Freedom from excessive bail or fines.
Freedom from cruel and unusual punishments. (These 2, Amendment VIII)
Rights declared in constitution do not deny or disparage others held by the people (Amendment IX).
Freedom from slavery (Amendment XIII)
Citizenship automatic with birth in the US.
States may not abridge rights of citizens.
States may not deprive citizens of life, liberty or property without due process.
States may not deny equal protection of laws.
If States deny any males right to vote, they shall not be counted for determining representatives in Congress. (These 4, Amendment XIV)
Right to vote not to be denied or abridged by any State or the US because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. (amendment XV)
Right to vote shall not be denied or abrdged because of sex. (AMendment XIX)
Right to vote in federal elections not to be denied for non-payment of poll tax (Amendment XXIV)
Right to vote at 18. (Amendment XXVI)

Now just which rights of these have been denied to Terry Schiavo? Which rights are the subject of the proposed act?

 

[adrenaline]

Duh! The US Constitution, a federal document, guarantees the rights of the individual, not the states. The President is required to uphold those rights

Well, if you want to look at it that way:
Judge Greer held a full trial in this case to determine how Terri would choose to exercise her privacy rights. Michael was on one side; Terri's parents were on the other. Both sides brought witnesses and experts. In the end, the judge ruled that Terri would not wish to continue receiving nurishment and hydration through a surgically implanted tube. But I think Selfadjoint and Moonbear's remarks speak for themselve.

It's interesting that this was voted along party lines, Republicans for Terry Schiavo's parents and Democrats for Terry's husband. She (Terry) is already on Medicare and Medicaid, thus, taxpayers are already paying for her care and there have been major cuts in medicaid and medicare during this administration. Ironic.

 

[misskitty]

No offense intended here..but I find it kind of funny that you say that outside opinion has no bearing here...and then you turn around and give your personal opinon that she should just die..(not to meniton in a rather painful long drawn out manner).
Not only that,. but if it was Terri's wish to just die..according to her husband..why did he pursue and win a law suit based on her medical care for the span of her lifetime in this state..and then afterwards (not sure if it's before or after the new "wife" came along) but after being awarded a large settlement for her care..he suddenly remembers that she wanted to die all along? hello?..
when you take into consideration the money...and the new commonlaw wife and kids...can we say conflict of interest? I can't imagine how the court would allow this guy to be calling the shots here. If someone had her best interest in mind..there'd be bigamy charges, or at the very least adultry charges and divorce and her rights turned over to the state,not to a husband who's best interests are served without her hanging around sucking up all of the money awarded. I'm also curious if there is a life insurance policy that kicks in $$ when she dies?

Good questions. I'm not sure there is a life insurence policy that he gets after she dies. The fact he's rejected two offers of money to let this be might say something about him and how he feels about the money involved.

As far as my opinion goes, worldwide opinion doesn't matter, no more than mine does here in New England. The only opinions that matter are those of the people involved. However, that isn't going to stop me from expressing my thoughts about the situation. I certainly wouldn't want to be kept alive that way. I'm also not the only person here that is expressing the opinion that she should be allowed to die.

I don't think its so much as a conflict of interest as it is him trying to move on with his life.

 

[adrenaline]

In addition, Michael Shiavo gave up his decision making right to discontinue life sustaining measures.
In May, 1998, Michael filed a petition, asking the court to appoint a Guaradian Ad Litem, and to determine whether or not Terri would want the tube to be removed.
It turns out that Terri told five different people -- including her mother, by the way -- that in the case of brain death she would not want her body kept alive. (accordng to the legal breifs)
Read the decision:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

And as sad as it may be for her parents, the law is very clear on the matter, as far as who has the responsibility of making these decisions in the absence of a living will.

 

[misskitty]

Tom, I'm not sure you can press charges for adultery. Piligamy yes, but I'm not sure about adultery. What would that fall under?

 

[quantumdude]

Tom, I'm not sure you can press charges for adultery. Piligamy yes, but I'm not sure about adultery. What would that fall under?

It's a misdemeanor, punishable by at most $500 and/or 6 months in jail, but it is a crime nonetheless.

http://www.sodomy.org/laws/florida/cohabitation.html

 

[GENIERE]

Doh! "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". Amendment X to the Constitution.

Rights enumerated in the Constitution

Freedom of religion.
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of the press...

Now just which rights of these have been denied to Terry Schiavo? Which rights are the subject of the proposed act?

Denying life certainly deprives the individual of their rights.

 

[misskitty]

Ok, I was wrong. I didn't know that it was a misdemeanor. They may not press charges for adultery because they don't want to deal with another lawsuit.

 

[quantumdude]

They may not press charges for adultery because they don't want to deal with another lawsuit.

It wouldn't be a lawsuit (those are only for civil cases). It would be a criminal trial that the DA would prosecute. It would be an open and shut case at that. He would either have to divorce his wife or face possible jail time.

 

[GENIERE]

…
And as sad as it may be for her parents, the law is very clear on the matter, as far as who has the responsibility of making these decisions in the absence of a living will.

You likely presume I am not in favor of pulling the plug. With the minimal knowledge I posses of the medical facts, it seems pulling the plug is the correct decision. Normally the husband wishes are the determining factor.

The new law specifically refers to this case and this case only, as it should. If it were not specific to this case I would not favor it. In this specific case the husband may not, note I state “may not”, be acting in the best interests of his wife. I think that even the Catholic Church would agree to an annulment given the husbands plight. His lack of attempting to sue for divorce is suspicious in my mind. The large insurance premium paid after her death may be a motivating factor. Lacy Peters should serve as a reminder that a spouse may not always act in their mates beat interest.

Medically speaking I think she has been denied a PET scan, the best means (TMK) of detecting the origin of brain activity. If no cerebral activity exists, then her body should be allowed to die.

 

[gravenewworld]

Why would the parents press charges for adultery when they were the ones who specifically told him to move on and find someone else?

 

[russ_watters]

Denying life certainly deprives the individual of their rights.

How does "right to life" imply "right to artificial life support"? If it were, we'd all have free healthcare already.

 

[kat]

Geniere, russ..just a small point..there's no "plug" to pull. She's not on a life support system. She has been living because she's been eating through a feeding tube. She is able to swallow, but not to swallow well enough to eat enough to sustain herself. Her husband and/or through judge greer denied her being given therapy that would help her to swallow well enough to not need the feeding tube.

 

[zefram_c]

I've been following this case for the last while. I am not going to weigh in on the issue of what should or should not be done with Terri, but doesn't anyone see the larger implications of this? Isn't anyone bothered by the fact that Congress made an act that was targetted to deliberately override the authority and jurisdiction of the state of Florida? It did not even make it into a general law or a precedent, no, it deals with this ONE issue alone. I'm not going to speculate as to the motives of Congress since it is not my place (as a non-US citizen), but if I were one, I'd be very wary of what precedent this DOES set. It is an extension of Jeb Bush's interference, and a dangerous one.

Edit: I forgot to add that democracy is best served by making good, fair, universally applicable laws. Making a one-person law goes against all of that; it denies equality under the law and opens a big can of worms.

 

[GENIERE]

QUOTE=russ_watters]How does "right to life" imply "right to artificial life support"? If it were, we'd all have free healthcare already.[/QUOTE]

Not up to your usual high standards. Even if one accepts the first statement as correct, it does not lead to the latter.

Many posters have indicated that the "Terri law" is unconstitutional and is without precedent; that the federal government has never before acted on behalf of an individual to protect his rights; that the federal government has not repeatedly infringed on the rights of states. President Clinton during his last days in office saw fit to issue many edicts. One of these edicts was the establishment of 21 national monuments that removed 10's of millions of acres of land from the affected states. Perhaps the land grab had merit, perhaps not but there was no liberal outcry. JFK sent federal troops to Alabama to protect the rights of a black individual to enjoy the same quality of education as a white student. There was no liberal outcry. It is in fact necessary for the federal government to intervene in matters affecting the rights of the individual when a state is not capable of doing so or refuses to do so. It is required by the constitution. It may be that Florida has already acted in the best interests of Terri. In my opinion, I am allowed my opinion; there exist suspicious activities by the husband sufficient to warrant some investigation.

The only state to

Oopps! Gotta go- unbelievably there seems to be a Star Trek episode on that I’ve never seen!

 

[misskitty]

A judge just ruled that he will not allow the parents to reinsert Terri's feeding tube. He said the parents failed to present a strong enough case for the reinsertion of the tube. He also said their case was built more on an emotional plea versus an actual medical account and evidence.

Her brother spoke on Good Morning America just a few minutes ago. When he was asked about his feelings on the situation, he said "Oh only if she could be rehabilitated, if only we could rehabilitate her."

 

[misskitty]

Geniere, do you remember where you were going with the last sentence of your post? If you could, do you think you could finish it? I'd like to know where you were going with that.

 

[misskitty]

The parents just annonunced to the media that they are going to immediately appeal the judge's decision to a higher court.

 

[misskitty]

Is it really going to take her a few weeks to die? If it does, would it be from starvation or dehydration?

 

[russ_watters]

How does "right to life" imply "right to artificial life support"? If it were, we'd all have free healthcare already.

Not up to your usual high standards.

Ehh, it may have been short, but that doesn't make it wrong...

Even if one accepts the first statement as correct, it does not lead to the latter.

It really does: if you get in a car accident and don't have insurance, the hospital will take immediate emergency measures to save your life, but once they stabilize you, you're on your own. If you need a heart transplant, unless you can find someone to sponsor you, you're finished. You don't have the right to a heart transplant even if its your only chance to live.

Many posters have indicated that the "Terri law" is unconstitutional and is without precedent...

Well, many posters - and every court that has ruled in the case... Like I said, Florida and Jeb Bush tried exactly the same thing that Bush and Congres tried. It was struck down as unConstitutional.

JFK sent federal troops to Alabama to protect the rights of a black individual to enjoy the same quality of education as a white student. There was no liberal outcry. It is in fact necessary for the federal government to intervene in matters affecting the rights of the individual when a state is not capable of doing so or refuses to do so. It is required by the constitution.

That's fine and its absolutely true, but it has no bearing on this case because there isn't an issue of Terri's rights being violated. On the contrary - its her husband's rights that have been violated. The courts have ruled unanamously (afaik).

Right to life is not an issue here - it wasn't claimed in the suit filed yesterday (1st amendment religious free exercise and 14th amendment due process was it) and wasn't in the bill passed on Sunday. The similar order passed by Jeb was ruled unConstitutional for three separate reasons:

-It violates separation of powers. (on appeal, this was the only reason given)
-It violates right to privacy.
-It is an unConstitutional retroactive order.

All of this comes from the "findlaw" link I posted yesterday.

The only state to

Oopps! Gotta go- unbelievably there seems to be a Star Trek episode on that I’ve never seen!

I understand completely.

 

[SOS2008]

Judge denies request to reinsert feeding tube
Terri Schiavo's parents to appeal to 11th Circuit Court
The Associated Press
Updated: 9:50 a.m. ET March 22, 2005

TAMPA, Fla. - A federal judge on Tuesday refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube… Whittemore’s decision comes after feverish action by President Bush and Congress on legislation allowing the brain-damaged woman’s contentious case to be reviewed by federal courts. …But George Felos, an attorney for Michael Schiavo, argued that keeping the woman alive also violated her rights and noted that the case has been aired thoroughly in state courts.“ …Yes, life is sacred,” Felos said, contending that restarting artificial feedings would be against Schiavo’s wishes. “So is liberty, particularly in this country.”

One can argue individual rights and liberty, whether right-to-life versus right-to-choose, and I will always be astounded that people work so hard to impose their personal belief against other people’s freedoms. But that the President himself, along with Congress intervened in an “extraordinary weekend effort by congressional Republicans to push through unprecedented emergency legislation early Monday aimed at keeping her alive” is appalling beyond my comprehension. This man has never understood the role of presidency and leader of the free world. I can’t wait for his last term to be ended.

In the meantime, I applaud this federal judge--the very check and balance Bush and Republicans would like to be rid of in their effort to change the historical senate rule allowing filibuster opposition. These people (Bush, Frist, etc.) are determined to remove any right, representation, or iota of democracy so they can turn this country into Jesusland.

 

[adrenaline]

Is it really going to take her a few weeks to die? If it does, would it be from starvation or dehydration?

Dehydration kills faster. It'll be a good thing she is also starving since the ensueing ketosis is anesthetic and somewhat euphoric. The doctors are not heartless and will most likely give around the clock morphine for "comfort measures", but it will comfort them (the doctors) more than the patient since her natural ketosis is already on board.

As for PET scans, there are not enough studies to show its utilization yet in PVS or persistent vegetative states.

It's greatest utility is in the field of oncology since it is a powerful tool in the diagnosis, staging, and evaluation of recurrent cancers, because of the avid affinity of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) to malignancies exhibiting increased metabolic activity.

The best application for PET today, in terms of neurological diseases lies in its ability to evaluate dementias, including Alzheimer's disease, and to differentiate Alzheimer's disease from multi-infarct dementias and other forms of dementia. However, in evaluating or prognosticating vegetative states, there is a dearth of information and not enough research except smalll selected studies where study participants number 5 or a little more.

 

[GENIERE]

Ehh, it may have been short, but that doesn't make it wrong... It really does...QUOTE]

Much better!

 

[GENIERE]

Geniere, do you remember where you were going with the last sentence of your post? If you could, do you think you could finish it? I'd like to know where you were going with that.

Me remember! You ask too much, according to my kids (now adults) I’m in the early stages of Alzheimer’s.


..

 

[stoned]

Could not they communicate with her in some way ? I'm sure she wants to die.
I would.

 

[misskitty]

From the information I have, there isn't any way to be able to communicate with her. Its rather unfortunate, then she could tell her family what she really wants. Or if she had enough brain function to use the retinal typing computer system like Stephen Hawking uses to type with his eyes. Besides the point.

From what the neurologists have concluded is that she little brain function. They have also concluded that there is no way of rehabilitate her because there is a part of her brain stem that is so badly damaged that there is no way to fix it.

I could be wrong. Thats all the information I know of. Its all you get from watching the news.

 

[stoned]

So what they waiting for ?..pull the plug for the god sake !

 

[quantumdude]

Why would the parents press charges for adultery when they were the ones who specifically told him to move on and find someone else?

So that they could force a divorce and regain the decision to keep her alive, obviously.

 

[russ_watters]

So what they waiting for ?..pull the plug for the god sake !

They already did. It'll be about another week before she dies.