Posted
by Patrick Quinn
March 21, 2005 at 12:48 p.m.
Schiavo
The events of the past few weeks remind me how lucky I am that America wasn't governed by evil fundamentalist morons on the occasion of my father's last illness.It's been quite interesting to see how many "experts" on the once-obscure medical condition known as "persistent vegetative state" are apparently contained within the Ruling Party. Even Tom DeLay, whose demonstrated skills to this point have been limited to cashing dubious checks, fixing elections and trashing Congressional ethics standards, turns out to be a no-shit Wile E. Coyote medical supergenius when it comes to persistent vegetative state. Once he clears up the little matter of the bribes, he'll probably cure cancer.I will note in passing that the Ruling Party's actions in the Schiavo matter are grotesquely unAmerican and completely in keeping with Republican statist principles. What happens from this point forward is of little long-term importance; the precedent of the state interfering in private medical matters was firmly established when the the idiot law was passed by the idiot Congress and signed by the idiot President. What has happened once will happen again.There are thousands of people all across the country being maintained in persistent vegetative states. They are kept alive by devoted family members, some of whom hope that their loved ones will recover, some of whom simply cannot bear to authorize the removal of their feeding tubes. Contrary to the evil swinish lies being perpetrated by the Ruling Party, virtually none of these people ever "recover." Ms. Schiavo has been PVS since 1990. There exists no documented case of a 15-year PVS patient recovering. None. Zero. Zip. The Ruling Party can sacrifice all the goats it wants, commission 1,000,000 Vatican Masses, even pull out the Big Gun and ask Dr. Dobson to pray on TV, and it won't make any difference at all. All that's happened here is that the Ruling Party has added your hospital room to its jurisdiction. All that's happened here is that a collection of evil morons just diminished your rights. No doubt they're dancing in Heaven.My father suffered a post-operative stroke in 1983 and lingered in a persistent vegetative state for several years. He weighed about 90 pounds when--at last--he died. It's interesting to think of some GOP pig launching a bill "on his behalf"; perhaps sheer outrage at such evil cynicism would've been enough to wake him up.PVS is a tragedy for the whole family, as the Schiavo case demonstrates. In the case of my father, I was the Bad Guy--I wanted him to die. Standing at his bedside, watching his empty eyes flicker around the room in the VA hospital that was his last home (years, years), I often thought about smothering him with his pillow. He was the most intelligent man I've ever known, and although we were not close, I knew that he would have infinitely preferred death to the horror that his "life" became.The decision was not mine to make. His second wife, my stepmother, was the responsible party--not his kids, or whoever survived from his childhood family in Chicago, or some cracker preacher or the moron President. His doctors were very frank with us, especially after the second year, and had his wife assented, the feeding tube would've been removed. She declined. I strongly disagreed with her decision, but did not challenge her right to make it. She said that she could bear the thought of starving him to death. It was her call. I didn't fight. None of us fought.My stepmother was a religious person, and in later years quite zealous. She donated large sums to her Lutheran church in Topeka, which the family found laudable, and large sums to Jim and Tammy Faye at Praise the Lord, which we found a little disturbing; she liked to remind us that some indeterminate but very large number of people were praying for all of us at PTL 24 hours a day. Once or twice one of the boys would point out that PTL just pulled the checks out of the envelopes and threw everything else away, but on the whole no one raised a fuss. It was her money to do with what she wanted. But her unwillingness to pull my father's feeding tube had very little to do with religious dogma. Instead she believed that her hands were tied by virtue of the fact that my father left no written instructions on how matters should be conducted in the event of his permanent inapacitation. Despite her religious convictions, her experience with my father made her a vocal advocate of living wills, and she established one for herself. Almost immediately after his death she was diagnosed with the cancer that a couple of years later killed her. Her illness did not produce PVS--cancer is kinder than that--but the living will was a comfort.Anyway, all this distressing stuff has now been cleared up by the Dear Leader, who will no doubt move quickly to establish a "faith-based" bureaucracy to settle these matters in the future. It's comforting to know that such decisions can now be be reviewed by responsible pastors and a select group of elected representatives.If I hear one more moron rightist whining about "activist" courts and judges, I'll puke on the sidewalk.
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
lazz (anonymous) says…
I wondered who was going to blog this. Glad it was you, Patrick.
For me, this is the most disturbing development of our recent swing toward a "Christian" right that sees fit to play fast and loose with politics, national and state policy, family, health care and former civic freedoms.
They are getting away with perpetrating these horrors, however, because of our national refusal to acknowledge death as the end result of life, and our collective refusal to value a dignified death as highly as a dignified life. We asked for this because we are simplistic morons who pretend the same fate does not await each of us.
As for a practical matter: Is there a lawyer among us who might offer some direction of drawing up living wills? Will a letter of intention written, witnessed and notarized suffice in Kansas? Or must it absolutely be prepared by a lawyer?
jen82 (anonymous) says…
I'm thinking that it's high time our politicians started to actually read the Bill of Rights before they run for office. This might be beneficial.
The federalist papers might clear up any confusion regarding the religious views of our founding fathers, as well.
jen.
Carmenilla (anonymous) says…
Where is the dignity in such a life? People seem obsessed with quantity of life versus quality. What kind of life is it to just simply breath and exist? I always feel that family members who keep thier loved ones on life support are doing it less for the loved one and more for themsleves. I think the Schiavo case is very representative of that selfish mindset. And now they are using religion and politics (my favorite combination) to bolster their cause. How sad indeed.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
If her life is truly over and should be officially ended - why not just kill her (through some other means) rather than let her slowly starve/dehydrate to death? If we have laws saying you can't stop giving food & water to animals (who need our help to get those things) and we have to put criminals to death in some humane way such as injections or electric chairs, why not at least afford her the same kind of death? If those with standing to do so have decided that this woman's life is over and done with, why not at least give her a death that is on the same par with a stray dog or a murderer!? While some may be (for moral or political reasons) I'm not oppossed to that kind of mercy killing. But it does seem a bit odd to me that there are more laws protecting how when and why we kill murderers and chickens.... as opposed to ending the life of human beings with brain damage.
kthutch (anonymous) says…
You can get a living will from Kansas Heath Ethics I think. But it is always good to see an attorney. In part because there is more to the story than a living will. You also should sign a power of attorney, to ensure that your loved ones have the ability to make decisions for you before you get to the PVS.
You technically can get these documents on websites, but seeing an attorney is worth the price, in my opinion (disclaimer, I am an estate planning lawyer).
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Here here kthutch! A living will is worth its weight in gold! I have told all my relatives to pull the plug on me just as soon as the insurance etc. is all gone! LOL. BUT having it in writing, clearly stated, is one sure way to get around almost any type of legal challenge to doing it. However, I do continue to question whether withholding food and water is the same as discontinuing keeping someone alive through "extreme" measures....I.e. is not feeding/watering someone legally considered the same thing as "pulling the plug"? Any input on that one estate lawyer?
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Thanks for the post, Patrick. I'm disgusted by the whole affair, especially the rank, rank, rank political hay Republicans are openly trying to make of this tragedy.
If there is a hell, its face is Tom DeLay's.
Lisa_Stone (anonymous) says…
I write about the legal blogging community which, today, is talking about this weekend's legislative maneuvers around Ms. Schiavo and whether they are constitutional--or bizarre.
What I hadn't found, until your post, was the perspective of someone who has been on the inside of the debate. I am not at all compelled by statements from the polarized participants from both extremes in this case--the lifers and right-to-diers all sound to me like carpetbaggers, lumping their favorite issue on top of Ms. Schiavo, whose cause celebre may have fully obscured her as an individual human in crisis.
I keep asking myself: Who are we to say?
Thanks for one answer.
Lisa Stone
Legal Blog Watch on Law.com
beck (Beck Wilson) says…
Meanwhile in Texas, there's debate over the ethics of allowing a hospital board decide in cases like these in the face of the wishes of parents or legal guardians, most notably in the case of a 68-year-old man in a state like Schiavo's whose family cannot afford to continue to pay for his care.
The law in question allowing this, of course, was signed in 1999 by George W. Bush.
kthutch (anonymous) says…
One benefit to going to a lawyer is that you can have any definition you want. You can make whatever stipulations you wish. I've done living wills for various religious beliefs who have different views on end of life issues. I've had everything from no blood transfusions to do everything but the most extreme things.
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
On the Texas law Bush signed:
"in the state of Texas, thanks to a bill signed in 1999 by then-Governor George W. Bush, conscious, living human beings are deprived of life support against their express wishes (and those of their family) in order to save money from the Medicaid budget and make room for tax cuts" (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?s...)
Hypocrisy to these morons is as natural as breathing.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Thanks estate lawyer! That makes perfect sense to me. I just wondered if there was any case law etc. concerning pulling the plug versus not feeding/watering the patient.
I need to see someone like you, and get some new documents drawn up...and I will... just as soon as I save up the $$ to pay the bills!
Meanwhile.... http://elborak.blog-city.com/read/114...
has an interesting discussion on the right to die issue...
lazz (anonymous) says…
I found this, and found it helpful to drawing up a document that will have to do until I can see our family attorney.
http://wings.buffalo.edu/faculty/rese...
It's based for New York, but includes good general terminology and concepts to consider.
By the way, my pal Mike Mayo will weigh in tomorrow with a great column on the topic. I can't divulge it yet, since it has to be posted, but tomorrow (tuesday) log on to www.sun-sentinel.com/news and read the column by Michael Mayo.
SarahSota (anonymous) says…
I have to say that I am having a hard time with this one. This seems just the kind of thing that would normally make me shout, "Let the poor woman die!" But, starving/dehydrating to death seems a horrible way to go.
edie_ (anonymous) says…
I have a hard time with this issue too but the whole thing has gotten me to hoping I can design some kind of living will that orders people to turn me on to hard opiates when I reach that kind of state until I die of an overdose. But who am I kidding, by that time we'll all be "living" virtual reality lives anyway.
noaconstrictor (Noah Larsen) says…
Welcome to McAmerica, where the buck stops nowhere, but can stop everything if it means more bucks.
There is a grey area in the law that needs to be defined -- namely, the definition of life. In my mind, you can be alive yet dead all at the same time.
You're right Sarah, starving to death is a horrible way to go -- pvs patients (or teminally ill for that matter), should have the right to die by lethal injections. Why do death row inmates get to have all the fun?
squishypoet (anonymous) says…
Maybe I'm just ignorant as to how these things work... but couldn't her organs be donated? She would "live on" in other people, giving them the gift of life that she herself cannot enjoy, and she'd have something of a noble death.
Something in me says that might offend someone, and if it does... my apologies. No offense was intended.
Mr_A (Bryan Anderson) says…
Big government imposing its will on the state and intruding on the lives of individuals is what the "Party of Lincoln" is supposed to be against. Once again, the neo-cons prove that they will waste no opportunity to exploit tragedy for their own political gains.
Also, when you die, aren't you supposed to go to heaven? Why would her parents want to remain chained to the mortal coil when she could ascend to her eternal reward? I'm confused, but then alot about the thinking of most of the people involved confuses me.
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
Mayo's column is superb:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/colu...
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
I agree that there are FAR worse things then merely dying. Being dead is probably not a bad thing - either you feel nothing more or you get eternal rewards (unless you are really bad and end up (a) in hell or (b) having to do it all over again).
One of the worst parts about living is probably dying by starvation/dehydration. The best scenario in this sad situation would have been for Terri to have written down her wishes with regard to this contingency...that would take care of most legal wrangling over what to do with her. However, even assuming she did have a really good & detailed living will, covering this particular set of circumstances, until she got into this state she too could only guess what it would be like and what she'd want once she was there/here. Those few who have come out of PVS have told us they could tell what was going on around them and felt pain (especially from being starved to death). While the Congress is busy debating ways to make sure her wishes are carried out etc., I really would like for them to consider how they would want to be treated if they were in this situation. I can't see many people (those who would chose to die and those who'd want to stay alive no matter what shape they are/were in) who would want to be starved to death.... If her husband truly wants to stop her suffering, he might want to get a gun.....
alm77 (anonymous) says…
The consideration of how a Congressman would want to be treated if they were in this situation isn't really relevant to Terri's case. The question here is: What would Terri want? Her husband claims she stated "No tubes for me." but then why has he allowed tubes for almost 15 years and now he says that's not what she wants?
I really do think that people should have the right to do as they please, but in this case we just don't know what that is. Why not err on the side of caution instead of letting her starve to death? Its not like congress has passed a law making the removal of all feeding tubes illegal. If you don't want feeding tubes, your wishes can still be carried out.
I would NOT want to starve to death. I think most of us agree that would be a cruel way to die. So, there she is, laying in a bed in Florida, slowly starving to death while we argue the morality of it all. But what is the alternative? Some sort of euthanasia? Do we really want to go down the slippery slope of mercy killing?
I would also like to state that we would not be having this conversation if it were a matter of a respirator or other mechanical means that supported any other vital system. The fact is that Terri can breathe without a machine. Her heart beats and her digestive system works when she's fed. Should she die merely because she's incapable of feeding herself?
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
My point exactly! (I was being sort of sarcastic...which I am not skilled at being...)
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
No, she should not die "merely because she's incapable of feeding herself," and no one is suggesting that she should.
Persistent vegetative state is not a condition in which a fully functional brain is locked inside a paralyzed body. Terri Schiavo, my father, the thousands of people in PVS right now, are not lying in their beds writing poetry and singing hymns: they're brain-dead. This is from the National Institute of Health:
"Individuals in such a state have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns. Even though those in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher brain functions, other key functions such as breathing and circulation remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur, and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may even occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh. Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands."
Ladylaw: You assert, "Those few who have come out of PVS have told us they could tell what was going on around them and felt pain (especially from being starved to death)."
Provide a secular citation for this, a citation that does not involve priests, rabbis, witch doctors, ministers or the laying on of hands, a citation that includes the patient's name, the length of time they were PVS, and a direct quotation from the recovered patient attesting to the fact that they were conscious of their surroundings and aware that they were starving. Because my family spent a lot of years swimming in the pool you're playing in, and I think you're full of shit.
Shelby (anonymous) says…
So why do we want to kill her?
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Did you happen to watch CNN last night? They interviewed some of Terri's doctors (about 5 now). They had ones for her husband who said her brain waves were flat. The ones for her parents said no it's not flat, there is still activity there and the CT scan shows increasing activity. And the one for the court said he couldn't tell for sure what state her brain was in. So, the doctors aren't able to say (for sure) if Terri is in fact brain dead. Then, several times, they interviewed a woman who had been in a comman (I am pretty sure they said she was a PVS patient, but I'm not 100% sure) and then who came out of it to talk about the time they took her off food and water - and what that felt like to be locked inside a body that would not do anything and feel the thirst and the hunger. She said she kept longing for green gatoraide...and she hates that. Didn't remember her name...sorry. Maybe your CNN sources can give it to you? Just saw the story last night.
And finally, the woman who awoke from PVS after 20 years is from Hutchinson Kansas (and went to school with a friend of mine): http://66.195.16.55/bio697.html is named Sarah Scantlin. There, no priests or religious persons quoted.
I am not arguing this on a moral basis except to say we don't know what these folks feel or think (or don't). No one does unless they've been in that state and came back. And one woman was on the news last night talking about her situation where that happened....
Bottom line PQ - the doctors don't agree on what a person in this state feels or knows, and each case is probably unique and different. I personally believe the person's wishes should prevail and thus encourage living wills (in great detail)!
However, I think that to starve someone to death by withdrawing the feeding tubes is a bad way to go - for anyone (whether they are "aware" or not). Don't you?
If we believe someone is better off "officially" dead, let's be honest about it and simply kill them outright - by injection for instance... That at least is being honest about what is going on, and being kind/humane in how it is done.
Taking away food and water is something we don't even do to animals or murderers. Even those who aren't "aware".
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
I cannot speak to what some paid nitwit on CNN said last night. The woman whose case you refer to in Hutchinson is described as being in a coma, not as being PVS; there is a difference. Withdrawing a feeding tube is a bad solution to a worse problem; if you feel strongly that Ms. Schiavo should be shot, volunteer yr services.
The issue here is essentially a legal one: Who should have control of the fate of an individual indisputably incapable of acting on their own behalf and demonstrating not the slightest sign of high-level cognitive function? The law, before the revolution, said the decision was the spouse's, whether anyone likes it or not. The law right now still says the same thing, at least until Judge Whittemore is overruled and shipped off to Yemen for attitude adjustment. In any case the cynical charade perpetrated by congressional Republicans in this case ought to make you sick.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
You are right (of course). There are all kinds and levels of "brain death". http://jnnp.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte... And for every doctor that says "they feel/know nothing" you can probably find another doctor who'll say just the opposite. So the medical experts aren't even close to being in agreement as to what someone in PVS can know/feel/sense...
As for me wanting her dead... I don't want her dead or alive. That's not my call. I'm (a) not her spouse or relative or friend... so I have no legal standing to to do anything for or against her life (b) not willing to kill anyone and (c) unable/willing to play God.
I think that if someone (like her husband - who it is reported now has two kids with his fiance) says she'd rather be dead then stay in this state for years more, then he is the person who should do the killing...in as humane way as possible. Why make the doctors do it? If he really is telling the truth about her wishes (despite the fact no one else heard her say that and after how many years?) as to what she'd want (not what he'd want) then let her go - but not in such a brutal way. If we prosecute someone who'd let an unwanted dog die by not feeding them, how can we accept that as a way to let human die? If you have to humanely kill a dog whose life should be ended, or a murderer, why should a brain dead patient be treated worse?
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
http://69.5.12.45/artman/publish/Repo...
Information from the Traumatic Data Bank23 of 84 PVS patients who were followed up long-term (by phone rather than by clinical examination) found that 6% made some recovery between one and 2.5 years.
In a five year follow up116 of 30 patients in PVS, five recovered from PVS between one and five years though only two recovered to a level where they could communicate. One was a 61 year old lady who was vegetative for three years following a subarachnoid haemorrhage. The other was a 26 year old man who was vegetative for 8 months before beginning to respond. Both reached levels where they could read, watch television, write, calculate simple mathematical addition and subtraction, tell the time, feed themselves, were wheelchair independent and could speak well.
Other reports of recovery after a considerable length of time include that of an 18 year old lady in a Vegetative State for two and a half years following a road traffic accident. She progressed to a state within the following three years of being able to comprehend and communicate, take a considerable interest in her environment and able to establish interpersonal relationships114. An even longer period of six years in a Vegetative State is described concerning a 25 year old woman who was involved in a road traffic accident. After 14 months of rehabilitation she was able to feed and groom herself and could dress and transfer with some assistance whilst her speech and cognitive function improved considerably. 118
It is recognised that there is a lack of long-term follow up studies of those patients still vegetative beyond 2-3 years. This is understandable since the number of patients is small and the patients are usually widely dispersed in hospitals, nursing homes or at home away from academic centres. The information on patients who have survived, say 20 years, has to be considered in terms of the health and social care available at the time of onset and may therefore not be applicable to those entering the Vegetative State at the present time.
Snoop (anonymous) says…
I'm borrowing most of this material but the point is made:..
A New York Times headline on March 20th stated: "Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death" In a December 2, 2002 story in the same New York Times, people starving in India were reported as dying, "often clutching pained stomachs."
The fervor of those who want to save Terri Schiavo's life is understandable and should be respected, even by those who disagree. What is harder to understand is the fervor and even venom of those liberals who have gone ballistic -- ostensibly over state's rights, over the Constitutional separation of powers, and even over the sanctity of family decisions.
So what else is new.
These are not things that liberals have any track record of caring about. Is what really bothers them the idea of the sanctity of life and what that implies for their abortion issue?
Or do they hate any challenge to the supremacy of judges -- on which the whole liberal agenda depends -- a supremacy that the Constitution never gave the judiciary?
Every member of Terri Schiavo's family wants her kept alive -- except the one person who has a vested interest in her death, her husband. Her death will allow him to marry the woman he has been screwing, and having children by, for years. Lets sick Scott Peterson or BTK on her and get it over with.
Legally, he is Terri's guardian and that legal technicality is all that gives him the right to starve her to death. Let be real kill her like a stray cat. Courts cannot remove guardians without serious reasons. But neither should they refuse to remove guardians with a clear conflict of interest. Hey ladies, better watch your back.
There are a lot of mindless useless bastards mindlessly glued to TV's, too fat to remove themselves from their own filth, multiple child sex offenders, drug dealers, wife beaters, child starvation advocates, bums on the street, starving kids in India and Africa, "no soup for you," as the soup Nazi would say.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Just added the above because I was interested in finding out more about what the medical experts say about this particular topic. The site has lots more on the topic. Only copied part of it.
Bottom line PQ - No one who hasn't lived through such a horrific experience can really relate to it. (Just as no one who has not lost a loved one to murder, or cancer, or kidney disease, etc. can totally understand how those situations must feel...) And I do not have many answers as to how to resolve the question of when, how, if and by whom decisions should be made on ending a human life. My only "point" (if I had one) is that if/when we (as a society) decide that someone (person or persons) should die, we have had a long (and I'd say proud) history of trying to make sure it's done as painlessly as possible... So, I would hope that at the least, those who make life and death choices for other people hold to that standard. Perhaps if someone must be starved to death - we keep should them REAL "hopped up" on drugs - just in case they do still have the capacity to feel themselves starving to death ....
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
Snoop, you never fail to entertain.
Ladylaw, the question here is simple: Was Congress within its authority in overriding Florida courts? If so, on what basis? If Mr. Schiavo is the named principal in the action to remove his wife's feeding tube, and Congress steps in to pass a law aimed at restricting Mr. Schiavo's well-established legal rights to do same, how is that different from a congressional bill of attainder directed at Mr. Schiavo?
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Sigh... That may be your question....So I will respond as best I can...then ask you to respond to my question.
Was Congress within its authority. First let's do Government 101 class (I am shocked at how many people don't know this stuff...so forgive me if you already do...)
We have 3 distinct branches of government.
1. Legislature. At the federal level, the legislative branch of government is made up of the Congress and government agencies, such as the Government Printing Office and Library of Congress, that provide assistance to and support services for the Congress. Article I of the Constitution established this branch and gave Congress the power to make laws. Congress has two parts, the House of Representatives and the Senate.
2. Executive. The executive branch of Government makes sure that the laws of the United States are obeyed. The President of the United States is the head of the executive branch of government. This branch is very large so the President gets help from the Vice President, department heads (Cabinet members), and heads of independent agencies. * President: Leader of the country and commands the military. * Vice President: President of the Senate and becomes President if the President can no longer do the job.
* Departments: Department heads advise the President on issues and help carry out policies.
* Independent Agencies: Help carry out policy or provide special services.
and
3. Judicial. The law interpreters - the judges. The judicial branch of government is made up of the court system. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Article III of the Constitution established this Court and all other Federal courts were created by Congress. Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution.
They are all supposed to stay out of each other business. BUT - as you well know, that never happens. If the law makers did not pass any laws - the law interpreters (judges) and law enforcers would have nothing to enforce or interpret. So, we have the doctrine of checks and balances...meaning each branch can go so far and no further, with the Constitution Supposed to provide the foundation for determining how far that is. This is an argument that goes back to the founding of the Nation. For the really first case on it, read Marbury vs. Madison http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proje...
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Part 2
This are many legal battles between the branches of government AND there are also many legal cases involving state and federal rights. If the lines were crystal clear and bright line, we would not have so many cases (still) fighting over these issues.
The feds have (from time to time) acted legislative to pre-empt state rights (in many ways) and provide for federal over-sight or baby sitting on certain issues thought to be of national interest (e.g. highway and water safety). In doing so, they provide for federal court review of state court decisions. One of the primary examples is habeaus corpus review in death sentence (criminal) cases. So while not common, there is precedent for federal law makers to step in and "correct" what they perceive to be an issue of national concern, and to provide for federal court review of state court decisions. If you read over the federal rules of procedure, for federal court jurisdiction rules (and case law on that topic) you will find quite a few situations wherein the federal court system gets to take another shot at a state court's decisions.... So it is not without precedent.
Whether the Congress should so provide, or not, or are legally entitled to do so in this case, is a very complicated legal issue. At least to people who haven't already made up their minds based upon more then just the law. And there are great minds on both sides of the debate (mostly arguing in favor of their particular preferred policy or outcome).
I am not defending or objecting to what the Congress is doing.I do not pretend to be a Constitutional law scholar. I raise only the humane issue of HOW a person is to die. Not when, or if, or by whose decision they die.
So that is my quesiton to you. Do you personally think it right to starve a brain dead person to death (assuming everyone agrees that they are brain dead and would WANT to die). And is so, do you think the person making that decision for the incapicated person should (a) do it themselves (personally pull out the feeding tubes) and/or (b) not have anything to gain by it (personally - as in insurance proceeds etc.)?
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Under "habeas corpus" a federal court can review a state court decision. When every state court effort has failed, the person denied liberty files a petition in federal district court, which considers whether federally protected rights have been violated and which, in appropriate circumstances, can conduct fact-finding procedures. The losing party in federal district court can appeal to a federal circuit court of appeals. The Supreme Court can choose to hear an appeal from the appellate court.
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
Yr question: Yes, obviously, if you read the original post you are already well aware that I believe that there are circumstances in which pulling the feeding tube from a brain-dead individual is both strictly legal and formally ethical. I trust we are clear on that point, and can now move on to something more substantive.
I gather from yr answer that you are unfamiliar w/ the concept of "bill of attainder.'" Like you, I wish more people knew this stuff; for example I wish more attorneys actually read the Constitution, where bills of attainder are explicitly, unambiguously debarred. A bill of attainder may be conveniently described as a law passed by Congress aimed expressly at a single individual, a legislative act not intended to make society-wide "law" but only to control or proscribe the actions of a single individual. That is precisely what Congress did last weekend. If they did it to Mr. Schiavo, they can do it to you. That's why the Founders prohibited the practice. There exists no intellectually coherent defense of Congress's actions of last weekend, there is no case law,no precedent, not even any obscure articles from dusty legal journals that justifies the behavior of the legislative branch. In this, as in nearly all of its actions since the coup, the GOP is explicitly flouting the rule of American law.
So. Again: If Mr. Schiavo is the named principal in the action to remove his wife's feeding tube, and Congress steps in to pass a law aimed at restricting Mr. Schiavo's well-established legal rights to do same, how is that different from a congressional bill of attainder directed at Mr. Schiavo?
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
More tomorrow. I'm going home.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
I think I already admitted I am not a Constitutional law scholar. I didn't know you were!
But I can do research. So here is more info:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/co...
Bill of Attainder
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. [note; punishment without trial]...
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
Further, "The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:
* Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
* Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
* U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
* Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
* Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota pirg, 468 u.s. 841 (1984).
bill of attainder - An act of the legislature by which one or more persons are declared to be attainted, and their property confiscated. The Constitution of the United States declares that no state shall pass any bill of attainder. [note - no state].
During the revolutionary war bills of attainder and ex post facto acts of confiscation were passed to a wide extent. The evils resulting from them, in times of more cool reflection, were discovered to have far outweighed any imagined good.
SOME folks have argued that asset seizure laws are bills of attainder: http://www.geocities.com/c2777/lpb/af... or that the slaver reparation payments would be bills of attainder http://www.independent.org/publicatio... or that laws aimed at polluters are bills of attainder http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsc...
So, once again, it appears that people - not to mention legal scholars - cannot agree on a particular issue or topic. What a surprise....
Meanwhile..... I still think that how a government allows (or makes) a person die/be killed (by starvation versus quickly without possibility of pain) is indeed a substantive issue.... I guess that is something we must disagree about... Not the outcome...you think it is ok to starve a brain dead person to death while I personally would rather the person be killed in as humane a fashion as say a chicken, stray dog, or murderer....
No, it appears we disagree on it is an important issue, as to how society sets about letting someone die. I tend to think that is an important issue. Just as important as to whether the Congress is out to pass a law that will have an immediate impact on one particular person...
We each have our issues....
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Sorry if I seem to keep making it more complicated then you think that it is. I just don't see most things as being perfectly black and white. If the answers were so easy and clear cut, there would be far fewer disagreements and court fights...... and courts...and lawyers... and reporters.....
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Kansas cases discussing "bill of attainder" principles [NOTE: I have thus far located no Kansas cases discussing bills of attainder or ex post facto laws that concern anything other than criminal defendant's and their rights.....]:
http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct... Petitioners claim the 1501(b) 30-day limitation is: (1) a bill of attainder; (2) an unconstitutional limit on access to the courts; and (3) a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. We hold that K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 60-1501(b), on the record presented here, is constitutional on its face. Petitioners' claims are denied.
*****
http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/ctapp...
K.A.R. 44-6-142 (1995 Supp.), as applied to petitioner in this case, violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.3. In taking or withholding good time credits from an inmate whose crime or crimes were committed prior to the effective date of the regulations involved, the Department of Corrections must take away or withhold such good time credits under the regulations that were in effect at the time the inmate committed his or her crime or crimes if the application of the newer regulations disadvantages the inmate.
*************************************
http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct...
1. The United States Constitution's ex post facto prohibition forbids legislative enactment of any law which imposes a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed or imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed.
2. Two critical elements must be present for a criminal or penal law to be ex post facto. It must be retrospective, that is, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must alter the definition of criminal conduct or increase the penalty by which a crime is punishable.
Mr_A (Bryan Anderson) says…
The fact is that the Republicans in congress have used their federal power to place their moral/religious views over those of the individual. Republicans are supposed to be against big government, and for states rights. This was a state issue, but apparently when matters of "values" are at stake, they don't mind big government. It is hypocrisy for political gain, and I have come to expect no less from this congress and this administration.
noaconstrictor (Noah Larsen) says…
I tend to agree with Mr. Mayo from the Sun Sent (URL listed above), this had very little to do with the actual issue and served as more of a distraction. It seems that when things are not going right for this administration (example: losing the privatization or personalization [my bad] of Social Security battle) they pull the terrorist card or the food tube card, or anything to take attention away from their overwhelming failures. This administration my be terrible at the vast majority of tasks, yet, in true capitalistic form, they are the best administration in recent memory at marketing and propaganda.
counterlife (anonymous) says…
noaconstrictor: thank you for observing what seems to me an obvious point here: The shameless, disgusting, cruel and selfish acts our alleged elected representatives (they actually are you know; friggin' democracy works, people elect their representatives) engage in to assist their chances of re-election. Most of the scumbag, spineless wonders who voted for this federal intervetion in something that is none of their business know full well that their shameless acts won't change anything and will only cause harm in the case at hand. But they also know full well that this little bit of pandering will help keep them in good stead with those who are so unintelligent, fearful, insecure, and yet oddly arrogant enough to believe that they know what God wants. It also means the amoral politicos may get by with not delivering on the things the so called religious right really wants, like limiting abortion rights. The shameless politicos can't really do that because their Gods (the polls) tell them that the religious right is in the minority on that issue. So we all get screwed, Ms. Schiavo, her husband, her selfish parents, the people who know what God wants for all of us, and all the rest of us who don't really know much. An afterthought: Where are all these tape-mouthed supporters of the "sanctity of LIFE" during the hundreds of legal executions that take place in this country every year?
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
Ladylaw: So far as I can tell, yr argument is that the Sciavo bill is not a bill of attainder because it doesn't "punish" anyone. Try this: Mr. Schiavo exercises his well-established legal right to order the removal of his wife's feeding tube. His wife then dies. Are you seriously suggesting that the bill as passed would not then render Mr. Schiavo liable for federal penalty? Were the Solicitor General to defend Congress on that basis in front of any non-revolutionary court in this country, I would beat him ten out of ten times, and I'm not even a lawyer.
You further cite references suggesting that the constitutional ban on bills of attainder is nothing more than a quaint hangover from old English law. This is a more useful argument, and obviously the one the Administration has adopted to defend a variety of constitutional abominations. Here's another amusing English legal custom enshrined in the Constitution that the Bush administration has dispensed with: habeus corpus. Every day that Mr. Padilla is detained is an impeachable high crime under the terms of the social contract that governed America before the revolution.
As for yr distaste for feeding tubes and the removal thereof, permit me to make an argument w/ which you might be familiar: It's the law. It's been litigated, not once but dozens of times. As you might've noticed, the President himself put his name on an example of representative legislation in Texas. (The thought of this President damning anyone else on the planet as a "flip-flopper" is too rich for words....) So if you oppose the removal of feeding tubes as a mode of euthanasia, I strongly suggest you vote your conscience and attempt to change the law.
Further: Why exactly are Reds so damned shy about formalizing their beliefs? If it is to be the case that the United States falls under conventional despotic strongman law, if the President, like Robert Mugabe, can arrest and kill anyone he wants, if the Congress, like the Duma, can pass laws aimed at specific citizens, why not amend the Constitution? Just change it to read that the President and his designated representatives can do whatever he wants to whoever he wants as long as Jesus and some flathead "judge" in Pork Hollow, Mississippi says it's OK. Why exactly is that a bad idea? Remove all doubt: Formally dispose of habeus corpus. Formally admit bills of attainder. Let the corrupt trash drain the Treasury dry. Call it patriotism and call it good.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
PQ - I am a lot more neutral (or on your side) then you seem to think.... I was not trying to defend the Congress or the President, or attack them. Because you raised it as the legal point, I merely did research on the phrase "bill of attainders," for my own education, and then I shared what I found with you (and others). I did not pick and chose what I found or posted nor did I try to interpret what it meant. [The NOTES I added were to call attention to the words used in cases etc. ] If you disagree with what was said in these examples, your issue is with the statements of the court or judge or legal scholar that said it...not me. I was just passing along ALL the general information I found on what the courts and scholars have said is (and is not) involved when a "bill of attainder" challenge is brought based upon a legislative act. My goal was to understand your position, and this particular type of legal challenge, as best I could.
And I know it's the law that allows feeding tubes to be removed. I did not suggest it was not. I merely question the humaneness of that particular law. I did not argue that Terri should not be allowed to finally die (officially). My only question (and it has been a question - I do not pretend to be an expert in all areas of any field), all along has been; if we refuse to starve animals and murderers to death, why should a brain dead patient be treated any differently? At the very least, I hope they give/gave her lots of really good drugs while she takes the time (weeks?) to finally go.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Part 2 (I know I am verbose - life long problem for me)
I can understand why you and others are outraged at what Congress did, and why it concerns you. Our legal system has never allowed laws to be passed that said "Mr. X can go to jail if Mr. X does ABC = but it's OK for others to do ABC." The reasons are obvious. However, there have been many instances were a law was passed, speedily (which is almost always a very bad way to pass new laws) in order to address what was then considered to be an emergency situation.
As I expected, the federal courts didn't do what Congress had hoped it would...and reverse state court decisions. I don't expect the Supreme Court to accept cert. I may have a tad more faith in the whole system then some folks or that perhaps is warranted. This may be because I am old enough to have lived through some events which, at the time, many considered to be the death knell of our nation. Among these events were the civil rights riots (and deaths caused by police shooting protesters), the assassination of a President and his brother, the attempted assassination of another President, the resignation of a President, the attempted impeachment of another President, and the change from abortions being outlawed to allowed. A pretty liberal democrat judge (who is now on the Kansas Appeals Court) recently said at a private dinner party that he has lived through a whole lot worse times in this nation, and that he has no reason to believe that our country cannot weather what some now believe are the worst of all times.
As for draining the Treasury dry, I personally believe THAT is the probably the single most danger to the survival of our entire system and nation. While it may not be sexy and/or as exciting, the fact that foreign nations now hold so much of our debt puts our entire economy in mortal peril. While we wring our hands over the religious right's taking over the country, we may have already sold our souls and children's future to the money brokers.
lazz (anonymous) says…
just to throw a few sticks of kindling on this fire -- the site cited by ladylaw for the Sarah Scantlin news, http://66.195.16.55/bio697.html, is a "pro-life" organization called Lifenews.com, which identifies itself as "an independent news agency specifically devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community." Included on the page with the Sarah Scantlin news are solicitations for donations to help the pro-life cause.
I'm not sure how a "news agency" can be both "independent" and "specifically devoted to ... the pro-life community," but apparently they're working on the trick.
My two-cents on the whole situation: It's a tragedy, it's heartbreaking, and the government needs to remember its place. When Mrs. Schiavo entered the bonds of marriage with her husband, they established themselves as each other's custodians, guardians and health-proxies. As broken-hearted as her mother and father clearly are, and should be, they and the United States Congress should respect the family established by Terri and her husband. They are prolonging and inflaming the pain.
Everyone keeps trying to speak for what Terri wants, and the only one with any authority on the matter is her husband. Not her mom, not her father, not Tom DeLay.
And I think we might all agree on this: What Terri did not want, for certain, was for photographs of her in this terrible condition, and her terrible plight, to become world famous and used by politicians and even her parents for their own selfish reasons. (Let's face it, her mother isn't doing this to save her daughter -- her daughter can't be saved; she's doing this to avoid the horrible pain of having to bury a child. Which we all sympathize with, and extend to her our deepest condolences; but she is making a international circus of her daughter's plight, and that's inexecusable. Utterly and completely and totally inexcusable. Because her parents and her brother are not strong enough to face the pain of a loss that happened 15 years ago, they are dragging their daughter's tortured plight into the public arena. They are barbarians. Respect the dignity of death. It awaits us all, no matter how much celebrity we might find by sobbing with Larry King and Katie Couric ...
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
Neutrality in this matter is an unacceptable intellectual position for anyone claiming to possess knowledge of the American legal system. To paraphrase Nino Scalia, the Constitution means nothing if words have no meaning. What Congress did either is, or is not, a bill of attainder, and if it is an attainder, then it must be either formally renounced or the foundation document altered to make attainders permissible. There's no wiggle room on this stuff, it's as plain as human slavery, what's happening now is a fundamental reshaping of the American polity along the lines of Indonesia or Zimbabwe, and one doen't need a JD to see that.
I agree that SCOTUS will reject cert; this is not the first time that this case has been before the Court, and they've so far shown no inclination to get involved. Moreover any honest deliberation by the Court would compel it to strike down the Schiavo legislation and rebuke Congress, and of course there's no chance whatever that they'll be given permission to do that, so the federal legal trail likely ended this morning w/ the 11th Circuit. But the case isn't over. Gov. Bush has indicated that he will attempt to overturn the Florida courts by way of the Florida Senate.
We have indeed already sold our future, not to foreign countries holding our debt, all of whom we screwed by effectively devaluing the dollar, but to history, which once we had the power to effect and even occasionally control. Now we, like any other middling modern state, are at the mercy of the international market. The devaluation of the dollar, as I predicted before the election, has resulted in a massive shift of international reserve holdings out of dollars and into euros. Thus the Republican morons have ensured the European Union will be the economic engine of the world for the next 100 years. Understand that there was no "policy" reason for this--it happened because the greed-headed GOP pigs are too busy stealing to take care of business.
In any event all of this, like the folderol over the Ten Commandments or the howlingly funny GOP War on Spongebob Squarepants, is just entertainment for a moron nation. The revolution succeeded, it's over, and we now live in a country where any thug w/ even the haziest connection to the Ruling Party can do whatever he wants to whomever he wants. We have seen the future; its names are Tom DeLay and Albert Gonzales. In five years this Schiavo legislation will seem positively benign compared to the horrors these evil despots will have unleashed.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Sigh.... Lazz oh lazz....fuels to the fire indeed.... why are you trying to find fault and pick fights on trivia? Do you like/enjoy conflict so very much? The site I posted was simply the first article/site that came up when I did a key word search. I don't remember what search engine I used, let alone what my terms were, so I can't give that information to you so you can double check my veracity on this point. At the time, I didn't remember/know her name, so I couldn't do a search with her name. Simple as that. For the record, I do not have the site (or organization) book-marked and only ran across it in doing a computer search (without her name). If you want to read less "religious nut" affiliated stories on the same story and this woman - do your own search (now using her name) or see some of the below other sites....
apnews.myway.com/article/20050213/D887B94G0.html
CBS News | Woman Speaks Again After 20 Years | February 12, 2005 ... www.cbsnews.com/stories/ 2005/02/11/earlyshow/main673281.shtml
Sarah Scantlin In 1984, when she was 18 years old, Sarah Scantlin, of Hutchinson, Kansas, was walking to her car when she was hit by a drunk driver.
www.answers.com/topic/sarah-scantlin
... Sarah Scantlin talks with mother.As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen ... A Kansas woman, Sarah Scantlin, recently began talking after 20 years of ...
cureltd.blogspot.com/2005/ 02/permanent-bias-drives-permanent.html
... For 20 years, Sarah Scantlin (search) has been mostly oblivious to the world around her ... Sarah Scantlin was an 18-year-old college freshman on Sept. ...
weblogs.bakshi.us/befell/
Brain-Damaged Woman Talks After 20 Years
... Sarah Scantlin left looks up at her mother Betsy Scantlin... ... For 20 years,
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?fi... n/a/2005/02/12/national/a143320S21.DTL
Discarded Lies: Sarah Scantlin and Terri Schiavo
... For 20 years, Sarah Scantlin has been mostly oblivious to the world around
her - the ... Sarah Scantlin was an 18-year-old college freshman on Sept. ...
www.discardedlies.com/entries/ 2005/02/sarah_scantlin_and_terri_schiavo.php
Boston.com / News / Nation / Woman finally speaks after two ...
... For 20 years, since she was struck by a drunk driver, Sarah Scantlin has been
mostly ... Sarah Scantlin was an 18-year-old college freshman on Sept. ...
www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2... 02/14/woman_finally_speaks_after_two_decades_in_silence/ -
usatoday.com - After 20 years of silence, brain-damaged woman ...
For 20 years, Sarah Scantlin has been mostly oblivious to the world around her
with brain damage the victim of a drunken driver who struck her down as she ...
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/ 2005-02-12-brain-damaged-woman_x.htm?csp=34
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
Set this pin up 100 times, and I'll knock it down 100 times. The Scantlin case involved a woman in coma. Coma is not the same as PVS. Here's a suggestion: Learn this lesson the way I did. Have the distinction explained to you by a neurologist at the bedside of yr dying father, whose lying there in diapers w/ the intellect of an eggplant and drool running out of his mouth. I promise you: You'll never make this mistake again.
lazz (anonymous) says…
oops, ladylaw, please notice I didn't call you out on that -- I only described it as the site you posted/cited, which i think is accurate. I wasn't implying anything about your personal objectivity ... i was pointing it out so that anybody who might have followed the link you provided would be aware that the information therein is not being generated by neutral news organization ... just trying to inject modest amounts of objectivity to the discussion ...
it seems abundantly clear that this whole topic is inflammatory precisely because it is so highly personal and heartbreaking ... which, for me, seals the argument that the government, in its myriad guises, needs to stay the hell out of this and leave it as it should be -- a heartbreaking but deeply personal family matter.
OK, now i'll step aside ...
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
PQ - I must respectfully disagree that nuetrality is unacceptable. I am sorry you cannot accept nuetrality in a person who has had some legal training. Just because I am THE expert in some areas of law (or so I'd like to think) it does not mean I will hold myself out as an instant expert in areas where I have little or no experience. It would be like a brain surgeon claiming to know how a heart doctor should have operated! I simply do not have enough training and time to become an expert in every area of the law (or life). I read more than the average person about such things, and I form personal opinions based upon my personal experiences and beliefs. But I know that my opinions are not likely to 100% correct. As a brain surgeon, I know enough not to operate on someone's heart. I am sorry if that neutrality offends you - but it's dangerous for people to pretend to be experts or knowledable in areas where they only have some experience.
I admire your passion and surety in all things. However, my personality and my training lead me to a different style of living. I do not know very much for sure. It is just as well. If I were as sure as you are about so many things, I might be tempted to use my crystal ball for some pretty selfish purposes....
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
"Surety" in this case is a function of literacy. The Constitution does, or does not, prohibit the action Congress took last weekend. My"surety" comes from reading the document, which explicitly, unambiguously, indisputably debars the action Congress took last weekend. One million lawyers at one million typewriters doesn't change a thing. Open yr eyes. Yr JD is useless in this society. The law now is whatever the President says it is.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
PQ - Sigh.... I did not set up another pin by saying (incorrectly) that Sara was a PVS victim. Please read what I posted.... I simply responded to Lazz and gave him the reason the particular site was used. I am not fighting with you any more. I didn't think I was fighting in the first place. Just asking questions and trying to think things through in a civil manner. Would you prefer to only hear from folks who say "right on man - they are all evil sob's".... ?
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
We are in dispute not over the areas about which we disagree, but about the issues on which you are in error. The Scantlin case was introduced into this discussion as an example of the evils of euthanasia; the clear intent was to suggest that Terri Schiavo might tomorrow wake up and start singing "Ave Maria." She won't, because she's been PVS for 15 YEARS, and coma pathology is as inapplicable to this case as influenza pathology.
I have no wish to collect a gaggle of sycophants. Substantive issues of constitutional polity are at stake in this matter. If you have a defense of the action Congress took last weekend, a rational defense based on the law, by all means offer it; we certainly have seen one yet. If I am arguing an inappropriate or incorrect legal position, by all means point it out. If the best you can do is some doddering retiree harumphing about how he's seen things "a lot worse than this," well, newsflash: Unless yr retiree was alive when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, then yr retiree is a senile halfwit. From a constitutional standpoint, things have not been this dire since the Civil War.
My God... they're taking yr country away from you. Wake up.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
My JD is useless to you - because I refuse to say what the law provides in an area in which I have had no experience - knowing that people who DO have experience in that body of law STILL disagree over its application to and the outcome in a particular set of facts .... ? Hmmm interesting approach to life. If you do not agree with my interpretation of what I have read...you are without any intelligence or use.
Well....perhaps you find my training and skills without any use .... but there are many who have found my knowledge and skill very useful....When I use it in those areas where I do have some expertise and skill. The fact I do not to pretend to know more then I do is, I hope, something that most people can appreciate rather than villify. I am indeed very literate and not without intelligence. I am smart enough to know what I do not know.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
PQ the doddering judge is still on the bench by the way....He's a Democrat. He's very liberal. And he is far from retirement age!
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
I used Sara as an example of someone who was thought to be "gone" who came back. I did that b/c there is still medical dispute over what a person can or does feel (in their bodies...not their minds). PVS is indeed different then coma victims. I do not disagree with that. And I don't know what PVS victims feel when they are "gone". All I was saying, all along, was that perhaps there was a more humane method of letting such folks die. That may not have been your issue; but it was mine. I never said that euthenasia was evil. I only questioned the method - starving versus the means used to put down criminals and/or animals.
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
Clearly we differ on the social value of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, separation of powers and executive restraint. Fear not; in this matter you are vy much in the majority and I vy much in the minority.
And of course no defense of Congress's actions of last weekend is required. They exist to serve the President, they served the President, and all is well.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
We differ on the value of the Constitution and Bill of Rights - clearly? Wow. That is a big jump in Logic, based upon what I said (actually said - not what others read into it).... .
I guess you concluded that I do not care about our country or our Constitution or our civil rights....simply because I am not willing to say the laws of the country were violated in a specific situation without first knowing a whole lot more then I already do about a particular body of law and the facts. Never mind that I have dedicated the last 25 years of my life to making sure that the laws of this state and nation have been followed. But I don't care...not as much as you do!
Well, excuse me for breathing, but in my particular line of work I must keep an open mind until/unless I have personally (not through third parties, like the press) obtained as many facts as possible AND personally (not through someone else) educated myself on the laws in that particular area. That keeps me from making mistakes that can prove to be more then just embarassing.... I cannot jump just because I might feel like it. Like that brain surgeon I mentioned earlier.... Before I operate on a guy's heart - outside my field of training - I think it behooves me to get better acquainted with that area of the body, or hand him over to a bona-fide heart surgeon. It does NOT mean I don't care about his condition!
Meanwhile, carry on assuming that no one but you cares about this country - especially if they don't automatically agree with you or share the same view points or degree of upset on a given topic. We should all be more like you. We should all be intolerant of and alarmed by anyone or anything that we do not agree with or like.
If the sky is indeed falling, we shall all one day say (as we die in horrific agony) "Gee, Patrick Quinn was 100% right about everything."
I bet that will make you happy! But maybe not.....
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
Madam, you are free to lose yr temper whenever you like, but no one in this space said a word about you not "caring" about anything at all. I said we differ on fundamental issues. That is clear to a nine-year-old. I explicitly acknowledge yr right to hold whatever opinions you like, no matter how idiotic I find them to be. Kindly extend me the same freedom. If you find the tenor of twiatitc not to yr liking, p'haps you should consider investing yr online time elsewhere.
jd (anonymous) says…
"not the slightest sign of high-level cognitive function?"
Q - who controls your fate?
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
"Clearly we differ on the social value of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, separation of powers and executive restraint." = I care and you do not (at least as much). Not said. "Clearly" implied.
Clearly we do NOT differ on these things social values. Your statement assumes that I do value such things as much as you do. FYI I value them a great deal - perhaps more then you do. I have spent the large part of my life in public service...protecting such rights.
You assume I do not agree with you or see your side .... merely because I did not go "hear hear" to your every word.
I am not angry. Just very sad. You have good writing skills. You have obvious intelligence. And you have strong passions. All excellent traits. Too bad you cannot admit when/if you don't know everything......and so very strong disdain for anyone who makes such an admission ....
You are correct.... It is a waste of time to TRY to discuss something with someone who only wants to argue or be told that they are right. In the future, you won't hear from me. It seems pointless to try to learn from you or to educate you about new facts or ideas. Since I am unable to discuss things with you without being held to the standard of "you don't agree with me - therefore you are wrong and the enemy". Must be very lonely on that mountain top from whence you can clearly see all ....
Good luck with it....
noaconstrictor (Noah Larsen) says…
Am I the only one here who doen't see this as an issue about whether or not the tube should be reinserted, but rather about the Federal Government trashing the authority of Florida's Judicial System? Does our Federal government believe that the courts in Florida (or any state for that matter), after 7 years of hearings, are unable to provide a resolution?
The fact of the matter is that the courts are right. The law states that the decision falls squarely on the head of the husband and not the parents. The husband made his decision -- the administrative branches of the government should keep their big, fat, greasy noses out of this. Soon I am sure we are going to find out that it is unpatriotic to remove feeding tubes or that it is an act of terrorists. Nobody can be right or wrong on this issue, all we can hope is that our government doesn't take away our right to choose. Furthermore, from the huge demand for living wills that has occured from this trial, I would have to say most people want that tube pulled instead of being a veg-head. Maybe if they tune the T.V. in Schaivo's room to FoxNews for a day or so, she will do us all a favor and move on to a much more peaceful place.
BTW, if Jeb actually carries through with his plan to demand that the tube be reinserted based on the biased opinion of a Mayo Bioethics director, he should not only be the one to personal insert the tube, but he should also take full responsibility for the remainder of that poor woman's life.
manofleisure (anonymous) says…
PQ
The previous exchanges are why I have always resisted the temptation of having a blog.
It seems to me that it's fairly open and shut that Congress did a tail run around the Constitution. That's galling enough, but to set aside one's bedrock principles to deflect from your own ethics troubles AND for callous political payback strikes me as the zenith of hypocrisy. All the representatives who voted for this should be beyond ashamed of themselves.
We're through the looking glass when, increasingly, I routinely agree with my former nemises Bob Barr, Dick Armey and William Safire's points of view on the overreaching of the State. We are moving down the road to a bizarre mix of oligarchy, theocracy and militarism. Thanks for fighting the good firgt.
lazz (anonymous) says…
This just occured to me, reading the news out of Florida, where Guv Bush is arguing that Mrs. Schiavo is in a "minimally conscious state," not PVS, and that Florida must get its bureau of Adult Protective Services to intervene ... and I just got slammed with this realization: If they fail to re-insert this nutrition and hydration, which was removed on her husband's say-so, and Mrs. Schiavo dies, they are going to charge him with her death.
Just watch.
noaconstrictor (Noah Larsen) says…
I don't think they will charge her husband with homicide -- that is not what the Republican party is after. They want:
1. Jeb to get some face time before his run in a couple years.
2. To distract from the poorly received Social Security proposal, which is losing ground with the population daily. W even met with Fox today to give him some non-SS publicity.
3. To make the courts look like they are over stepping their authority as a warm up for the "bench wars" that will be coming to congress in the near future.
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Manoleisure: you know I couldn't agree more.
Incredibly, the people (I was going to write "morons") currently in government are creating, before our eyes, precisely the kind of government our Constitution was designed to prevent.
We are like Germans in the '30s, and the question now, which each American must answer, is whether their ultimate fate will also be ours.
Will you, my fellow American voters, throw out of office these buffoons making a mockery of our law, our federalism, and our Constitution? Or will you personally help to return them to power, knowing how they wield that power?
I'm sorrowfully sure there were many Germans, just as there are currently many Americans, who frankly and simply saw nothing wrong with a government that could do whatever it wanted, unchecked by constitution or historical principle, simply because they were "the right kind of people."
In Germany, it was fascists who could "get things done," regardless of what else they might also have planned.
Here, it's people who are doing the work of God, like Tom DeLay and President Bush.
Americans who believe that people in government can know absolutely the will of God (which I'd suggest is blasphemy) and somehow do God's work in spite of and in direct contradiction to the Constitution are shoddy 3rd Americans not worthy of the name, as far as I'm concerned.
An American of the first rate swears loyalty to no one and nothing but the principles of the Constitution itself.
History is no salve, though: it took the rest of the world to beat German citizens back into sense.
noaconstrictor (Noah Larsen) says…
Oh, David...I don't think that our Government is ever going to kill and torture innocent civilians ... unless, of course, they are terrorists, in which case we will try them, err, I mean fly them out of the country. It's not torture in, say Syria or Guantanamo W. Bay -- totally different.
Besides, God would not let anything bad happen to any undeserving person. The problem of evil is totally stupid -- God has a reason for everything. And with that Schiavo lady, she got at least another 15 years of good living left. I mean f**k, what I would give to be in bed all day watching T.V., never having to get up to take a shit, and having my food delivered to me through a tube. As I sit in my office working the late shift, I am willing to admit that God must hate me.
counterlife (anonymous) says…
Lazz, I find myself in shocking agreement with your prediction of the future. We will never be done with this until the neocon fascists have entirely eliminated the notion of the judiciary as a a co-equal branch of our federal government , not to mention that amazing grant of power given to the people and the states by the 9th and 10th amendments to the great and quite radical Constitution of the United States of America. Charge the unfortunate Mr. Schiavo with the death of his wife, get a court (liberal or conservative) that discharges its responsibility to interpret the law impartially and reasonably to throw the charges out and let the judiciary be damned. How can the neocons resist? I also agree with your assessment of how weak and publicity hungry Ms. Schiavo's sad parents are. This thing is as good as terrorism for the neocons and you are correct, it will never be over. I just to hope the people who care about me are brave enough to say farewell when the time has come. I wasn't born for a world like this.
Snoop (anonymous) says…
This ongoing rant has been most enjoyable and laughable.
Ladylaw, back away from the keyboard............
Liberals simply don't think that the feds should fight to enforce Terri Schiavo's right to due process before she is killed by starvation. They just want the bitch to die already, be strong for the cause!
Liberals newfound respect for "federalism" is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion should be prohibited from ever using the word "federalism."
When liberals talk about "federalism" (what a funky word) or "states' rights," they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature - or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. (Unless they agree with them)What liberals mean by "federalism" is: a state court ruling. Just as "choice" refers to only one choice, "the rule of law" refers only to "the law as determined by a court."
The courts said let the bitch die! damm you stupid republicans let her die. Oh so her husband can continue to screw that mistress he has harbored.
I just know some of you lib dudes are thinking if MY bitch acts up you mean I can just starve her ass to death and the courts will say that's cool? awesome!
Hey Democrats remember when you favored calling in federal agents in order to: (1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard); (2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms); and (3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service)?
Democrats Libs only get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.
(I borrowed that one but its so correct) AND...
As a practical matter, courts will generally have the last word in interpreting the law because courts decide cases. But that's a pragmatic point. There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too.
I bet you liberals are happy You were looking for someone to take the fall for Abu Ghraib abuses and torture.
You found your homegurl..... As we watch the torture and murder of Terri Schiavo.
Oh......priceless.... "Incredibly, the people (I was going to write "morons") currently in government are creating, before our eyes, precisely the kind of government our Constitution was designed to prevent."
(I was going to write "fucken liberal are so funny")
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Nice demagoguery, Snoop. You fit in well with DeLay and the Brothers Bush.
"Go God's Own Party! Smash the Constitution, because we're RIGHT!"
noaconstrictor (Noah Larsen) says…
right on, snoop!!! Us Republicans need to figure out how to keep that woman alive at all costs. She is just brain dead enough to vote for our party -- and we need all the votes we can get!!! GO JEB!!
Mr_A (Bryan Anderson) says…
"fucken liberal are so funny"
Hey Snoop, i believe the correct way to write that would be:
"fucking liberals" or even "fuckin' liberals"
If you are going to rant, at least don't look like a moron, reinforcing our "liberal" ideas that conservative evangelist Republicans are morons.
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
Mr. A: I feel yr pain, but Snoop gets a pass on spelling; arguing w/Snoop about spelling is like arguing w/ Charlie Parker about notation. It's be-bop, man. And he's consistent: It's _always_ "fucken liberals." It's a riff. The long posts swing like "Birdland." They don't always make sense, but they swing. You'll find vy few Reds on this board prepared to actually engage the issues at hand. Snoop is one of them. He gets a twiatitc spelling pass.
Carmenilla (anonymous) says…
Yah, we all want that bitch to die. Nice choice of words, Snoop. But no one else felt the need to call Terri Schiavo a bitch. It really speaks to your effortless way with people and the ability you have to engage all types of folks. I hope your "bitch" pulls out your feeding tube o' whiskey so that maybe you can stop being such an irate jackhole.
MaryJane (anonymous) says…
I agree that this administration sucks. I think Congress and the politicians grossly manipulated the situation and it backfired in their faces. If anything, it probably irked the judicial who are saying, "you shall respect my authoritii!"
Nevertheless, LadyLaw is right, death by starvation and thirst is a cruel way to go. Why don't we put aside all our conservative and liberal political bullshit and look at the simple facts? We're going to starve someone to death... .
Snoop (anonymous) says…
Oh crap someone smart, with Common freaken sense.........
But now you have to dis ole Snoop cause I thought you said something that made sense and did not have to take a fucken half hours worth of literary crap! Props.
So simple...
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
I am back (but only for a moment) just to say
Thank you Mary Jane. Finally, thank God/the gods - someone who us wise and calm enough to see through all the anger, ego, and minds full of fear - this was ALL I ever said....and still they did not see...
godjilla (Jill Ensley) says…
And one more makes 80....
No one will probably read this. Hell, I'll probably forget to check it.
But I thought this appropriate in some form or fashion:
"The trouble is, of course, that life, as any fifteen-year-old can tell you, is full of shit and has but one death. And to ignore our excrement might be good form, while to ignore our mortality creates an "imbalance," a kind of spiritual irregularity, psychic impaction, a bunging up of our humanity, a denial of our very nature." --Thomas Lynch, from The Undertaking
godjilla (Jill Ensley) says…
I lied, 81.
I tend to believe the doctors when they say she won't actually feel pain due to the starvation. The woman is brain dead. It won't feel like it feels when we're going without our McDonald's for a day.
But, some might be of the opinion that doctors and science are bunk. That's a whole different argument that I hope this doesn't evolve into.
And now.....*scampers away*
jd (anonymous) says…
Where was everyone when Clinton and Reno's Federal Government trashed the authority of Florida's Judicial System over Elian Gonzales?