Video: Times Square Obama Afghanistan Protest Arrests
New Photo Brings Flying Overweight Debate Back
AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
State Sen. Savino Gets Noticed For Impassioned Gay Marriage Speech
Teen Gets Two Years For Killing Kitten
No matter what your political leanings may be, this horribly protracted fight over whether to keep Terri Schiavo on life support or to remove her feeding tube can't help but make you think that you need to clearly state what you want to happen with your body if you're, say, brain-damaged - and make sure it's witnessed by others and notarized. The NY Times has an interesting and heartbreaking feature about how other Americans are facing death, with a focus on those who are fighting terminal diseases. But Gothamist can't help but feel frustrated with Congress after their late night session to have yet another judge intervene in the case. This seems like a case for the families involved (who have already had many court battles which mostly sided with Michael Schiavo and his desire to have his wife's feeding tube removed), not for Congress who seems to be using this for even more political grandstanding.
The bill passed by Congress for Terri Schiavo. And two sites from the AP on the matter: One is Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization and the other is Terri's Fight.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
IMO, This is NOT a simple issue and Congress jumping in at the 11th hour is not helpful and yet another fine example of Political Grandstanding.
Michael Schiavo is her husband and he has to carry out what he feels is Terri Schiavo's wishes. If he, her Husband, say's she would not have wanted this, who is Congress to say otherwise? Court appointed doctors (whom I would hope are impartial) have testified that she has no chance of getting better. This has gone thru Several State courts and has finally come to a court order mandating the removal of the feeding tube. For Congress, Especially Republicans who preach limited Federal Gov't "interference" (Gotta love Federalists...) to get involved after the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case is, IMO, disgraceful.
IMO, The only good thing about this is that people are discussing what they'd like done if ever they were in a similar situation.
I think Congress's interference will only make a terrible situation worse.
The problem stemmed from the fact that Michael Schiavo and the parents of Terri disagree with each other. Because her parents want to keep her alive, they've called in the troops. That's where this ballooned out of control.
I agree, SD. All Michael Sciavo wants is to get his wife, who he apparently loves very much, from this world to the next one with a shred of dignity. And the conspiracy of fools has succeeded in turning this into a grotesque spectacle.
Bear in mind that Bill Frist, who is a doctor, says he disagrees with the diagnosis, but hasn't examined her. Yeah, I'm gonna go to this guy the next time I've got chest pains... "Well, stand in front of the TV camera... nope, you don't look like you're having a heart attack to me."
Bear in mind also that Tom DeLay, who has been preaching the sanctity of marriage to anyone who will listen, now says, quoting from Friday, "I don't care what the husband thinks."
People, this is your country now.
Also note that Tom Delay said that Terri Shiavo was simply handicapped like many other Americans and no worse than those such people who are challenged like this every day. I was personally offended as he clearly had no idea about levels of disability and to lump everyone together into one category simply shows what an idiot he is. As a person who has a sibling with Downs Syndrome, I was beside myself when I heard him spout off. That's completely insulting to everyone.
Oh and while we're at it, Bush will spend our dollars to fly back to DC to sign anything he has to to keep Terri alive but yet he has no problems sending off our youth to get blown up in Iraq? Great policy on "right to life", Bushie.
And I think Terri's parents are being very selfish.
so much for looking out for the sanctity of marriage. apparently michael schiavo's marriage doesn't count.
meanwhile a little boy died in Houston last week because doctors pulled the plug, thanks to a law that says they can overrule the wishes of parents in "futile" cases. who signed that into law? George W. Bush. ironically, he returned early from his vacation to sign that, too. talk about your flip-flops!
I wonder what happens when they vote to keep the feeding tube in and the family decides to lobby for stem cell research? How about who is going to pay for the medical bills to keep her on support?
This whole thing has gotten so far out of control. What is going to happen is that it's going to get to the Supreme Court and they are going to rule that it is the husband's right to choose.
As mentioned previously, the Republicans are such hypocrites in this case. What ever happend to small goverment that kept out of state rights and personal rights? How about sanctity of marriage? What about the whole, stem cell research is playing god, but keeping someone artificially on life support is ok?
[sigh]
I really feel bad for the Family. Both sides have legitimate concerns and are being used by "people" seeking political gains.
This morning, I heard a man shouting to a crowd that Micheal Schiavo should be removed as Guardian for his wife. My worry is this: some psycho will try to kill him in the name of "preserving" life. Then the parents would become Terri Schiavo's guardian. I hope the police have this man under some form of protection.
Can I say that I also love the hypocrisy of the all the bus loads of people who have gone to Terri's hospital to protest that the tube be put back in. Where are these people when she needs constant day in and day out care. Are they going to volunteer to lift her out of her chair and bathe her? Are they going to raise their hands high to volunteer to clean her after she has to go to the bathroom? Don't chime in unless you really get the truth of a situation and can stand by it in full. I love these last minute idiots who make their little posters and signs when it pleases them but they are the last ones to volunteer to be there when the ugly daily reality rears it's ugly head. I want to see members of Congress do a reality show where they volunteer to take care of Terri personally for an entire month. Bunch of stuffed shirts.
For those looking to get up to speed quickly on the whole case abstractappeal.com has a wonderful combined information page, with good legal analysis.
I found this particularly interesting:
Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri's parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer.
I'm not one of those people who says that "one of these days I'm just gonna move to Europe..." but you gotta wonder what people over there think when they see these stories. Are we going nuts? The "right to life" is starting to look mighty uncivilized to me.
After visiting a relative totally decimated by Alzheimer's, my aging father said, "Don't EVER let that happen to me." I intend to try to honor his request no matter what it takes, and woe to the grandstanding Republican congressman who stands in my way.
Terri's loving husband abandoned her years ago and now lives with another woman. Meanwhile, her parents have stood by her all this time and are ready to care for her. They should not be denied that right.
The state vs. federal argument liberals are making is baloney. Neither party has a pure "states rights" ideology. Liberals who have supported federal intervention for years suddenly need smelling salts when it is done to allow someone to live? Too bad she isn't a cop killer. Then the Left would support keeping her alive.
As far as the "sanctity of marriage" I think Michael has kind of thrown that out the window by living with another woman and having children with her (not long after Terri went into the hospital either). If he cares for his wife so much, then maybe he shouldn't be cheating on his wife while she's lying in the hospital. Also, he won the original money mostly for Terri's CARE, but as soon as he got it, he began to spend it to have her euthanized.
One last thing, can we not pretend that to be starved to death is a good thing? Or even a humane thing? In Florida (well, most if not all states), it is illegal to starve a dog to death, but yet people are perfectly willing to starve a woman to death. This could take WEEKS! I read some people saying that the people who carry the signs and protest outside the hospital, would never go through the day to day assisting of Terri. Well, I read and hear all these people justifying starving this woman to death, but yet it's really easy to do this if you are not the one being starved to death. So, to all you who seem to think this is just fine, YOU are not one who is having to go through your body being denied the most basic nutrients. Can you imagine even what it would be like for your body to go through rebelling against itself, and different organs and systems collapsing daily, your body fighting to live, warring with itself, and to go through all this, unable to stop it, for WEEKS?! How dare anyone else presume to put another through this hell. If you are not willing to go through it yourself with her, don't argue for Terri to be forced into it.
Oh, jesus, SE, try to learn the facts of the case (Dan Dickenson's link above is awesome for this) before speaking. It's well-established that you or I could easily put our signature on the line and say that our wishes are to not have any life-sustaining measures continued on our behalf, measures which include continuation of nutrition. And if Terri Schiavo had signed a living will, then none of this would be in the courts.
That being said, she didn't, so the courts went through an unbelievably exhaustive process to determine her wishes -- appointment of guardians, solicitation of expert opinions, solicitation of statements Terri Schiavo made to people other than her husband, and incredibly detailed analysis of the medical facts of her case. And in every single instance, the courts deemed that she would have wished the cessation of any life-sustaining measures -- a determination that has exactly the same weight as if she had signed a living will.
So if you're going to argue that Michael and others aim to "starve her to death," then do so knowing that the only aim of theirs is to do what she would have wished, a situation validated by every single court in front of which the case has been argued. And if you're going to argue that such a fate is cruel, tortuous, or any other pejorative term you can compose, then understand that that's only an argument against any form of living wills. (For example, to use your own words: can you imagine even what it would be like to suffocate to death? That's what happens when a patient's respirator is turned off. Can you imagine what it would be like to die of overwhelming bacterial infection? That's what happens when antibiotics are turned off.)
Do you know that her Husband isn't waiting by her bedside or making an assumption?
SE, What do you propose as a solution? Morphine till her breathing stops?
As I've mentioned, this is NOT a simple issue. On the news this morning, at least one doctor claimed that she is not capable of noticing Pain due to her brain damage. I'm not saying it's ok since she might not be able to feel pain, but if she didn't want this existance, what do you propose?
I hope I'm never in a situation where I need to decide such a thing for my wife. With this issue in the news so much, we've discussed it and my Wife would Not want such an existance especially for 15 years. I have no idea what I would do, but I'd hope I'd be strong enough to honor her wishes.
To me, that's the Issue: What Terri Schiavo would want, nothing more. Not her husband's Adultery, not her parents wishes, and certainly not some grandstanding politicians.
Thank you Dan for clarifying that this it is not the husband's, or parent's, discretion to remove the feeding tube. The court, as factfinder, has attempted to discover what Mrs. Shiavo, in her competency, wanted or unequivicably would have wanted, under this circumstance. Since the Supreme Court ruled in Cruzan a few years back, the state may impose a "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard in proving what Shiavo wanted. The factfinders were evidently 99.999% confident that she wanted or would have wanted the feeding tube removed, not that the husband would have liked it to be removed. His wishes are irrelevant.
I must congratulate nola for making this a Left versus Right issue (as usual).
The above link to abstactappeal.com is very useful. But why is it so interesting that Michael Schiavo turned down an offer he was not in a position to accept? If he lacked the ability to reverse the court's decision then he could not have collected the money. It doesn't illuminate his motives one way or the other, does it?
The point is, regardless of who's side you're on, this is a private family matter that has nothing to do with the congress or the president and they should not be tampering in personal lives.
SE, unless you've ever had to make this agonizing decision yourself, then you should back way off.
I've had to, twice... the latest when my mother, stricken with Alzheimer's, stopped swallowing. After much agonizing and consulting (including, BTW, with a priest) the decision was made to let her go, rather than adminster a feeding tube. I had asked in my prior experience if this was cruel, and was told that a person in the state they were in wouldn't even be aware of what was happening, and that it would be crueler to prolong the agony. I accepted that. It hurt like hell, but I accepted it. Others may choose a different path. I respect that. What I don't respect, what I have utmost contempt for, is outsiders (churches, government, etc.) sweeping in and announcing that YOU ARE WRONG! and thinking they are better equipped as total strangers to make the decision, or stand in judgement of those who decide.
If this is Christianity,if this is America, then neither is what I believed it to be.
Does anyone here really think that their parents know them better than their significant other?
Think about it...who do you spend more time with? Who really knows what you do at night? Who really knows where you hang out? Who really knows your friends? Who really knows your true, deep feelings?
Your parents? Or your significant other?
alicia - Actually someone else accused the Republicans of hypocrisy and I responded to the accusation. And several other posts before mine had a political take on this. So maybe it isn't the left v. right that bothers you, but the fact that someone actually defends the right? Do you have something against diversity?
nola - I found it interesting only because I'm curious who offered him the money.
(As the page points out, a lot of people think he's in this for the money, or because he beat his wife, or some other reason.)
And to everyone crying adultery:
Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband. Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment.
This is from a Second Circuit Appeals Court Order in 2001. 11 years after she had her heart attack. Don't even try to act like he just up and left his wife the first moment he could.
what does any of this have to do with new york? just wondering. this is gothamist after all, not floridaist, federal governmentist, or vegetative stateist.
Tim N. - Why does it upset you when the government acts to keep her alive as opposed to when it acts to let her starve to death? If it were clear that these were her wishes it would be a non-issue. But her husband (who has taken up with another woman) wants one thing and her parents (who are willing and able to care for her) want another. Whatever the result, the government will have been involved. Don't get huffy just because you don't like the result.
Yes, nola, but there's a difference between the normal government process that resulted in the order to remove the tube and the extraordinary actions by the federal government to try and overturn the order.
This whole story is tragic, and I can certainly empathize with both sides. But what most bothers me about this is that with everything else that needs fixing/funding/protecting by Congress, they've spent the last week hounding ballplayers about steroids and trying to change the fate of one woman. As tragic as Terry Schiavo's story is, is this really the best use of federal resources?
I know I'm going to sound like a prick and yes, starving someone to death is not a nice way to go. But remember -- Terri is in this condition because she had a heart attack brought on by an eating disorder.
As for the case itself, take the "Republican" label out of it. Imagine you are a Christian who believes euthenasia is wrong. How would you like it if the gov't said your life in a coma or with brain damage was "futile"? Imagine a law from Congress that said doctors were going to pull the plug on anyone who was in a coma for six months regardless of the family's wishes. The point is not the "moral issue" here [read: Christian issue]. Forget about the political parties or Terri's specific case. The point is the gov't has no right to tell you what your wishes should be at the end of your life.
Nola... I object to someone saying Michael Sciavo's actions are morally wrong, since I've had to take the same ones myself. I've already said that I would never question someone's decision if they were standing in that spot. So why can't people respect Michael Sciavo's decision? A judge appointed him Terri's guardian. He said that she wouldn't want this, the courts found that he was telling the truth. Many other judges (I heard the number 19 being bandied about this morning) have upheld this.
The only reason the Congress is involved with this is that the radical Christian community demanded that they get involved because they felt they could make legislative gains out of this tragedy (which is sick). They had no business being in this family's private torment and I only wish someone in Congress - Republican or Democrat - had the balls to tell them that.
I'm not the one picking the fight with you, N. I am the first to admit that this has hardly been the Democrats' finest hour, either.
The legal order of next-of-kin is:
1. Spouse
2. Adult child
3. Parent
4. Sibling
5. Next-closest relative
(Correct me if I'm wrong)
Nola, until you include your own e-mail address or homepage link with your posts, shut the hell up. You friggin' coward.
Nobody seems to be pointing out that Terri got brain damage from her eating disorder. I wonder if Terri's overzealous parents are the same people who drove her to be bulimic/anorexic in the first place. The irony.
Nick - Please explain to the rest of us how providing a nitwit like you with an email address is relevant. If I give you my email are you going to send me a threatening note? Wow, what a tough guy you are.
ym - If you want to engage in idiotic speculation, isn't it more likely that her mullet-headed husband drove her to binge and barf? Irony, indeed.
Tim N. - I don't think anyone would question the fact that there are plenty of circumstances that warrant these actions and I'm certainly not questioning your actions. But this case is complicated by the fact that her parents want to care for her and her husband is with another woman. That raises very reasonable questions about what to do.
nola -- it is not complicated by the parents wanting to care for her -- Michael is fighting for his wife to die the way she wished, not to die so he doesn't have to care for her anymore. You make it sound like the guy is a cold-hearted snake who is just waiting for this ball and chain to croak already. And the guy's wife is dead. What do you want a man to do when his wife is dead? Have sex with her corpse? Or is it ok to have sex with her because she is, in fact, brain dead but kept alive with a feeding tube? Most courts in this case would grant Michael a divorce if he wanted one. And how do you know he didn't have a conversation with Terri about what she would want him to do with his life if she died i.e. move on and be with someone else? You don't know so stop making assumptions.
The fact remains that a court of law has ruled in favor of TERRI -- that is, it has ruled that TERRI'S wish to die should be carried out, not the wishes or her family or her husband.
Insight on our friend nola and his trolling habit. I just speaketh the truth.
No, Nola. I'm not going to send you threatening notes. I'm going to insert a large pineapple into that rectum you speak out of.
You really nailed me, REALITY CHECK. I actually post comments in the comments section of Gothamist. Is that what a troll is? And what is the term for weirdos who keep track of someone else's posts - stalker? But I'm glad you've found a hobby. Please let us know when I put up my 100th post and we can all celebrate.
at least nola is debating the issue. maybe you can see it as an opportunity to hear what the 'other side' might be trying to say even if it is religously and/or politically driven ideology that ignores the individual's rights and quality of life in favor of personal morality.
'too bad she's not a cop-killer', nola? you wanna expand on that bit of brilliance?
Nick - Although these forums are a good place for freewheeling discussion, I don't think your sexual fantasies are of interest to anyone here. Maybe you can find someone with similar enthusiasms at Honoluluist?
Nola: Oh, you know you like the attention. *wink*
This is the law Bush signed:
Section 166.046, Subsection (e):
If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient …
That equals hypocrasy in my book.
To summarize a cartoon I saw:
Bush & Co.'s (and some damnable Dems) Backruptcy Bill means that families will never be able to recover from the massive bills of such treatment thus being unable to pay.
Tort reform would end the malpractice claims that have so far paid for TS's care.
Bush kills babies if they cannot pay, see above post.
Who benefits?
Hello nola, the link was to let everyone know that your comments tend to be angry (ie: name-calling, snap assumptions, etc), which is the definition of "trolling." Out of curiosity (or my stalker nature) I googled your gothamist posts, and I was shocked to find that nearly every one of your posts is angry or contains some kind of insult.
I invite everyone to read over Nola's wide variety of Gothamist postings on the issues of our day, to get insight on what makes Nola tick, which is relevant to his position on the issue at hand (Terri Schiavo). I only stick to the facts, and I only speaketh the truth.
my favorite example is this thread:
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2004/08/16/coney_island_terror_targets.php
where nola reveals his/her disgusting racism
The federal judge in Florida who ended up hearing the Schiavo case this afternoon has apparently said that he won't be ruling immediately. One can only hope that the delay will allow this whole thing to pass quietly away, in the way Terri Schiavo should have been allowed to go all along.
REALITY CHECK - I don't think anyone is going to need therapy because of my critical posts. I've been called a racist, a homophobe and every other epithet that liberals rely on when they are losing arguments (and elections).
I'm part of the small minority in NYC who voted for Bush so it isn't a big surprise that my posts go against the grain here. But I enjoy sparring with the other side and it makes for more interesting debate when different viewpoints are provided. As for my name calling, maybe you should read the comments directed to me. But I'm not complaining - I'll leave the whining to your side. Speaking of which...
sp - Thanks for linking to that string. A perfect example of how words like racist and homophobe get abused by people who don't understand what they mean. Why don't you cut and paste one of my racist diatribes - or can't you find one?
"Judge Won't Order Schiavo Tube Reinsertion"
Not really a surprise considering the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.
The parents will appeal. I know they will fight this as long as possible, but It strikes me that instead of spending time with their daughter in possibly her last weeks, Congress has created a way to force them away from their child.
I wonder what Congress will do now? Lambaste the judge as an "Activist Judge"??
that's all good, nola, i don't think you've made any racist statements. you have just as much of a right to comment as anyone else. but why do you always have to be so divisive and presumptive? anyone you disagree with is automatically an idiot elitist liberal. i know you're a devout conservative, but has it ever occured to you that not everyone is beholden to a political ideology? that many people here actually look at each issue and weigh the pros and cons with common sense? if your sport is truly debating in these forums, then it would be helpful if you would tone down the stereotyping and personal attacks otherwise you're just stirring up hatred, making annoying noise and your opinions won't touch anyone. are you here for enlightenment or to pick a fight?
hijiki - My posts are only considered divisive because I'm usually going against the prevailing opinion in this forum. If you posted on a conservative website you might be accused of the same thing. I do not come here for enlightenment, I come for entertainment and for the opportunity debate with the other side.
As for personal attacks, I think I've been subjected to more personal attacks than I've launched. Nobody complains when some fruitcake wants to attack me with a pineapple, but if I call someone a moron it's a scandal?
And I do look at each issue and weigh the pros and cons, just as I assume you do. Does the fact that you always take the liberal position make you more thoughtful than me because I take the conservative one? I don't think so. We just have different perspectives on things.
i think the divisiveness stems from stereotyping opposing views, not having them. you come here expecting to be attacked and it's good that you defend yourself. i like to hear your point of view. i think you do make people think more about what they say, but when you stoop to the same level as pineapple pushers, then it's just arguing, not debate. i know you're often just reacting in kind to these immature comments, but you really could communicate your position more effectively by sticking to the high ground.
as for me, i definitely do not take the liberal side of every issue because i realize that democrats have just as much ideology as republicans and ideology is never a good problem-solver. i've sided with you in the past and i've voted for republicans, but, honestly, have you ever gone against the conservative agenda?
It is fair to criticize me for using insults in my posts. But do I stoop to the level of people like Nick? I hardly think so. Not only that, but I've seen some outrageous things advocated in these forums - vandalizing Wal Mart, physically intimidating Republican convention delegates - but defending Republicans gets a more hostile response than those statements, not to mention the attentions of flakes like Reality Check and sp. It is that stupid Union Square mentality that views a Che Guevara t-shirt as free speech but a George Bush t-shirt as advocating genocide.
As for my positions and whether they are too rigidly ideological, I would not be able to defend my positions if I had not thought things through and come to my own conclusions. You also have to bear in mind that I'm more likely to post on a topic like this one, where my position is contrary to prevailing opinion.
I think someone needs to pull the plug on this thread.
I love how it's okay for Clinton to use government marshalls to send Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba even though the Florida Supreme Court ruled him the property of his American relatives...but when Bush & Congress try to stop a killing it's political and the Republicans are over stepping their bounds.
Which is it people?