Reporters never get it, do they? >> Schiavo died [was executed by judicial order] in Florida in March of 2005 after being taken off life support [after being denied water and food] following a 15 year battle over whether to keep her alive [she wasn't dying] despite brain damage [despite a disability due to injury].
Life-size crucifix dedicated to Terri Schindler Schiavo
State: Dismiss complaint against Terri Schiavo's former nurse
>> Bush sided with the nurse Thursday.
>> "The governor feels the actions taken against Sauer-Iyer are not justified and hopes that the complaint will be reconsidered and dismissed. She did not disclose any information which was not already public," Bush spokesman Russell Schweiss wrote in an e-mail to the St. Petersburg Times.
Other than that, the story reeks of AP/SPTimes venom, repeating every stupid allegation against Carla.
Last I heard, Michael was a government employee in Florida. He certainly gets a lot of time off for political campaigning. I'm surprised that Florida does not have the equivalent of the The Hatch Act, which generally forbids political campaigning by federal employees.
>> On Thursday, the Florida Department of Health asked the Board of Nursing to dismiss its complaint against Sauer-Iyer.
>> The nursing board had originally proposed a one-sided deal by which Sauer-Iyer would relinquish her nursing license and pay nearly $1,700 in administrative fees. Her attorney responded by requesting an administrative hearing on the matter and no date has yet been set for it.
NewsMax: Jeb Bush Backs Terri Schiavo Nurse
And here of course we have Michael being sick into a microphone: "This is America" he told the AP [who else?]. "The governor is entitled to be wrong again. What Carla did is wrong, and what the governor is doing to protect her is wrong. Why does he want to help people who lie?"
As the pajama warriors picked up last night, Michael walked into a trap. To wit: if Carla lied about Terri, she did not reveal anything about the patient. She did not "break confidentiality" as charged. She could only reveal details about the patient by telling the truth.
And that is what she is charged with by the Nursing Board: telling the truth. They call it an ethics violation!
It was Michael who lied -- about Carla.
Maxim on Rights
This maxim on "rights," as it relates to those who believe they have a right to die is premised from the following excerpt in the Declaration of Independence and this maxim:
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
"There is a difference from a Right to choose and the Freedom to choose." Arrowhead
A Right is the agency from which a person may choose freely with impunity and deserving of security by legal protection and from legal abstraction. With that said, the "right" to choose death does not exist anywhere within the maxims of Law. That right still remains within the omniscient wisdom of Deity. GOD decides who dies and who does not, even outside the sphere of free agency, modern medicine, state statute, physical laws of science, or civil circumstance. The "right to die" has never been endowed upon mankind. Respective of the fact that we all die, his only Right is to live. Now, he may be FREE to take his life, and indeed, a legal system may grant that wish. But, there is a difference to be endowed with a right to choose and possessing independent freedom of choice.
An example might be, if I am an inmate in jail, I do not have the right to escape. But, I am still free to try. If I had the right to escape, then, I would be immune from suffering consequence. However, since I have no right to escape, yet, I still possess the freedom to attempt and perhaps succeed, a consequence must follow. Even if I do not get caught, the wheels of Justice will find a way to impose it's punishment.
To surmise, the absence of a right does not exempt freedom of choice. We have the freedom to choose life, and likewise, we have the freedom to take life. The difference, however, is that if we take life, there is a consequence and any decision that constitutes a consequence is not a right. And since a right to life is immune from consequence, then, assuming a right to death would be counterintuitive since there exists the suffrage of consequence in that choice.
Neither Michael nor Terri Schiavo have the right to choose death. They are free to, if they like, but they would be subject to the Justice of our "Creator" -- who has never endowed a "right" to die. Since there is impunity with the right to live, Governors of State and the President of the United States have executive authority to pardon and secure the life of Terri Schiavo against enemies, both foreign and domestic; ESPECIALLY from domestic enemies in government who seek to take it. The LAW justifying executive action is no less found in the Supreme Law of the Land as annunciated in the Declaration of Independence. If the Constitution is the door for which the rule of law is opened, then the Declaration of Independence is the hinge upon which the Constitution swings and by which Executive Authority must pay homage.
I was making this same argument back in 1999 over the Elian Gonzales case, siding with the mothers intent of winning their freedom and success in getting her son to our shores, seeking political asylum, which was in accordance with our immigration laws. Elian won his freedom by virtue of making it to our shores and the giving of his mother's life.
And what does our government do? Defy executive authority to secure that boys liberty and instead, send him with his communist father BACK to a country whose people are exploited by a tyrant. We failed him! We failed ourselves!
My point is, though, just as we see a lack of use of executive authority in a case securing the liberty of a boy whose mothers' dying wishes were defied, her grave spat upon, we now see, in the same state no less, executive authority cowering to the exercise of that power to secure a life.
What is really uncanny about both cases, it is the same Florida law, ultimately sealing the fate of both Elian and Terri: the law which grants power of attorney to the spouse if the other is dead...or incapacitated as in the case of Terri Schiavo. I remember the argument of jurisdiction in the case of Elian. It was a freakin mess. Yet, executive authority as granted the President by Article II section 2 to extend "reprieve" by securing his liberty could have easily been exercised and justified.
Both cases threatening the "tranquility" of the United States as failing to secure the life and liberty of these icons does two things: It polarizes the people threatening the security therein; and it compromises the very security of our rights we all rely upon by our institution of government. Yet that trust has been betrayed first, by refusing to act in defense of a boy's liberty, and second, by refusing to act in defense of a young ladies life. My God Man! What is next?
Arrowhead
March 26, 2005
But let's analyze what Carla actually said in her deposition and subsequent interviews. Her comments about Terri were modest. They revealed little or nothing medically speaking. They were caring and tender. I don't see how anyone could object to them -- they wouldn't object if she'd spoken of anyone but Terri.
What they all scream about is what she said about Michael. How dare she, it's all lies, blah blah. But Michael isn't the patient! His confidentiality is not protected; not in the same way; not if he is guilty of abuse. Carla had a duty to report him. (We cheer whistle blowers unless they blow the whistle on our own sullied hero, see.)
All this falls under that same liberal formula that claims that wrongdoing, crimes, sins, wife abuse, whatever, are shielded by a right of privacy. What they say boils down to this: "If he wants to snuff his wife, that's his own business! Butt out!"
Privacy is a good thing but it should never be used to shield evil.