Congress Announces Deal in Schiavo Case

Yahoo/AP ^ | March 19, 2005 | MITCH STACY

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

* POISON PILL WARNING! *
Opposition waned after House leaders agreed to give up broader legislation and accept a narrowly crafted bill that applied only to Schiavo's case.

It was because the Florida law "applied only to Terri" that Greer declared it an unconstitutional interference with the courts. Opponents in the Senate hope it will have the same effect in the federal courts so they can claim to have been on Terri's side when she's killed by the federal courts. The House bill had been crafted to correct that "deficiency".

[Selkie]

FromTempusFugitblog

Ive not said anything about the Terri Schiavo situation here. It is honestly hard to know what to think, as all the relevant facts are in dispute (it’s even in dispute whether or not there is dispute about the facts!). Now that the brain-damaged woman’s feeding tube has been removed, she will starve to death over the course of the next few days. I guess now is as good a time as any to get my thoughts off my chest.

First off, if it were me, I would want to die. Regardless of whether I was brain dead or not, I wouldn’t want to go on. I think if I ever got cancer, and there wasn’t a very very high probability of survival, I wouldn’t fight it at all. You may feel differently, and that’s fine. It is absolutely your prerogative to seek out or to refuse medical treatment.

Unfortunately, Terri cannot communicate her wishes (if she even has wishes). Her husband is her guardian, and the decision has fallen upon him. It may be legal, but allowing a person to give a legal order forbidding someone else from being fed is troubling to me.

I see two possible truths, and four resulting scenarios:

Terri is brain dead, and letting her die is morally neutral, because she is unable to understand pain
Terri is brain dead, and keeping her alive is morally neutral, because she is unable to understand pain
Terri has “locked in” syndrome, and is not completely brain dead, and letting her die would be a painful and morally reprehensible thing to do without her explicit permission
Terri has “locked in” syndrome, and is not completely brain dead, and because she cannot express her wishes, keeping her alive is a moral imperative
Most people who want to let Terri die say it is number 1. But what if it is number 3? Are you willing to risk that?

Most people who want to keep Terri alive say it is number 4. And what if it is number 2? Well, there’s not really a problem.

If you say Terri is brain dead, let her die, and you’re wrong, you’ve done a pretty horrible thing. If you say Terri is “locked in” and let her live, and you’re wrong, what’s the harm?

People have been saying that keeping her alive by forcing her to eat is “inhumane” and “torture,” and that letting her die is the right thing to do. If she isn’t brain dead, letting her die is only the right thing to do if that is her wish, and we can’t know that for certain. So lacking that certainty, we have the four possible situations I outlined. One is morally reprehensible, one is morally just, and two are morally neutral. The morally reprehensible scenario can only result if she is allowed to die, and the morally just scenario can only result if she is kept alive.

Consider:

Assume:
Letting Her Die = ½(Morally Wrong) + ½(Morally Neutral)
Keeping Her Alive = ½(Morally Right) + ½(Morally Neutral)

Known:
Morally Wrong < Morally Right

Add “½(Morally Neutral)” to both sides:
½(Morally Wrong) + ½(Morally Neutral) < ½(Morally Right) + ½(Morally Neutral)

Thus:
Letting Her Die < Keeping Her Alive

“Did he just use a mathmatical proof to argue that it’s better to keep Terri Schiavo alive than to let her die?”

Yes. Yes I did.

Now I’ve assumed something with which some of you might not agree: I’ve assumed that keeping a brain dead woman alive is morally ambiguous, as is letting a brain dead woman die. To me: if you’re brain dead, what does it matter? If you aren’t really “there,” what does it matter if your body is maintained or allowed to rot? But if you can follow that assumption (and that may be a big “if”), I think my conclusion is correct.
http://txfx.net/

[csense]

Sorry, but when you edit a minute out of 4 1/2 hours of video, and the judge who saw ALL of it and the doctors who were there at the time say they are not representative of what was happening. I tend to go with them rather the the so-called experts who diagnose from what they see on the internet

What difference does it make. She shouldn't be showing any signs of cognitive behavior, let alone consistent cognitive behavior. Furthermore, the inconsistencies could be attributed to any number of things. She is partially blind, and she probably has severe muscle atrophy in most of her body, so she probably tires quickly. Besides, maybe sometimes she just doesn't want to do the things that are asked of her, for whatever reason.

You don't need to be a medical doctor or scientist to know when you are in the presence of a human being who is conscious and aware. If it's not self evident to you, then it's your consciousness that should be the subject of scrutiny if you ask me.

Additionally, those physicians have already agreed to the prognosis that the medical records, and specifically the damaged cerebral cortex, infer that it is logically impossible for consciousness to be present. Therefore, what do you think they would see when viewing the video.

Even if there were behavior indicative of consciousness, they would not see it since it would constitute a dissonant observation.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Because they know it won't work but they can get credit for "trying" is the only reason Dems went for it. The Senate bill is the same as Florida's Terri's bill which was already held unconstitutional by the FL SC. Since the federal judges will be applying FL law, they'll just look at the FL SC decision and strike this law down. This law won't last two days. Dems know that and aren't going to pass anything that would get around this problem. FL Dems knew the same thing. All very cynical being against it while appearing to be for it. And they'll tell the voters how hard they tried.

[UCANSEE2]

What I want to know is , when Terri's parents told her "You're gonna die if you don't tell them "I WANT TO LIVE", Did she say "I WAAN...." or "NO".

So far I have heard both, and have seen no proof yet it even occurred.

If the proof has already been shown, I would appreciate anyone giving me a link.

[GretchenM]

Does anyone know if the Republicans had to pay a ransom to the democrats to cooperate on this bill ? Where concessions made on certain bills ?
Yeah, they promised them they wouldn't portray them as the murderers that they are.

Once again we see that the (dem) emperor has no clothes.

I do admit to being shocked that Crusty Harry (Reid) signed on to this deal.

[BykrBayb]

The Empire Journal ran the story today, written by the lawyer who witnessed her statement. Terri said “Ahhhhhhh Waaaaa!!!!" http://www.theempirejournal.com/0319052_attorneys_last_visit_wit.htm

[FairOpinion]

More facts about events showing that she is NOT in PVS:

http://www.fromtheoldschool.com/socialstudies/terri/facts.htm

[D-fendr]

There is a law against attainder laws.. a law that circumvent the court to punish one individual.

For example: "It is hereby enacted law xxx that Joe Smith, guilty of treason, shall have no rights to any property..."

This kinda thing was done in history.

It would turn this prohibition on its head to prohibit a law that prevents someones death.

In addition, the courts are not be circumvented, the legislature is not ruling on the case or setting punishment.

they are sending it to a federal court to decide.

[RS]

"She shouldn't be showing any signs of cognitive behavior, let alone consistent cognitive behavior."

You missed the point, a SIGN which at first glance might appear to be cognitive behavior is NOT necessarily cognitive behavior - i.e. flowers turning towards the sun.

From -http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/donal/pvs.htm

" According to the MSTF, patients in PVS show no evidence of awareness or thinking, and do not communicate.[12] None of their actions appear purposeful, learned or voluntary. However, the brain stem often functions normally in PVS, allowing a much greater range of activities than seen in related syndromes. Most patients in PVS continue to breathe on their own, circulate blood normally, have periods of waking and sleeping, may move their limbs, smile, shed tears and respond to external stimuli. Some may grunt, groan or scream."

From- http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/order_nov_22_2002.html

"At first blush, the video of Terry [sic] Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible.

[RS]

"Were laws that interfered with the rights of slaveholders to keep their property unconstitutional ?"

Off topic, unless you consider Terri property, but are you refering to State Laws where some States allowed slavery and others didn't ? I believe at the time the Constitution did not address the matter, so it was up to each individual State.

[af_vet_1981]

Off topic, unless you consider Terri property, but are you refering to State Laws where some States allowed slavery and others didn't ? I believe at the time the Constitution did not address the matter, so it was up to each individual State.

Terri is the joint property of Schiavo and Greer, Ltd., and unlike a slave, a horse, or a mule she can be starved to death by the same legal system that bought and sold black human beings (and their offspring) as perpetual property.

[csense]

You missed the point, a SIGN which at first glance might appear to be cognitive behavior is NOT necessarily cognitive behavior - i.e. flowers turning towards the sun.

PVS does not mimic cognitive behavior, and we are well beyond claiming that what is represented in the videos are simple involuntary movements that are analogous to "flowers turning toward the sun."

My God, sometimes I just can't believe what I am hearing regarding the videos.

[RS]

"My God, sometimes I just can't believe what I am hearing regarding the videos."

Dittos to that -

"PVS does not mimic cognitive behavior,..."

Besides -
" move their limbs, smile, shed tears and respond to external stimuli. Some may grunt, groan or scream."

What have you seen on the tapes that is showing a sign of cognitive behavior ?

[whadizit]

Thank you.