Posted on 03/22/2005 9:45:11 PM PST by Former Military Chick
If I were in Terri Schiavo's condition, I would not want a feeding tube. But Schiavo does not have the means to make her intentions known. We do not know what she would have wanted. We have nothing to go on. No living will, no advance directives, no durable power of attorney.
What do you do when you have nothing to go on? You try to intuit her will, using loved ones as surrogates.
In this case, the loved ones disagree. The husband wants Terri to die; the parents do not. The Florida court gave the surrogacy to her husband, under the generally useful rule that your spouse is the most reliable diviner of your wishes: You pick your spouse and not your parents, and you have spent most of your recent years with your spouse and not your parents.
The problem is that although your spouse probably knows you best, there is no guarantee that he will not confuse his wishes with yours. Terri's spouse presents complications. He has a girlfriend, and has two kids with her. He clearly wants to marry again. And a living Terri stands in the way.
Now, all of this may be irrelevant in his mind. He may actually be acting entirely based on his understanding of his wife's wishes. And as she left nothing behind, the courts have been forced to conclude, on the basis of his testimony, that she would prefer to be dead.
That is why this is a terrible case. The general rule of spousal supremacy leads you here to a thoroughly repulsive conclusion. Repulsive because in a case where there is no consensus among the loved ones, one's natural human sympathies suggest giving custody to the party committed to her staying alive and pledging to carry the burden themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
read later.
That is ultimately, why I am hoping the Florida Senate passes the Florida House bill. Pass legislation and keep passing legislation - swamp the Florida courts, if need be.
I think that Krauthammer's point of view will eventually be adopted by the American people... not right away, but soon, and only so long as this DOESN'T turn nasty. But I have very slender hopes that it will not turn nasty.
"But I have very slender hopes that it will not turn nasty."
NASTY???? Poor poor thing, those hayseed hick Christians really got you scared. Maybe you can find a god, I mean a judge to relive your fear. Christ told us WHO sits in the seat of Moses, read Matthew 23.
And something that is not often-mentioned, although I heard MS say it himself on a rebroadcast interview on Larry King Live from 2003. The basis of the initial malpractice suit began because Terri was under a doctor's care before the collapse. For infertility.
He said it perfectly. This is exactly what I have been saying since day one. She should probably be released to her parents, providing they take care of her in their home, on their dime. But every letter of the law was followed, so...better work to change the law.
You do realize she can't swallow?
Do you REALY think I WANT Terri to be killed? Did you NOT read the post? Or does anyone who strays from YOUR opinionson this issue freely subject to snide innuendos and claims of being a "moderate elite"?
I do not live on your goddamned plantation, punk. Nor will I sit quietly, and let myself be SLANDERED. So you can apologize, or had damned well stop posting to me on this matter.
Charles is right, and I don't want State Police Powers involved in this. That being said, this is the time for Leaders to step up and mold opinion. President Bush should call a Press Conference, explain in detail the danger of engaging Police Powers, and the danger that is posed by giving MS the powers that haven been granted him, given the circumstances that render him compromised. Educate the public, and begin legislation that protects a person like Terri from a compromised husband such as she has. EDUCATE, EDUCATE, EDUCATE!
Careful... you will be called part of the "moderate elite".
Hon. Until you've been called a Nazi and a murderer, it really isn't nasty :-)
Bump.
Given the time that he had, I'm not sure Gibbs could have argued his case any differently. It was time and circumstance that dictated the outcome.
"give us more time to gather new evidence" is not, and never has been, sufficient to gain an injunction.
^^^^^^
not even when the previous court orders have forbidden the parents from having the very medical assessments that would constitute new evidence? and the order not even to let a drop of liquid pass her lips in the present court-imposed dehydration is changing the 'evidence' with every passing minute.
Please give my your honest opinion of a judge who would forbid any oral nourishment? I call it going beyond the bounds of his authority. If a person can tolerate liquid by mouth and she is forbidden to have it, and is being guarded by policemen to prevent it happening.
I've begun to think, in direct oppostion to what I thought, that State intervention here could actually precipitate federalizing euthanasia in the mold of roe v wade.
One last thing, I hate the heat, but even if I didn't, Florida is defintely off the possible retirement list.
In 1978, he quit medical practice, came to Washington to direct planning in psychiatric research for the Carter administration, and began contributing articles to The New Republic. During the presidential campaign of 1980, he served as a speech writer to Vice President Walter Mondale. He joined The New Republic as a writer and editor in 1981. He writes regular essays for Time magazine and contributes to several other publications, including The Weekly Standard, The New Republic and The National Interest. In 1997, the Washingtonian magazine named him among the top 50 most influential journalists in the national press corps.
http://www.postwritersgroup.com/krauthammer.htm
Our secular mullahs in black robes are every bit as cruel and power-mad as the Islamic mullahs in the Middle East. We have much in common with the people who are terrorized by their rulings.
God bless you and right on! My Brother's book addresses judicial tyranny, but I think at this point it is even worse than he states. These "upholders of the law" for the most part are hypocritical mindless frauds on every level, from the lower courts to the Supremes. After listening to Stephen "Freddie Kruger" Beyer describe how he and his fellow legal travellers search the globe for at least one judical dung hole that supports his disfunctionally fictionalized view of the law, they then proceed to soil our constitution by making rulings that not only vicitimize the legal citizens of our great nation, but render the greatest compact written by mankind into some quaint handmade nick-nack written by a bunch of out of touch elitists in powdered wigs
Not even then. That's just not how injunctive relief works.
Please give my your honest opinion of a judge who would forbid any oral nourishment? I call it going beyond the bounds of his authority.
Unfortunately, it looks very much like the judge was basically following the law here - Terri Schiavo simply fell into one of those cracks where the law conflicts with what many people would consider justice. Therefore, in order to get a different outcome next time, simply changing judges won't be enough - the law will have to be changed, and that is not for judges to do.
If the parents knew this is what Terri wanted....you can bet they'd step back and allow it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.