Posted on 01/29/2006 10:06:22 AM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who took a leading role in the Terry Schiavo case, said Sunday it taught him that Americans do not want the government involved in such end-of-life decisions.
Frist, considered a presidential hopeful for 2008, defended his call for further examinations of the brain-damaged Florida woman during the last days of a bitter family feud over her treatment. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state.
The case became a rallying point for right-to-life advocates, an important segment of the Republican Party. It also drew interest from those supporting the right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment and led to charges that the GOP was using a family tragedy for political gain.
Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he had any regrets regarding the Schiavo case, Frist said: "Well, I'll tell you what I learned from it, which is obvious. The American people don't want you involved in these decisions."
Schiavo, 41, died March 31, nearly two weeks after her feeding tube was removed and 15 years after her initial collapse and hospitalization. Courts in Florida had supported her husband's contention that she would not want to live in such a state. Her parents and siblings disagreed and for years fought efforts to remove her feeding tube.
An autopsy later showed that Schiavo had suffered severe, irreversible brain damage and was blind.
Frist, R-Tenn., said in the full Senate that he supported what he called "an opportunity to save Mrs. Schiavo's life." A heart surgeon, Frist had viewed video ordered by a court and taken by a board-certified neurologist who had concluded she was not in a persistent vegetative state.
Congress passed a bill to allow a federal court to review the case, and President Bush quickly returned from his Texas ranch to sign the bill into law. But a federal judge refused to order the tube reinserted, a decision upheld by a federal appeals court and the Supreme Court.
Frist was later mocked as having made a diagnosis from his office using a video screen. "I didn't make the diagnosis," Frist said Sunday. "I raised the question of whether or not she was in a persistent vegetative state."
Looking back, Frist said, "When you're taking innocent life, with parents who want that life preserved, you've got to make sure, and therefore stepping in to say, let's take one more review, that's what we did."
He added: "I accept the outcome. I don't agree with the moral sense of it."
Frist plans to leave the Senate when his second term expires in January 2007. He said Sunday he will return to his home in Tennessee and decide whether to seek the Republican nomination for president.
And that makes you what?
Life-and-death decisions are made every day for people who are unable to speak for themselves. It was, in that respect, a very ordinary case. What made it exceptional was not the fact that Terri couldn't speak for herself, but rather that Congress was interfering.
No different from you in that respect?
What made it exceptional was that there was NOTHING in writing and based on contradictory oral testimony, a severly handicapped woman was going to be starved and dehydrated to death.
I'm glad to see you on this thread, I usually shudder to get involved in these threads because there's so many who clearly don't get it. I'm glad that for many, these appear to be esoteric issues they've never been smacked in the face with in real life.
The truth is, though I've had to lose a lot of family members and these issues are more real to me, I've not had to suffer the unimaginable torment of a family member who was close to Terri's situation. I'm blessed, I guess in that my family has suffered only plain old disease and old age. While the experience was heart wrenching, to see my formerly strong and optimistic mom pass into choking unconsciousness and death, I'd have traded all hope of inheritance to have had her able to wake again and live. But we knew she would not. This was it, all the lives around her could come to a halt and be there because it would not last.
I can't imagine the torment of a situation remotely like Terri's, where I or someone young like me might have lost all real consciousness through some accident or trauma, and be left lying in a state of suspended animation potentially for decades without consciousness. And for the record, I'm not talking about someone merely disabled or partially functioning... I'm talking about permanently vegetative. I'd expect there'd be lots of time and effort spent on the possibility of ~some~ level of recovery, but when that hope fades, would it be right for any of us to want to be kept alive indefinately in a brain-dead state, consuming all the time and resources of our family to tend, pay for, and revolve around the one family member who is unable to respond to our energies? It would not only be emotionally devastating for the living, it would consume the savings and futures of the entire family. When there is hope for recovery, any family would pay it. When there is no hope for recovery, it is cruelty to do prolong them inevitably until there is nothing left of any of them.
That's the way I see it anyway... no cult... just common sense.
In most cases today there IS nothing in writing. So that is not exceptional. The contradictory oral testimony was shown to be less than believable. And, contrary to what you might think, most people in the final stages of the dying process do not eat and drink up to their final minutes. As a nurse you should know that. Or am I incorrect in my belief that you are a nurse?
I've often wondered whether the divide is between the young and the not-so-young -- not necessarily senior citizens, but old enough to have been around the block a bit. Certainly those who have had experience with aging parents or grandparents tend to be more realistic.
Ultimately with "logic" like this you end up indulging the comfort of the relatives not the disabled person.
Those anti-terribots should ask themselves why did it take a creep like George Felos to counsel this to fruition, a guy who unashamably acts like an Erl-King trying to coax his subjects into his netherworld? Why not some dishwater dull barrister?
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/frist200503181027.asp
Frist is a liar. He most definitely did more than raise a question.
First is simply trying to please all sides -- so as to not jeopardize his chances in 2008 should he decide to run. Recognize it for what it is.
Not sure what you're saying here.
Those anti-terribots should ask themselves why did it take a creep like George Felos to counsel this to fruition, a guy who unashamably acts like an Erl-King trying to coax his subjects into his netherworld? Why not some dishwater dull barrister?
I really try to talk about the issues and not the personalities involved in her case. I couldn't pick Terri's parents, Michael Schiavo, or Felos out of a lineup. I don't know any of them and I find the demonization of the players to be a distraction.
In many states, apparently including Florida, probate court is "family court". Probate judges handle wills and estates, but also the appointment of guardians for orphans, the legal changing of names, and other such personal legal matters. That is why, quite logically, the Florida legislature gave Florida probate courts jurisdiction over adjudging someone in a PVS - because probate courts handle other kinds of guardianships as well.
I see that you're familiar with the principle of a straw man, but I really must congratulate you on the use of the term "Erl-King". It's really high time we had some fresh invectives around here - the old cliches are getting so dull.
I well understand the supposed "logic" behind it, I am a paralegal.
Funny how people claim not to want the government involved, but they supported the government ordering the murder of an innocent woman. They just don't support the government performing its most sacred duty; defending the lives of the citizens.
You're very wrong. You'd rather the issues be closed, decided and never come up again but that's not reasonable. All these issues very much need to be discussed, and continue to be discussed, and continue to be discussed, as every new technology and treatment changes the reality of what is possible, and what is ethical. The issues we think are tough decisions today will probably be decided, but new ones will evolve.
What if, through some new regenerative or stem cell therapy, that we could grow new brain cells in a brain as damaged as Terri's? They would not necessarily have Terri's personality and would not have her memories, but they would be in her body. Should we do that?
If we could do brain transplants... should we? Would that be a new chance at life for the donor, or the donee? What makes us "us"? Our bodies, or our brains?
The times ahead will be interesting I'm sure.
I'm sorry, I tried to engage you to give your point of view, but you just want to insult me... ~shrugs~
====
Best summary.
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.