Interesting thing is in 1999 President Bush signed into law a bill in Texas that allows hospitals to make the decision to remove life support or feeding tubes without the family's consent when the family or insurance can no longer pay when someone is in the state that this woman is. It has been done a number of times within the past few years. Not sure what side of the fence he's on, since I'm not aware of any public comments on this and the bill seems directly led by Delay and Frist. Still it's interesting that in the past he's been in favor of this being a state's rights issue and provided for the removal of such devices in certain cases, which goes against what Frist and Delay's current position.

It's a sad case, but I don't see where Congress has any jurisdiction in the matter, since courts have already ruled numerous times.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

Last edited by wolverine16 on Mar-21-2005 at 21:15

I still think that if her husband had any incremental credibility, this probably would've been resolved by now. But the guy is kind of sleazy which keeps the ball in play. It doesn't sound like Dubya really wants to get involved, but he's kind of being forced to take a stance. Here are some snippets from Drudge...

quote:

President Bush was asleep, came out in hallway, signed Schiavo bill and went back to bed Mon Mar 21 2005 13:03:56 ET Q Can you go over what went on last night, in terms of the President signing the bill and how it went down? MR. McCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE: Sure. I guess the bill -- the House passed it shortly after midnight, and then the President signed it at 1:11 a.m., in the morning. The Staff Secretary, Brett Kavanaugh, walked the legislation over to the residence for the President to sign. He came outside his bedroom and signed it in the residence. Q Had he been asleep? MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, he was woken up after it was passed, when it was ready to be signed. Q I heard you describe it earlier, he came out of his bedroom and literally signed it standing up in the hall; is that how it went/ MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct, yes. He was just standing in the hall in the residence an signed the legislation then. Q Was he wearing -- Q Is it safe to assume he wasn't wearing a suit and tie at the time? (Laughter.) MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going into that much detail. Yes, he cleaned up, put on his suit -- (laughter.) END

Link

quote:

Mar 21, 3:20 PM (ET) By VICKIE CHACHERE PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (AP) - The parents of Terri Schiavo asked a judge to reinsert the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube Monday, following an extraordinary political fight that consumed both chambers of Congress and prompted the president to rush back to the White House. An attorney for Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, arrived at federal district court in Tampa and filed a request for an emergency injunction to keep their daughter fed. It was assigned to U.S. District Judge James Whittemore, who was nominated to the court in 1999 by President Clinton. He set a hearing for Monday afternoon, according to a court Web site. David Gibbs II, attorney for the parents, said the judge had sent a message saying he was reviewing the filings in the case. During the hours leading up to the hearing, a few demonstrators appeared outside the federal courthouse, saying they were praying for Whittemore. Only a few people stayed outside the hospice where Terri Schiavo has been a resident, while others said they planned to return during the afternoon. Earlier Monday, the House, following a move by the Senate, passed a bill to let the parents ask a federal judge to prolong Schiavo's life by reinserting her feeding tube. President Bush, who rushed back to Washington from his Texas ranch to sign the measure in the early morning hours, applauded the dramatic legislative maneuver. "Democrats and Republicans in Congress came together last night to give Terri Schiavo's parents another opportunity to save their daughter's life," Bush said at an event on Social Security in Arizona. "This is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life." Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, said he was outraged that lawmakers and the president were intervening in the contentious right-to-die battle. He has fought for years with his wife's parents over whether she should be permitted to die or kept alive through the feeding tube. "This is a sad day for Terri. But I'll tell you what: It's also is a sad day for everyone in this country because the United States government is going to come in and trample all over your personal, family matters," he told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday. Michael Schiavo has not responded to repeated interview requests from The Associated Press. The lawsuit alleges a series of rights violations, including that Terri Schiavo's religious beliefs were being infringed upon, that the removal of the feeding tube violated her rights and that she was not provided an independent attorney to represent her interests. Outside the hospice where his daughter entered her fourth day without food or water, Bob Schindler told reporters "I'm numb, I'm just totally numb. This whole thing, it's hard to believe it." A shout of joy was heard from the crowd outside the hospice when news of the House bill's passage came. Among those cheering was David Bayly, 45, of Toledo, Ohio: "I'm overjoyed to see the vote and see Terri's life extended by whatever amount God gives her." When dawn broke Monday, fewer than a dozen demonstrators remained at the hospice, but the area bustled with television lights, cameras and reporters covering the saga. The 41-year-old woman's feeding tube was removed Friday on a Florida judge's order. Schiavo could linger for one or two weeks if the tube is not reinserted - as has happened twice before, once on a judge's order and once after Gov. Jeb Bush signed "Terri's Law," which was later declared unconstitutional. George Felos, a lawyer for Michael Schiavo, did not return repeated phone messages seeking comment Monday. The voicemail box of George Greer, the Florida circuit judge who presides over the case, was full and didn't accept messages. In Tallahassee on Monday, Gov. Bush praised Congress for its "extraordinary action" in the Schiavo matter and rejected criticism that the legislation represented an unwarranted federal intrusion in a state case. "They're not overruling any decision in asking federal to review the decision. I think that's more than appropriate," he said, adding that efforts would continue to find compromise on state legislation to protect Schiavo. The governor said he was in frequent contact during the weekend with Republican congressional leaders. Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly because of a possible potassium imbalance brought on by an eating disorder. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding tube to keep her alive. Court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Her husband says she would not want to be kept alive in that condition, but her parents insist she could recover with treatment. Bob Schindler visited his daughter late Sunday and said he noticed the effects of dehydration on her. He said she appeared to be getting tired, but eventually responded to his teasing by making a face at him. "It tells us she's still with us," he said. Brian Schiavo, Michael's brother, said he spent Sunday afternoon with his brother and Terri at the hospice, but Terri did not move or make any noises. "Anybody that thinks that she talks and responds, they need to have a mental health examination," he said. The bill passed in Congress applies only to Schiavo and would allow a federal court to review the case. The House passed the bill on a 203-58 vote after calling lawmakers back for an emergency Sunday session. The Senate approved the bill Sunday by voice vote. President Bush cut short a visit to his Texas ranch to return to the White House.

Decision is not a precedent

quote:

White House: Schiavo Bill Not a Precedent By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The White House said Monday that an extraordinary law allowing a federal court to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case was narrowly tailored and not intended as a precedent for Congress to step into battles over the fate of seriously disabled or terminally ill patients. President Bush (news - web sites), who rushed back to the White House from Texas, was awakened to sign the bill shortly after it was approved by the House at 12:42 a.m. Monday and then rushed to him by staff secretary Brett Kavanaugh. Bush stepped outside his bedroom and signed it at 1:11 a.m., standing in the hall of his private residence. Senior White House aides had been consulting with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the case for several days, and the Justice Department (news - web sites) had provided "technical support" to congressional lawyers, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said as Bush flew to Tucson, Ariz., for a speech Bush, in a written statement, promised to "stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans, including those with disabilities." "In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life," he said. The law gave Schiavo's parents the right to file suit in federal court over the withdrawal of nourishment and medical treatment needed to sustain their daughter, who suffered severe brain damage 15 years ago. "Tonight we have given Terri Schiavo all we could — a chance to live," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "After four days of words, the best of them uttered in prayer, Congress has acted and a life may have been saved." The bill passed the House after an often wrenching debate. It won the backing of virtually all the Republicans and almost half the Democrats who sprinted back to the Capitol for the debate, while 174 of the House's 435 elected members did not vote. House Republicans scrambled to yank lawmakers back from a two-week Easter recess and amass the 218 votes necessary to bring the bill to a vote. The Senate approved the measure on Sunday by voice vote in a nearly empty chamber. Several lawmakers recounted their families' struggles with decisions about caring for incapacitated relatives in an often emotional debate over who should decide life and death. Many Republicans said Terri Schiavo isn't in the hopeless state that her husband portrays. "We have heard very moving accounts of people close to Terri that she is, indeed, very much alive," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "She laughs, she cries and she smiles with those around her." Some Democrats countered that elected lawmakers weren't qualified to make a medical diagnosis or second-guess the decisions made by Florida courts. "I don't know who's right and who's wrong, but that's the point. Neither do my colleagues," said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. A few Republicans questioned the motives of Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, suggesting he doesn't have his wife's best interest at heart. "Now, he has had her feeding tube removed and sentenced her to a most excruciating death, citing Terri's own wishes as the rationale ..." said Rep. Jim Ryun (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan. "Michael did not remember this supposed request until years after Terri's initial injuries when a cash settlement was awarded to her, a settlement he would stand to inherit." And a few Democrats lobbed accusations at Republicans that political motives drove their passion for Schiavo and her parents. "If you don't want a decision to be made politically, why in the world do you ask 535 politicians to make it? Does anyone think that this decision will be made without consideration of electoral support or party or ideology? Of course not," said Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. Republican supporters said the "Palm Sunday Compromise" seeks to protect the rights of a disabled person. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the law would not affect state assisted suicide laws nor serve as a precedent for future legislation. McClellan said he was unaware of any discussions in the White House for Congress to take broader action covering other patients like Schiavo. "This is an extraordinary case," he said. "It is a complex case where serious questions and signficant doubts have been raised." He said it was unclear what Schiavo's wishes were, and he noted that her parents had offered to care for her. Asked if Bush would sign a broader bill, McClellan said, "That's speculative at this point." He also would not say what action the White House would support if the federal district court upholds the state court decision to permit the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, hinting only that alternatives have already been discussed. "We've looked at options that were available previously," McClellan said. "We'll see what happens with the court now." Bush is adamantly opposed to legalizing physician assisted-suicide, as in an Oregon law. "The president believes that a culture of life is built on valuing life at all stages," McClellan said.

The Second District's first decision in the case used these words to describe Michael's care for Terri:

quote:

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.

Furthermore, 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. Not that it would have mattered because the Florida courts made their ruling on the basis of Terri's wishes, what she would have wanted, however, he apparently rejected both offers anyway.

As for whether this sets precedent or not, it doesn't matter. Even if the bill only applies to this one isolated instance, the legislature is still overstepping their boundaries. Once the Supreme Court decided to not hear the case, it’s not up to Congress to pass retroactive laws to determine whether a federal court needs to intervene. As for Hastert describing Terri’s condition, he’s simply an unqualified jackass making stupid remarks about something he apparently knows nothing about. The Florida state court has decided the issue time and time again on the basis of expert medical testimony from doctors on all sides of the issue:

quote:

When the Second District first reviewed the trial court's decision that Terri would chose not to live under her present circumstances, the appellate court expressed no reservations when it explained that Terri was and "will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others…" In October, 2002, as a result of Terri's parents' claims that treatment options offered promise to restore some of Terri's cognitive functioning, the Second District ordered the trial court to hold a trial on that issue. The trial court did so, and in the course of that trial the parties litigated whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state. The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained: quote: At first blush, the video of Terry 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. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli. The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature." Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri's brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court. http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Hastert needs to stfu and let the Florida handle its own affairs.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Basically, you can go to the Middle East and all over the rest of Asia, and you wont find a single country anywhere in the world where there are as many religious fundamentalists or where the religious intensity is as high. And then they have the fucking nerve to go on about Islamic fundamentalists when to be perfectly fair, the Christian fundamentalist cuunts (that have managed to inflitrate all levels of government) are far far worse...

and the only country with a bunch of fundamentalist religuous group to have ever used WMD's on another country... is America...

it's kinda laughable to think about this when Bush and his cronies go on about Islamic fundamentalist that (supposedly) want to use WMD's on us.

___________________
DJMaytag @ Facebook
Tracks on Soundcloud
Paul Van Dyk - Today [DJMaytag's Dreamy Dub Mix]

It's a shame that this has to even be a political issue. I think this article makes a good case.

Link

[quote]Killing Terri

By JAMES Q. WILSON
March 21, 2005; Page A16

Terri Schiavo is not brain dead as far as anyone can tell. If you are brain dead, you have suffered an irreversible loss of all functions of the brain. If agreed to by at least two physicians, that means you are legally dead, such that your organs can be harvested to help other people.

Instead, Ms. Schiavo is in what many physicians call a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS). That means that she lacks an awareness of her self or other people, cannot engage in purposeful action, does not understand language, is incontinent, and sleeps a lot. To be clinically classified as being in a PVS, these conditions should be irreversible. But from what we know, some doctors dispute one or more of these conditions and believe that it is possible that whatever her symptoms, they are not irreversible.

Her condition is hardly unique. In 1995, when the American Academy of Neurology published its report on people in a persistent vegetative state, it found that there were as many as 25,000 adults and 10,000 children in this country who suffered from PVS. Based on the best studies the Academy could find at the time, some adults in a vegetative state 12 months after a devastating injury or heart failure could recover consciousness and some human functions. The chances that such a recovery will occur are very small, but they are not zero.

If they are not zero, then withdrawing a patient's feeding tubes and allowing her to die from a lack of water and food means that whoever authorizes such a step may, depending on the circumstances, be murdering the patient. The odds against it being a murder are very high, but they are not 100%.
* * *

Many people, myself included, have allowed life-support systems to be withdrawn from parents who have no hope of recovery. My mother was going to die from cancer, and after all efforts had been made to help her, my sister and I allowed the doctors to withdraw the devices that kept her alive. She was dead within hours.
[Terri Schiavo]

My case, and that of countless other people who have made that decision, differs from that of Terri Schiavo in two important ways. First, the early death of my mother was certain, but no one can say that Ms. Schiavo will die soon or possibly at any time before she might die of old age. Second, all the relevant family members agreed on the decision about my mother, but family members are deeply divided about Terri.

These differences are of decisive importance. When death will occur soon and inevitably, the patient does not starve to death when life support ends. Since there was no chance of our mother living more than a few more days, what my sister and I did could not be called murder. When death will not occur soon, or perhaps for many years, and when there is a chance, even a very small one, that recovery is possible, people who authorize the withdrawal of life support are playing God.

And in Terri's case, they are playing God when they do not have to. Her parents have begged to become her guardians. Her husband has refused. We do not know for certain why the husband has refused. I doubt that he wishes to receive for himself the money that still exists from her insurance settlement and, apparently, he has offered to donate that money to charity. Perhaps, being a Catholic, he would like her death to make him free to marry the woman with whom he is now living. Or perhaps (and I think this is the most likely case) he does not want his wife to live what strikes him as an intolerable life.

The intolerable life argument has support from many doctors and bioethicists. They claim that a person can be "socially dead" even when their brains can engage in some functions. By "socially dead" they mean that the patient is no longer a person in some sense. At this point their argument gets a bit fuzzy because they must somehow define what is a "person" and a "non-person." That is no easy matter.

By contrast, physicians have unambiguous ways of determining whether a person is brain dead. This means that brain death is a very conservative standard and, if it errs, it errs on the side of preserving life.


Some people believe that all of these issues can be resolved if everyone signs a living will that specifies what is to be done to them under various conditions. The living will is supposed to determine unambiguously when a "Do Not Resuscitate" sign should be placed on a patient's hospital chart. Terri Schiavo had not signed a living will. If she had, we would not be facing these issues.
* * *

But scholars have shown that we have greatly exaggerated the benefits of living wills. Studies by University of Michigan Professor Carl Schneider and others have shown that living wills rarely make any difference. People with them are likely to get exactly the same treatment as people without them, possibly because doctors and family members ignore the wills. And ignoring them is often the right thing to do because it is virtually impossible to write a living will that anticipates and makes decisions about all of the many, complicated, and hard to foresee illnesses you may face.

For example, suppose you say that you want the plug pulled if you have advanced Alzheimer's disease. But then it turns out that when you are in this hopeless condition your son or daughter is about to graduate from college. You want to see that event. Or suppose that you anticipate being in Terri Schiavo's condition at a time when all doctors agree that you have no chance of recovering your personhood and so you order the doctors to remove the feeding tubes. But several years later when you enter into a persistent vegetative state, some doctors have come to believe on the basis of new evidence that there is a chance you may recover at least some functions. If you knew that you might well have changed your mind, but after entering into a PVS you can make no decisions. It is not clear we would be doing you a favor by starving you to death. On the contrary, we might well be doing what you might regard as murder.

There is a document that is probably better than a living will, and that is a durable power of attorney that authorizes a person that you know and trust to make end-of-life decisions for you.

Terri Schiavo's case could be decently settled by a judge who recognizes that there is some small chance of recovery and that several family members are willing to take responsibility for managing that process in hopes that a recovery of even small human features will occur. The judge in Florida ignored this and ordered her feeding tubes removed. The Florida appellate courts have not stayed his hand, and the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps for want of jurisdiction, has not intervened.

This is a tragedy. Congress has responded by rushing to pass a law that will allow her case, but only her case, to be heard in federal court. But there is no guarantee that, if it is heard there, a federal judge will do any better than the Florida one. What is lacking in this matter is not the correct set of jurisdictional rules but a decent set of moral imperatives.
* * *

That moral imperative should be that medical care cannot be withheld from a person who is not brain dead and who is not at risk for dying from an untreatable disease in the near future. To do otherwise makes us recall Nazi Germany where retarded people and those with serious disabilities were "euthanized" (that is, killed). We hear around the country echoes of this view in the demands that doctors be allowed to participate, as they do in Oregon, in physician-assisted suicide, whereby doctors can end the life of patients who request death and have less than six months to live. This policy endorses the right of a person to end his or her life with medical help. It is justified by the alleged success of this policy in the Netherlands.

But it has not been a success in the Netherlands. In that country there have been well over 1,000 doctor-induced deaths among patients who had not requested death, and in a large fraction of those cases the patients were sufficiently competent to have made the request had they wished.

Keeping people alive is the goal of medicine. We can only modify that policy in the case of patients for whom death is imminent and where all competent family members believe that nothing can be gained by extending life for a few more days. This is clearly not the case with Terri Schiavo. Indeed, her death by starvation may take weeks. Meanwhile, her parents are pleading for her life.

Mr. Wilson has taught at Harvard, UCLA and Pepperdine and is the author of "The Moral Sense" (Free Press, 1997).

^^^

The guy makes a good argument but it's completely inapplicable in the case of Terri Schiavo. In the event that an indvidual made no mention of their desires in the event that they entered a PVS, than yes the courts should ere on the side of caution in the preservation of human life. As a matter of fact, if you read the Second District Court of Appeal's affirmation of the trial court's decision regarding Terri's wishes, they argue that in the event that a patient's wishes are indecipherable, the court must ere on the side of granting life.

In this case however, Terri's wishes to have life support withdrawn in a PVS have been expressed to not only her husband but other outside parties as well:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

The appeals court reaffirmed the original ruling that what Terri would have wanted is to have her life support withdrawn. To side with the parent's desires is a violation of Terri's constitutionally granted right to refuse medical treatment. And lastly, the guy's remarks about living wills being imperfect and that ignoring them is "the right thing to do" is a pretty fucking retarded thing to say. What should the federal government hold your hand and make all your decisions for you because you may not have known what's best for you when you crafted your living will? Yup just like you didn't know what you were doing when committing that crime and therefore it's not all your fault ...

Lastly a lot of people seem to be villianizing Michael (much of it appears to be propogated by Terri's parents) without any conclusive evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. If you want evidence of the parent's regard for what Terri would have wanted you should listen to what they testified to at trial:

quote:

From Dr. Jay Wolfson's (Terri's court appointed Guardian Ad Litem) report to governor Bush Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state. http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Mar-22-2005 at 05:50

quote:

Originally posted by occrider ^^^ The guy makes a good argument but it's completely inapplicable in the case of Terri Schiavo. In the event that an indvidual made no mention of their desires in the event that they entered a PVS, than yes the courts should ere on the side of caution in the preservation of human life. As a matter of fact, if you read the Second District Court of Appeal's affirmation of the trial court's decision regarding Terri's wishes, they argue that in the event that a patient's wishes are indecipherable, the court must ere on the side of granting life. In this case however, Terri's wishes to have life support withdrawn in a PVS have been expressed to not only her husband but other outside parties as well: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf The appeals court reaffirmed the original ruling that what Terri would have wanted is to have her life support withdrawn. To side with the parent's desires is a violation of Terri's constitutionally granted right to refuse medical treatment. And lastly, the guy's remarks about living wills being imperfect and that ignoring them is "the right thing to do" is a pretty fucking retarded thing to say. What should the federal government hold your hand and make all your decisions for you because you may not have known what's best for you when you crafted your living will? Yup just like you didn't know what you were doing when committing that crime and therefore it's not all your fault ... Lastly a lot of people seem to be villianizing Michael (much of it appears to be propogated by Terri's parents) without any conclusive evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. If you want evidence of the parent's regard for what Terri would have wanted you should listen to what they testified to at trial:

That was a good edit, occ!

Honestly though, I can't believe this case has gotten so much publicity! It would almost seem as though there is a lack of real, substantial news. You know, people dying for our administration's lies, etc. Oh wait, our 'liberal media' would never air that - what the hell was I just thinking?!

I'm never one to be overly opinionated on such topics. This is a very difficult topic to be able to come up with a logical and objective opinion without resorting to emotion and religion, therefore I tend to stay clear of such things.

However, from what I've seen/read about this Schiavo lady and her case, it seems that Bush team are more worried about the politics of pro-life movement.

It stinks of vote grabbing, and seems to have little to do with medical ethics or the welfare of those involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X That was a good edit, occ! Honestly though, I can't believe this case has gotten so much publicity! It would almost seem as though there is a lack of real, substantial news. You know, people dying for our administration's lies, etc. Oh wait, our 'liberal media' would never air that - what the hell was I just thinking?!

I simply don't understand these people. Why do federal couts have unfetered jurisdiction over state issues except when it comes to matters such as gay marriages??? FFS it's one or the other. Either adopt the mantle of a federalist or not.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I simply don't understand these people. Why do federal couts have unfetered jurisdiction over state issues except when it comes to matters such as gay marriages??? FFS it's one or the other. Either adopt the mantle of a federalist or not.

It makes the libertarian in you reel, doesn't it!?

It bugs the shit out of me how these people maneuver politically!!!

I honestly don't know how they can live with themselves!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok so I was originally a proponent of keeping Terry Schaibo alive because: A) She had no living will, and B) It appeared that only her husband corroborated the fact that she would not want to live in a vegetative state. Since then, it has been well established that she communicated such desires to friends outside of her husband and this has been validated by every Florida court up to the Florida Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court than rejected to hear the case which upholds the Florida Supreme Court's decision. Therefore, what the FUCK is congress doing by passing unconstitutional, retroactive legislation to overturn Florida law and judicial jurisdiction by forcing a federal review of Terry Schaibo's case??? Congress has NO jurisdiction. Stay the fuck out of Florida's issues. It's funny to see all the fuax republicans come out of the wood work in defense of Congress so they can suck the dick of their entire base. About as entertaining to see ACLU liberals come to grip with gun control legislation.

My thoughts exactly. Like WTF? Must be something Ted Kennedy initiated....


[[[smoke]]]

pppfffft, political favoritism.


this is exactly what the application of the law is NOT supposed to be about. the law ought to be applied to everyone equeally. now thousands of others in her and her parent's position will never get the same treatment. why? becuase they have no political influence.

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5