It Has Begun

Colleen Thomas said:
My point shang, is not that life is or isn't sacred. My point is, when it comes to my mother and father, I want the decision on what's best for them to be made by myself and my brothers, not by religious fanatics. If my loved one has zero brain function and is being kept alive by a respiratior, I want to decision on whether or not to end that to be made by myself, and my brothers, those who knew her and knew what she wanted.

I don't want a bunch of zealots able to file suit again and again, pushing it along until it reaches the federal level where a Bush appointee will decide. And that's what this law will be opening the way for.

My objection has nothing to do with Teri Schiavo. It has everything to do with the GOP using this tragedy to extend the scope of their power and to use that increased scope to push a religious/moral doctrine up on us all. At present, the state's have final say over medical decisions, the fed has never been the final arbiter. This law, if adopted, will set the precedent that the Fed does exercise final say in medical matters.

If the government were not in bed with people who wish to dictate to me how I live my life, it might not provoke such a strong reaction. But they are, and it does. People will be so happy teri's feeding tube is back, not realizing they just lost their ability to determine the outcome in thier own cases and those of their loved ones. Death with dignity laws will be gone. Because the final arbiter is now the federal government and not the states. The only thing that kept Ashcroft from circumventing Oregon's law was a federal court decision that the fed could not press the states on medical matters. This law sets the precedent that the fed can in fact, dictate medical law to the states.

Should it pass, your reasoned position on the sanctity oflife, where it ends, and when it has become more of a burden than a blessing won't matter. You will get your decision on the sanctity of life from the king james version. Thou shalt not kill. The hideous, unremitting pain of terminal cancer? Thou shalt not kill. Brain dead, but kept alive by a respirator? Thou shalt not kill. Abotrion? Thou shalt not kill. Morning after pill? Thou shalt not kill. Condoms, the pill? Thou shalt not kill, even if it isn't concieved yet, thou shalt not kill the possibility of life.

Absitnace baby, for everybody. And if you can't keep your pecker in your pants? And she gets pregnant? Well, it's what the trollop deserves.

I don't want my morality decided by someone else. I don't want my religion to come to me by government fiat. I don't want the legislative branch to feel free to pass laws to "correct" judicial decisions they don't like.

I want some sanity and respect for the rights of individuals to make decisions that effect their own lives. While I'm at it, I want a pony. What's killing me is I have a better chance at geting the later than the former.


Hmmm. I think that you have some fair points there. On the other hand, in some cases I think you're making unsupported claims. I don't actually recall anything in the King James Bible that defines what life is, so there we are back to the two questions - "Is life sacred?" vs. "What is life?" You assume that no one on the other side of this debate sees any gray areas in the definition of life, and I think that unreasonable. You've painted a very narrow-minded and extremist view of those who disagree with you. Some people, no doubt, feel that way - just as there are, indeed, those who already argue for the euthanasia of the incurably ill and the permanently physically or mentally disabled. I don't believe that either set of extremists fairly reflects the opinions of the majority of reasonable people somewhere in the middle, and would say that it's less argument than villification to ascribe to them comments like "And if you can't keep your pecker in your pants? And she gets pregnant? Well, it's what the trollop deserves." I don't believe that that sort of comment contributes to a reasoned examination of the questions involved.

I don't have the text of the law that our representatives are passing, and I think that that bears heavily on the case. What precisely is the law forbidding - general removal of feeding tubes from anyone in that position? Or is it some sort of emergency injunction just for this case? My gut instinct is that this whole case would be a non-issue if the parents were not involved. That is, rightly or wrongly, I think that some people have developed the belief that Ms. Schiavo might not be being fairly represented by her husband, and that her parents might have her interests more at heart.

I don't make any judgement on that; I don't know any of them and have no way of guessing at their motivations. I will say this, however: what if it was true? Wouldn't it be right to do something about it? How else would one act on that, given the hypothetical case in which it was true, or that at some point it is almost certain to be true of someone? I think that from the perspective of those support Ms. Schiavo's continued feeding, the law might appear to be almost precisely the monster it appears to you from the opposite point of view. That is, they may view it as supporting a man acting on his own, against the wishes of Ms. Schiavo's parents and without any clear indication that this was ever what Ms. Schiavo wanted. In that case, wouldn't they be just as likely as you to perceive the law as a cruel and inappropriate intrusion into Ms. Schiavo's life and an abrogation of her individual rights?

Shanglan
 
I think that we can both agree that you're not a "bitch on wheels," and I confess to some hurt that you'd imply that that is the only way I'm capable of perceiving your opinion. I would have hoped you might accept that I perceive your position in much the way that I perceive your opponents' ideas, with an honest attempt to understand your motivations and learn how your position works.

I don't at all believe that none of your opponents are as you describe them. I only suggest that many of those who oppose you are not, and that it's unreasonable to assume that all of them are of the same precise opinions, backgrounds, and natures.

My comments are colored, of course, by my own perspective. There are topics about which I feel passionately; there are subjects on which I find it difficult to be objective. But I consider the struggle for objectivity and understanding to be the essential struggle in all argument and much of the rest of life. I believe that it is dangerous to assume that others oppose me only for irrational or morally repulsive reasons. It's rarely true, and it discourages me from scrutinizing my own position. It also makes it impossible for me to shift them from theirs. If they believe, rightly, that I neither know nor care what motivates them, or that I believe them to be idiots and fanatics, then I will never be capable of reasoning with them. Even if I had wanted to go back in time and persuade the Germans not to support Hitler - choosing him as the modern figure most synonymous with evil - I would first have to know what good they saw coming from his regime and show them another way to achieve those goals or another reason for rejecting them. I could make no headway with them if I could perceive them only as fanatics and sheep.

Jonathan O'Leary, a man who suffered imprisonment at hard labor and exile for his political beliefs, was still able to say in his later years, "There never was a cause so bad that good men did not believe in it for good reasons." I take this as my guiding principle in such debates. There are good people who oppose me for good reasons. I must find the reasons and appeal to the good in those whom I oppose. I may not convince them; some tasks are beyond one person. But this is not evidence of their stupidity or evil, any more than my own refusal to convert to their opinion is evidence of mine. There are, of course, stupid and evil people in the world - but I think it unreasonable to assume that the majority of people who disagree with me are so made.

Shanglan
 
BlackShanglan said:
I think that we can both agree that you're not a "bitch on wheels," and I confess to some hurt that you'd imply that that is the only way I'm capable of perceiving your opinion. I would have hoped you might accept that I perceive your position in much the way that I perceive your opponents' ideas, with an honest attempt to understand your motivations and learn how your position works.

I don't at all believe that none of your opponents are as you describe them. I only suggest that many of those who oppose you are not, and that it's unreasonable to assume that all of them are of the same precise opinions, backgrounds, and natures.

My comments are colored, of course, by my own perspective. There are topics about which I feel passionately; there are subjects on which I find it difficult to be objective. But I consider the struggle for objectivity and understanding to be the essential struggle in all argument and much of the rest of life. I believe that it is dangerous to assume that others oppose me only for irrational or morally repulsive reasons. It's rarely true, and it discourages me from scrutinizing my own position. It also makes it impossible for me to shift them from theirs. If they believe, rightly, that I neither know nor care what motivates them, or that I believe them to be idiots and fanatics, then I will never be capable of reasoning with them. Even if I had wanted to go back in time and persuade the Germans not to support Hitler - choosing him as the modern figure most synonymous with evil - I would first have to know what good they saw coming from his regime and show them another way to achieve those goals or another reason for rejecting them. I could make no headway with them if I could perceive them only as fanatics and sheep.

Jonathan O'Leary, a man who suffered imprisonment at hard labor and exile for his political beliefs, was still able to say in his later years, "There never was a cause so bad that good men did not believe in it for good reasons." I take this as my guiding principle in such debates. There are good people who oppose me for good reasons. I must find the reasons and appeal to the good in those whom I oppose. I may not convince them; some tasks are beyond one person. But this is not evidence of their stupidity or evil, any more than my own refusal to convert to their opinion is evidence of mine. There are, of course, stupid and evil people in the world - but I think it unreasonable to assume that the majority of people who disagree with me are so made.

Shanglan


My dear Shang, there was absolutely no intent on my part to imply anything of the kind. My own perception of me is that I am a bitch on wheels when I get going. I assure you, the comment was meant in that vein, with no implication at all about your perceptions of me. It was merely my acknowledgement that I had my dander up and was intended to bring a smile, not hurt. :heart:

My comments on envying you were also heartfelt. I do my best to keep my objectivity, but I fail a lot more often than I would like. In this case, I fully admit, I have failed.

I do not regret any of my comments on the far religious right. I regret deeply anything I may have said that hurt your feelings and will happily remove the post.

*HUGS*
 
Last edited:
Excerpts of the Senate-passed Bill

Excerpts of Bill in Terri Schiavo Case
Mar 20, 5:37 PM (ET)
By The Associated Press

Excerpts of a bill passed Sunday by the Senate and under consideration by the House of Representatives in the Terri Schiavo case:

"The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life."

---

"Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a state court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

"In such a suit, the District Court shall determine ... any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this act, notwithstanding any prior state court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in state court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of state court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the state courts have been exhausted."

---

"After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life."

Amazing. Is there any precedent for a law built around one person and/or one district like this?
 
impressive said:
Amazing. Is there any precedent for a law built around one person and/or one district like this?

Built around one person, but setting precedent to affect us all.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Built around one person, but setting precedent to affect us all.

I don't dispute that. If it can be done once, it can be done again. I'm just wondering if it has been done in the past. (EDITED: On any issue.)
 
impressive said:
I don't dispute that. If it can be done once, it can be done again. I'm just wondering if it has been done in the past. (EDITED: On any issue.)


The dred scott decision is a posibility. Megan's law another. I haven't read the text of either in many years and I don't recall them being so limited, but they would be the closest I can recall off the top of my head.
 
On this thread, I've been concerned. I've been angry. I've been sad. Now I am just shocked. Utterly dumbfounded. Congress has set aside the decision of a state court. Not only that, they have stripped that court of it's jurisdiction.


If this stands. We have no rights. None at all. The constitution is just a sham. Congress can decide anytime it wants that it dosen't like the decision of a court, cobble up a law, set aside the decision and remove the jurisdiction of the court it dosen't like. Welcome to Germany, circa 1938.

Zeig Heil.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
On this thread, I've been concerned. I've been angry. I've been sad. Now I am just shocked. Utterly dumbfounded. Congress has set aside the decision of a state court. Not only that, they have stripped that court of it's jurisdiction.


If this stands. We have no rights. None at all. The constitution is just a sham. Congress can decide anytime it wants that it dosen't like the decision of a court, cobble up a law, set aside the decision and remove the jurisdiction of the court it dosen't like. Welcome to Germany, circa 1938.

Zeig Heil.

It appears as if the House will fail to get enough members to DC tomorrow for passage.

In spite of my feelings for the family at the center of this circus, I too am stunned.
 
Ya know, it takes some doing when you can even piss off the people on your own side as well as your opponents.

The current administration seems to be able to do this in its sleep.
 
Note, at 'terri's' website, i did go to court docs. i looked at dr's affidavits. i had some difficulty getting the pdf files, but two did open.

Here are the results

The declaration of psychiatrist Alyse Eytan, says

[not seen TS in person]
I've also seen her on videotapes in the news, and read articles about her condition....

From what I've seen on television, TS responds to certain stimuli.....


[she notes that the responses might be random--that what we see on video is not representative]



Similarly for Dr. Carolyn Heron, no first hand knowledge.

She says there is not a vegetative state, because there is more responsiveness.

-----

I suspect hundred of doctors were canvassed, and about 20 were sympathetic enough to give these guardedly worded affidavits, based on TV converage and videotapes made by the family.

---
Unfortunately internet threads are not good places to debate facts. I would like to ask, however, if any reputable paper carried the attorney's narrative about the visit.

----

I agree with Colly that this is apparently (assuming something like a high grade coma) a federal power grab. Further it's at the instigation of the religious right. Terri's right to life, and to have nature take its course came up long ago, and but for the bizarre court and gubernatorial actions would have been settled.

For those who say, 'don't kill this disabled person,' I say, 'produce a statement or clear indication from terri that she wants to live; indeed that she's aware she's in a hospital with a brain injury.
 
I think this fits with the Bush camp's current stance on "legislative activism" - although I could be misreading them. I just heard Limbaugh on a rant the other day, the gist of which seemed to be that he was angry about courts "making law" through their decisions. It was, of course, amusing to listen to due to the court intervention in President Bush's election. If I understand the gist of his comments, it was that he felt that some issues, like abortion, should have been left to the electorate and legislators to decide, but that they had done an "end run" around legislation (and therefore public voice) by instead deciding that interpretation of the Constitution in court. I'm wracking my brain to remember where I have seen the same argument in print lately; I recall the author's attack on a specific earlier Supreme Court justice as the instigator of much of this "judicial activism," but can't now remember where I saw it.

It's an interesting argument that highlights the tricky gray areas of a checks-and-balances system. As times and attitudes change, we may change the ways in which we view the wording and intent of some documents. We may even acknowledge that the original intent meant one thing - as in the case of rights for women and people of color - and that we now choose to read the law another way that is more congruent with our current philosophies. Personally, I found it hard to pin down a clear line between things best handled by the courts and things best handled by legislation. Add in the question of state vs. federal in both of those sections and it's quite a muddle to know who really ought to have jurisdiction over what. My gut instinct is to go with Colly on the danger of the government suddenly enacting laws that apply only to invidual people. I don't like the sound of that on any level, and to have the federal government plunge itself into the case of a single person is alarming.

On the other hand, I suppose, is the question my SO asked over dinner tonight. Who would it be harming for her to remain alive? If she's really completely functionless, then she isn't suffering and in fact has no idea that she's in this position. If she's not, then there's hope - and I did note that the quotation from the Institute for Public Health supplied by CNN stated that people in PVS can actually improve and regain some functions. I would certainly agree that if she'd expressed a clear desire not to have her life prolonged in this fashion, then it would be best to heed that wish. But given that there's really no way to verify that she wanted this, what harm is done by allowing her to remain in the care of people who love her and believe that she might yet regain some of her life?

That last, by the way, is intended as a seperate question from the legislative actions. That is, I'm asking what would be wrong about Mr. Schiavo letting her parents take her and care for her, not what would be wrong about federal legislators making up laws to apply to individual citizens. I can see what's wrong with that quite clearly.

Shanglan
 
From terri's site, two more docs examined:

Harry S. Goldsmith MD:
Professor of Surgery at University of Nevada School of Medicine.

3. I have not physically examined TS, so I cannot offer a medical diagnosis of her. However I have observed a video of TS and she appears to be responsive.

I recommend that TS receive a SPECT scan and a PET (blood flow and metabolic activity scan. A review of these tests would enable me to more fully evaluate Ms Schiavo and help determine her current condition.

----
Jacob Green, MD neurologist
Although I have not physically examined TS I base my opinions about her condition on...

[There is a new entity called Minimally Conscious State and TS should be re evaluated to see if that is the correct diagnosis]
 
Last edited:
BlackShanglan said:
I think this fits with the Bush camp's current stance on "legislative activism" - although I could be misreading them. I just heard Limbaugh on a rant the other day, the gist of which seemed to be that he was angry about courts "making law" through their decisions. It was, of course, amusing to listen to due to the court intervention in President Bush's election. If I understand the gist of his comments, it was that he felt that some issues, like abortion, should have been left to the electorate and legislators to decide, but that they had done an "end run" around legislation (and therefore public voice) by instead deciding that interpretation of the Constitution in court. I'm wracking my brain to remember where I have seen the same argument in print lately; I recall the author's attack on a specific earlier Supreme Court justice as the instigator of much of this "judicial activism," but can't now remember where I saw it.

It's an interesting argument that highlights the tricky gray areas of a checks-and-balances system. As times and attitudes change, we may change the ways in which we view the wording and intent of some documents. We may even acknowledge that the original intent meant one thing - as in the case of rights for women and people of color - and that we now choose to read the law another way that is more congruent with our current philosophies. Personally, I found it hard to pin down a clear line between things best handled by the courts and things best handled by legislation. Add in the question of state vs. federal in both of those sections and it's quite a muddle to know who really ought to have jurisdiction over what. My gut instinct is to go with Colly on the danger of the government suddenly enacting laws that apply only to invidual people. I don't like the sound of that on any level, and to have the federal government plunge itself into the case of a single person is alarming.

On the other hand, I suppose, is the question my SO asked over dinner tonight. Who would it be harming for her to remain alive? If she's really completely functionless, then she isn't suffering and in fact has no idea that she's in this position. If she's not, then there's hope - and I did note that the quotation from the Institute for Public Health supplied by CNN stated that people in PVS can actually improve and regain some functions. I would certainly agree that if she'd expressed a clear desire not to have her life prolonged in this fashion, then it would be best to heed that wish. But given that there's really no way to verify that she wanted this, what harm is done by allowing her to remain in the care of people who love her and believe that she might yet regain some of her life?

That last, by the way, is intended as a seperate question from the legislative actions. That is, I'm asking what would be wrong about Mr. Schiavo letting her parents take her and care for her, not what would be wrong about federal legislators making up laws to apply to individual citizens. I can see what's wrong with that quite clearly.

Shanglan


Ask your SO this Shang. What about Mr. Schiavo? Do you think it's right to condem him to being married to someone he believes is dead? Or do you demand, on top of all else he has been through, that he make a choice between his love for her and living the rest of his life? And if she did express her desire not to be left on life support, do you just tell him tough titty? She didn't write it down and you will never be able to give her the peace she requested of you? How would you feel if you had promised your SO you would never let him/her linger like that and then people said, fuck it, You just can't live up to your promises to him/her. Deal.

It seems to me the man has been through years of hell, turnd down oportunites to make a bundle of cash and scram, and has refused such offers and continued his fight. If he is doing this out of love and a sense of obligation to his wife, who should be able to say, no, you shall not?
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Ask your SO this Shang. What about Mr. Schiavo? Do you think it's right to condem him to being married to someone he believes is dead? Or do you demand, on top of all else he has been through, that he make a choice between his love for her and living the rest of his life? And if she did express her desire not to be left on life support, do you just tell him tough titty? She didn't write it down and you will never be able to give her the peace she requested of you? How would you feel if you had promised your SO you would never let him/her linger like that and then people said, fuck it, You just can't live up to your promises to him/her. Deal.

It seems to me the man has been through years of hell, turnd down oportunites to make a bundle of cash and scram, and has refused such offers and continued his fight. If he is doing this out of love and a sense of obligation to his wife, who should be able to say, no, you shall not?


Of all people in the world, her parents. I don't denigrate his suffering. I only suggest that their is probably equal.

Shanglan
 
BlackShanglan said:
Of all people in the world, her parents. I don't denigrate his suffering. I only suggest that their is probably equal.

Shanglan

If you believe that, then why even have guardianship go to a spouse? Why not just leave it with the parents? It will save so much time and litigation.

The parents aren't equal. They took a secondary position when Teri married. It's why a father gives away a bride. It' why most state laws recognize the primacy of a spouse in matters of guardianship and beneficiary status. It's probably a significant factor in why the courts have sided with the husband.
 
If Teri is as aware as Barbara Weller depicts in this article, why have so many certified neurologists, etc. said that she is not? I mean, it is a very moving article, but people see what they want to see, as is well known.

I saw my grandmother take ten years to die of Alzheimer's. In the end she was incontinent and bedridden, and in her last weeks and days, she refused to eat or drink. One day my folks, who had taken care of her all that time, went in to check up on her, and she had gone. My MIL went much the same way. Her sister consented to having her intubated, when she gave up eating and drinking; my BIL had the PEG tube taken out, and while she was in hospice, they were giving her Jello. Her sister kept calling from North Louisiana and insisting that she be given syringes of water. It reminded me of the syringes of Gatorade--the blue kind--that I gave my 18YO cat, who had end-stage renal failure, on a daily basis. I'm not sure he appreciated it. When he got to where he was so miserable he was moaning and crying, I took him to the clinic for the last time. I know I wouldn't want to live like that.

I think of two families in my church. One was a young couple, only in their 30s--she was operated on for a brain aneurysm. Her life was saved, but I often wondered what for--she was totally paralysed and incapacitated, only able to move her face. She was aware, and I think that she even managed to study for some kind of degree in the next seven years of her life; nevertheless, she had to have everything done for her, even to having fluids sucked out of her throat via a tracheostomy because she could not swallow. She could not eat. She was able to listen to conversation and watch TV and think, but when she finally died in a subsequent observation, I'm sure that when she crossed over into the afterlife, she must have said, "It was about time!" I think of not being able to taste food or even read a Lit story and get turned on by it, let alone be a wife to my husband, and I don't think I'd want to live like that.

The other couple had one child, and then they conceived again. When tests revealed that the fetus was not growing at a normal rate, tests were conducted. It came out that the fetus had Wolff-Hirschorn syndrome. The prognosis of this condition is always poor, and the people suffering from it die at a young age. The condition is rare enough so that when I Googled it, I had difficulty finding any information that anybody but a medical student could understand. I did find this:

AB The objective is to inform obstetricians about the existence of this rare and little known chromosomal aberration, usually diagnosed after birth by paediatricians, but which can sometimes be diagnosed antenatally. In the light of two recent cases of Wolf - Hirschhorn syndrome discovered successively in their department, the authors reviewed the literature and found 180 cases of this extremely rare syndrome. Monosomy 4 p-, due to a partial deletion of the short arm of chromosome 4, is characterized by severe mental retardation and dysmorphia, mainly cephalic. After a brief review of the history and an explanation of the cytogenetic mechanisms involved, the main characteristics of this syndrome are studied. Finally, the authors describe the possibilities of antenatal diagnosis of this disease. Monosomy 4 p- is a rare chromosomal aberration, usually diagnosed soon after birth, on the karyotype performed in the presence of morphological abnormalities. The diagnosis can sometimes be established antenatally, in the presence of ultrasonographic abnormalities. The prognosis of this aberration remains severe with a 47% mortality rate during the first trimester and, if the child survives, the presence of severe retardation of psychomotor development.

AN 96348606 MEDLINE


Of course the technical language in which the article was written does not really tell you what the parents go through, and what everone sees. The child was born with a small, abnormally shaped head, and a double cleft palate and lip. She went through surgeries to appear as normal as she does, which is not very, although she is sort of cute in an eerie way. She has angelic-looking wavy blonde hair like her older sister. She is around 6, and is no bigger than a 1YO, and skeletally thin. She has been intubated all her life. She can swallow a little, but not enough where she could ever eat enough to keep body and soul together. Her parents have been heroes in trying to ensure that she gets the most out of life. She has a special sort of combination wheelchair/walker in which she can walk after a fashion. I've seen her standing in it on Sunday morning with the Cherub Choir, not singing, but waving her warped-looking, strangely elegant little hands in time to the music. She is sort of aware. She has frequent seizures and has to be on medication to prevent this as much as possible. But the prognosis for her is profound mental retardation, and it's likely she won't outlive anyone in her family. Incidentally, her parents both work and pull down high earnings in the software business, and I'm sure they have excellent insurance plans. I'm not privy to their financial arrangements nor do I know if they have had to apply for any assistance. I am sure that when they received the diagnosis, which was made antenatally, they didn't hesitate to choose life. OTOH, had it happened to me--with our less than $50K a year household income and health insurance that is OK but doesn't by any means take up everything--I'm not sure I'd have gone through with it. I'm not sure I could do what these folks are doing.

The Sciavo case is profoundly sad, and I'm not sure that by now, anyone can determine what the truth is.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
If you believe that, then why even have guardianship go to a spouse? Why not just leave it with the parents? It will save so much time and litigation.

The parents aren't equal. They took a secondary position when Teri married. It's why a father gives away a bride. It' why most state laws recognize the primacy of a spouse in matters of guardianship and beneficiary status. It's probably a significant factor in why the courts have sided with the husband.

And yet I can think of many cases in which I would very much like the rights of the spouse queried. We have divorce law and domestic abuse law in recognition of the fact that spouses are not always ideal or disinterested parties. This is not a comment on Mr. Schiavo - I know nothing about him. I mean only to observe that having the spouse have sole rights to determine treatment is not necessarily an ideal option.

I can think of many cases in which the court-recognized guardian may not be the best person to make decisions. For instance, in the case of my colleague who was severely injured in a car accident and who suffered brain damage as well, the courts only recognized her parents as decision-makers despite her long-standing relationship with a partner of her own gender. Her parents were not willing to bring her partner into consultation on her treatment because they did not approve of her lifestyle. Her partner was left without much legal grounds on which to contest their less aggressive/optimistic course of treatment and therapy; they were both in their 40's and no doubt did not expect any such thing to become an issue for years to come. It's not clear to me how that legal battle was resolved; in the end, I did see her working independently again, although she was not as she had been. But I think that in that case, it would have been reasonable for the court to recognize her partner's claim to some rights of guardianship, just as in Ms. Schiavo's case there might be reasons for the interests of the parents to be weighed. I think the similarity I saw in both cases was that the non-custodial person was willing to put forth the effort it took to try to give the loved one a better chance, either at life or recovery. They were asking nothing of the custodial person in terms of time or personal commitment - just the chance to dedicate themselves to the possible betterment of someone that they loved. In the absence of any clear wish on the part of the injured person, I find it hard to think it reasonable to deny someone that chance.

Shanglan
 
Colleen Thomas said:
On this thread, I've been concerned. I've been angry. I've been sad. Now I am just shocked. Utterly dumbfounded. Congress has set aside the decision of a state court. Not only that, they have stripped that court of it's jurisdiction.


If this stands. We have no rights. None at all. The constitution is just a sham. Congress can decide anytime it wants that it dosen't like the decision of a court, cobble up a law, set aside the decision and remove the jurisdiction of the court it dosen't like. Welcome to Germany, circa 1938.

Zeig Heil.

What Colly is saying is that there's a very good reason the US system of government is based on the idea of separation of powers: to avoid accumulation of power in any one branch. The courts are supposed to be independent of the legislature in order to serve as a check upon it. Allowing the legislative branch to over-rule the courts amounts to tyranny by the legislature. It's the courts who are supposed to preserve and defend our rights and constitution.

This, of course, is precisely the Bush strategy. They have the majority in the house and senate, and they intend to use it, even if they have to cicumvent the courts to do so. All this rube-radio talk about "activist judges" making up their own law is just a rationale to ram through the right-wing agenda by legisative fiat. Judges don't make up law They interpet it in light of other laws and the constitution.

Seen in its political dimension, that's what's so alarming about what they're doing.
 
impressive said:
I don't dispute that. If it can be done once, it can be done again. I'm just wondering if it has been done in the past. (EDITED: On any issue.)
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision that no recount be held in Florida in 2000 was said in the text of it not to apply to any other case.

Bush v. Gore.

These guys got in in just such a way.
 
BlackShanglan said:
And yet I can think of many cases in which I would very much like the rights of the spouse queried. We have divorce law and domestic abuse law in recognition of the fact that spouses are not always ideal or disinterested parties. This is not a comment on Mr. Schiavo - I know nothing about him. I mean only to observe that having the spouse have sole rights to determine treatment is not necessarily an ideal option.

The spouse as first next-of-kin is, however, one of the hoariest of the legal axioms. ancient common law, case law, centuries of it. Some things, thank goodness, have already been decided. If you do not take express steps (like a durable power of attorney to another person, which makes the other person the equivalent of you in all matters it covers), then the usual and ordinary, centuries old system, the default system, is deemed to be in place. The burden is on the plaintiffs to demonstrate why the priority of the spouse must be taken away in this one instance. That requires clear demonstration that the spouse is not acting properly. The suits to do that have failed, I remind you.

If you have issues about your next of kin, you ought to take steps to designate someone.
I can think of many cases in which the court-recognized guardian may not be the best person to make decisions. For instance, in the case of my colleague who was severely injured in a car accident and who suffered brain damage as well, the courts only recognized her parents as decision-makers despite her long-standing relationship with a partner of her own gender. Her parents were not willing to bring her partner into consultation on her treatment because they did not approve of her lifestyle. Her partner was left without much legal grounds on which to contest their less aggressive/optimistic course of treatment and therapy; they were both in their 40's and no doubt did not expect any such thing to become an issue for years to come. It's not clear to me how that legal battle was resolved; in the end, I did see her working independently again, although she was not as she had been. But I think that in that case, it would have been reasonable for the court to recognize her partner's claim to some rights of guardianship, just as in Ms. Schiavo's case there might be reasons for the interests of the parents to be weighed. I think the similarity I saw in both cases was that the non-custodial person was willing to put forth the effort it took to try to give the loved one a better chance, either at life or recovery. They were asking nothing of the custodial person in terms of time or personal commitment - just the chance to dedicate themselves to the possible betterment of someone that they loved. In the absence of any clear wish on the part of the injured person, I find it hard to think it reasonable to deny someone that chance.



Shanglan
Great argument, Shang. I have no doubt that it was made. But it clearly was not strong enough to sway the judge to set aside the clear right of the spouse. We can not know what other factors weighed on that decision, because we have access only to partisan sources. But writing a law to make it didn't happen is absolutely wrong. This special law must be declared unconstitutional. Because, in fact, it is. The merits of the Schiavo case don't bear on that. It is unconstitutional in any case.

The merits of the Schiavo case, on their own, resulted in the husband retaining his prerogative.

This is exactly why denying homosexuals the right to marry sets them in a second class position. Marriage is not an emotional state, not a religious state, not a spiritual state, but a legal one. Spouses are next of kin for one another and for all unmarried children of either. Spouses inherit from one another, unquestioned, with set proportions to children, all set down by precedent and convention. To have any other arrangement of inheritance, you need a proper will.

Marriage is a powerful legal determinant of these things.
 
Last edited:
dr_mabeuse said:
What Colly is saying is that there's a very good reason the US system of government is based on the idea of separation of powers: to avoid accumulation of power in any one branch. The courts are supposed to be independent of the legislature in order to serve as a check upon it. Allowing the legislative branch to over-rule the courts amounts to tyranny by the legislature. It's the courts who are supposed to preserve and defend our rights and constitution.

This, of course, is precisely the Bush strategy. They have the majority in the house and senate, and they intend to use it, even if they have to cicumvent the courts to do so. All this rube-radio talk about "activist judges" making up their own law is just a rationale to ram through the right-wing agenda by legisative fiat. Judges don't make up law They interpet it in light of other laws and the constitution.

Seen in its political dimension, that's what's so alarming about what they're doing.

Actually, I don't understand the tyranny thing.

The courts made the decision as per the law... if the legislature decides to write a NEW law, then that's fine.

This is a correct and fair use of their legislative power... you might NOT like the law, and it might be a complete fucking waste of time for Congress to get involved in one domestic case but there no question it's well within their power.

It's like saying that Congress wrote a law... and then the Courts made a decision about that law... and Congress said "Oh wait... we DID NOT intend that... we need to fix it!"

And then someone turning around and saying "Hey... that second law is tyranny of the legislative power!'

Let's take a deep breath, take a step back and think.

The problem here is that tis Congress getting involved at the root level of a problem... this is NONE of their fucking business... what's next legislating that my son needs to eat 5 meals a day rather than the 3 I decided... and by my son, i mean, JUST MY SON.

Dear Congressman,

I don't like the way that the street cleaners sweep the left side of the street first... can I please get a law that says they MUST clean the right side first.

[edited to add] Hey, maybe that's what impressive can do about trolls... write your Senator to make Laurel and Manu write a 'troll busting system'... but it should only apply to your stories.

Sincerely,
ElSol
 
Last edited:
Colleen Thomas said:
Zeig Heil.
BTW, it's "Sieg Heil". Hail Victory (or something, I'm sure there'll be a test at some point.)

But the issues you're concerned about are long dead and gone (anybody's rights let alone states').

And Elsol, the tyranny thing is that you forget: the Constitution specifically enumerates the authority of Congress. (Not that anybody pays attention to that rag anymore.)

They just go along with the common myth that a "law" can ever possibly solve any problem. But hey, it's the religion of the state.
 
Back
Top