It Has Begun

[Huckleman2000]

A point of view from a dissenting website

I'd direct particular attention to paragraph 5, which refers to verifiable legislative action taken by the "President" when he was Governor of Texas.

Moreover, the same House that took such drastic steps in this case, last week approved a budget that cut Medicaid funding by $15billion - funding that pays for Terri Schiavo's care.
Taxpayers, hospice pay for Schiavo medical care

from the March 20th, 2005 Laura Flanders Show

About that posturing in Congress on Palm Sunday, I’ve got just one thing to say: it’s not about Terri Schiavo.

Accidentally in uttering the words “she’s my life,” in her conversation with the media Terri Schiavo’s mother revealed what’s at the very heart of this whole dismal story. None of this is about poor brain-destroyed Terri Schiavo. It’s all about someone else’s life, or various someone-elses.

Tom DeLay knows nothing about morality or ethics. He dragged congress back to Washington for a special session so he could put his fellow members through a loyalty test on Palm Sunday. According to Robert Novak (who, as we know, knows these folks) analysts at the RNC sent out a warning this week to the House of Representatives that the GOP’s in danger of losing 25 seats in the 2006 election. The Schiavo case “is a great political issue” for Republicans, anonymous advisors told party senators in an unsigned memo this weekend. It isn’t about Terri Schiavo’s life; it’s about the life of this GOP-ruled congress.

It isn’t about Terri Schiavo, it’s about tossing a bone to poor Christian voters who voted Republican this November but haven't gotten a thing for those votes so far, except a slap around the face with another brass knuckle budget and tougher treatment for poor folks who go bankrupt. It’s about performing compassion when this congress is really only-and-all about profits. And it’s about obscuring the corruption and fraud on which Delay’s power is built, and hoping poor voters will forget that once they’ve cast their votes, the GOP doesn’t care about them anymore. Their first order of business is well, business.

It isn’t about what DeLay calls “a culture life." When he was governor of Texas, George Bush signed into effect a law that grants hospitals the right to cut off life support in cases that are even more controversial than Schiavo's. Under Texas law, hospitals can cease to feed a patient whose prognosis is so poor that further care would be futile if that patient has no way to pay his or her medical expenses. A baby was pulled of life support under that legislation this past week, against his mother’s wishes. It was ok with the National Right to Life committee in 1999 and it was ok with Governor George W. Bush. What changed? Only political expediency.

What do you think this is really about? Terri Schiavo? I don’t think so. I think it’s about distracting from lawlessness and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s about changing the subject from a cruel and killing budget, and just possibly, about obscuring the news that according to a new National Defense Strategy” the Pentagon has made “first strike” attacks like those used in Iraq a permanent piece of the nation’s military policy.

Talk about a culture of life. If the Bush crew really believed human life was sacred, they would never have okayed the loss of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives because of the off-chance that the future might bring another terror attack, somewhere, sometime, that might kill Americans. Forget the WMD threat which did not exist. Bush made the argument again this past week that it’s better to fight terrorism abroad (and kill innocent people there now,) than tolerate the possibility that more US lives might be lost here at some unspecified time in the future.

Bush’s criminal congress isn’t about a culture of life any more than Bush’s unilateral war against world majority opinion was about democracy or global security.

Besides, when was the last time you think that any one of Bush’s criminal congress took a moment to imagine what it would actually be like to be Terri Schiavo? We can all understand where Schiavo’s mother is coming from, but it’s not actually her mother’s suffering that's at stake here, or Tom Delay’s or the Congress’s. It’s Schiavo’s, and I’d say it was a long time since the people in this picture actually put themselves in Schiavo’s shoes because as far as I can see, this nation’s out of the habit of practicing empathy.

Plastic pathos, sure, and for-profit compassion – there’s plenty -- but, actual honest-to-your-god empathy? You tell me. I think “do unto others as you’d have others do unto you” is on life support in George W. Bush’s America. Don’t believe me? Ask the Afghans. Ask the Iraqis. And maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but if you could, I’d say you could ask Terri Schiavo.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Doctor? Circumcision? Pain? Then, why are you circumcising your baby? Are you Jewish?

If not, why are you making this decision for your son? You don't like your doctor's opinion of babies and pain, but you're accepting somebody else's view on circumcision.

Because all of this was 11 years ago and my knowledge and oppinions have changed since then. But that wasn't the point. The point is that doctors make all kinds of claims to knowlege that they can't actually have. You can't *know* if another person feels pain. You can't *know* if they smile on purpose or reflex. Every year researches discover that newborns are able to do and think in ways they previously thought impossible until they were older. I don't think I need to spend three pages connecting the dots to my point. Doctors are not mind readers and they don't like to admit to there own limitations. (see post by impressive)

She married him. She had just as much opportunity to divorce the guy before her accident.

Did she? Or did he make sure that she couldn't leave? That is, in fact, at issue in this case if you at least listen to what the other side has to say. [which by the way, I have. I just don't quote them because I don't agree.]

 

[Amy Sweet]

You support it? Damn, that's hard.

Medical decisions, have long been the province of the states, with the single exception of federally controlled substances. Our good freind Mr. Ashcroft lobbied long and hard to get federal control so he could contravene medicinal marijuanna and Oregon's right to die laws. Where Asscroft failed, the new GOP has succeeded. Unless the law is struck down, the precedent has been set that the federal government has precedence in medical matters.

So you can say good bye to right to die legislation. You can say good bye to medicinal marijuana. You can say good bye to a spouse having the final say in any situation like this. In fact, you can be sure people will be kept alive though excrusicating pain, becuse the GOP says so. No one is ever going to have the plug pulled, ever again, cause life is sacred. Just look in your bible. that's the king james 1611 that all citizens will be required to keep on the coffee table.

The chrisitan right will now decide medical matters for you. And you can bet they won't like you getting an abortion, or getting a hysterectomy, or getting your tubes tied, or getting the pill. And what's to stop them from saying you can't? The courts have just been emasculated. Their decision contracvened by a quick fix law to render their decision moot.

I'm sure you and sweet are happy with this, but it dosen't smell like victory to me.

Um... yeah

I think this is what we might lable histeria. Keeping a woman alive as per her family wishes [and letting her have legal representation which is routinly given to even the youngest infant involved in legeslation involving it's welfare] is not going to lead to mandatory KJV's in every household.

I hate to say it but... get a grip.

You talk about propaganda and bias. I don't know what else would describe your above post. It's completly fear based and irrational, and I've come to expect better from you. (on most topics at least)

 

[Somme]

Um... yeah

I think this is what we might lable histeria. Keeping a woman alive as per her family wishes [and letting her have legal representation which is routinly given to even the youngest infant involved in legeslation involving it's welfare] is not going to lead to mandatory KJV's in every household.

I hate to say it but... get a grip.

You talk about propaganda and bias. I don't know what else would describe your above post. It's completly fear based and irrational, and I've come to expect better from you. (on most topics at least)

or, judging by the track record of the present cabal, completely rational?

 

[Amy Sweet]

Sigh. Why do people have to 'win' all the time?

Because when you're fighting for your children's lives, you can't afford not to.

[also from experience]

 

[Somme]

Because when you're fighting for your children's lives, you can't afford not to.

[also from experience]

Does this count for those in the war?

 

[Amy Sweet]

If Ms Schiavo, as some say, is alert, oriented, and responding to stimuli, including responding to talk, and it's simply a question of her needing a tube, there is no question of her right to live if she chooses.

We need to know if there is any motor control. Theorietically, however, one could have no motor control and still be conscious and aware (a kind of total paralysis as in the horror movies).

If she can even blink once for yes and twice for no, to a series of intelligent questions, giving intelligent responses, there's something there.

She also has a right not to live if she chooses.

Unfortunately we don't seem to have good evidence in this thread. There are many accounts of relatives 'communicating' with the autistic and comatose, and sometimes it's wishful thinking.

One needs the opinions of impartial and knowledgeable persons.

On balance, I go with the Republican grandstanding theory. There have apparently been 19 judges involved, and few have 'bought' the description being posted here. That she's a paralyzed, fully conscious person who being starved to death. The Supreme Ct. is refusing to act, and it includes Scalia and other 'right to life' persons.

----
Assuming there is a persistent vegetative state, I'm not sure 'starving' is the best or most humane approach to allowing nature to take its course.

The problem is if she blinks, there will be experts there to say that it is merely reflex and coincidence. What I don't understand is why they can say that her movements and vocalizations that she does now are 'reflex' and in the next sentance say that she doesn't do them 'often enough' to be purposful. If they were reflex, wouldn't they happen all of the time without fail? It seems a real no one situation for her if the experts are determined to find that she is in a persistant vegatative state. It's kind of like trying to prove that you're sane *after* you've been commited. Everything you do just proves how crazy you are.

Other than that, I agree that she has a right to live or die as she chooses. And I also agree that starving her to death is the wrong thing to do.

She's been refused the right to be given nutrition orally, and frankly, I don't know how this is legal. Even assuming that she *might* choke, she should be given the chance to try or refuse the food if she wants to. How can we allow her to starve to death and at the same time worry that she might choke while trying to live? It makes no sence.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Does this count for those in the war?

Yes. Absolutely.

When your children's lives are at stake, you shouldn't sit down and shut up, no matter who tells you to, no matter how easy it would be and no matter that no one would blame you if you did. And no matter if it's a losing battle. i firmly believe that. If all else fails, even if I lose, I'd rather be able to tell my children-- I never gave up on you. And I never would.

Some things are worth fighting for. Even if it's a hopeless losing battle.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Um... yeah

I think this is what we might lable histeria. Keeping a woman alive as per her family wishes [and letting her have legal representation which is routinly given to even the youngest infant involved in legeslation involving it's welfare] is not going to lead to mandatory KJV's in every household.

I hate to say it but... get a grip.

You talk about propaganda and bias. I don't know what else would describe your above post. It's completly fear based and irrational, and I've come to expect better from you. (on most topics at least)

Yes, it is absolutely hysteria - the legal representation given Terri Schiavo is so far beyond routine as to be laughable!

Just last week an infant had the plug pulled against the mother's wishes in Texas, under the authority given to hospitals by a law signed by GWB.

You say "get a grip". Meanwhile, the administration keeps chipping away, using inflammatory cases to expand its power by painting anyone who would question their point of view as anti-life, anti-American, anti-human, anti-God...

To latch onto Colly's hyperbole of a mandatory King James Version in every household as a literal fear, in the light of her (frankly, astounding to me) reticence in resorting to any but reasoned and well-supported arguments in this thread, is to mock the restraint she has shown in the face of bald-faced propaganda from the side of Schiavo's parents.

The law is not on their side, as has been shown time and again. This isn't a case where the opposition has been denied a fair hearing.

Where is the vocal legislative support for the husband's legal rights? There is virtually none, because the law is so clearly on his side, and there is almost no political upside to support his position beyond trusting the courts to enforce the law. That's what is done day in, day out, in hospitals and nursing homes all over the world.

Be thankful your son wasn't born in GWB's Texas without insurance coverage, Imp. This lot would've written him off without a second thought unless he'd become a political hot potato.

This case is entirely propaganda and bias, based on fear and irrationality. I don't expect Imp to see that, given her situation. Still, I don't doubt that there are differences between her case and Schiavo's, and I don't doubt that any differences will be obfuscated to make sure to capitalize on any and every success story out there in any case with any similarity whatsoever to Terri's.

This is a cynical exploitation of a tragic case for political ends. No more, no less. I understand the wrenching emotion of those who see this case and think of their own similar circumstances, and project their own turmoil as one with the players in the tragedy. But it's not. Each of these situations is its own story.

 

[elsol]

However, outrage on this issue might serve to open one's eyes to the reality that this can and does happen. And if it's happening now, it probably has happened before. If it happened before, there must be a root cause.

The use that can come of this is they may get active against all abuses, or more importantly, learn. Learn to see how this existed before. Learn to see how to see. Learn to be able to proactively deduce effect from cause and learn to be able reason the negative effects of a proposed solution before it is implemented.

The root causes are threefold in my opinion.

a) Everyone has a belief system that states how the world 'should be'... but most people refuse to acknowledge that someone else's 'should be' would be different than theirs and for valid reasons.

Those 'valid reasons' are dismissed, demonized, or discounted as stupidity.

b) People's belief systems are rarely internally consistent, which leads to inconsistencies elsewhere.

For instance in this Terri thing... some argue that the husband saying 'She told me she wanted the plug pulled' is just hearsay evidence and dismissable.

Those very same people argue that 'Terri wanted a divorce', but were divorce proceedings started, did she leave... but they want hearsay evidence acceptted in this case.

People say 'Black is black' for something that defends their position, and 'Black is white' to refute someone elses.

c) The structure of these belief systems follow the form of a religious system. Don't listen to the argument but the way they talk about it... these are articles of faith... most of the time i feel like I'm in church being talked to by a priest that is standing over his 'flock' demonizing those sinners outside the gates of HIS church.

This is a particularly interesting discussion so I've stayed though I know better, but I've deleted more posts here than at any other time.

Both sides have FAITH... and only a crisis of faith can shake the beliefs.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Somme]

There's an article in Buzzflash saying the reps're scared of losing the senate - which bears out your premise.

 

[Amy Sweet]

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

If I never post again in this thread (and goddess willing, I won't) I just wanted to say thank you for that. I would like to remind myself of it often. It is a wonderful guiding principal. And well, quite frankly, it is beautifully and simply put.

Shang,
You're amazing.

 

[Amy Sweet]

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.

I disagree. There were certain reasons why this happened, and not just because they didn't like the court decision. the court made a decision in direct contempt of congress, acting in disregard to both congress and the law by ordering and allowing her tubes to be removed at this time. IN the same fashion, a judge can order that your lawyer be held in contempt of court and tossed into jail, but this doesn't mean that the constitution is invallid and you have no right to representation. Terry has a legal order to appear and it is not lawful for the court- or anyone to attempt to end her life before such a time as she can appear. Right now, we have a chess match going but I don't think that means there is no justice. It means that we have a system of checks and ballances and they are in effect right now while this battle rages on. For some it may be a battle for right to life legeslation, but for many it is just a battle for Terri Shievau's life. (such as it may be)

 

[Amy Sweet]

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.

Don't you think it should be 'produce a statement or clear indication from terri that she doesn't want to live?

Lots of disabled people can't directly tell us they want to live. But we don't assume that they don't. And we don't starve them to death. Not being able to communicate doesn't mean that you can't still feel, that you aren't still aware or that you don't have feelings. We shouldn't have to prove these things. Indeed, there is no way for any of us to prove these things. I can't prove to you that it hurts me when you pinch me. I can tell you, but I can't prove it.

 

[Amy Sweet]

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.

he/she could be issued a divorce (on, if nothing else, grounds of abandonment). He has moved on with his life as you said.

I have to ask about the father giving away the bride bit. What about the man? Since he is not 'given away' is his legal care left to his parents? Of course not. The giving away part- that is a completly separate issue, and many couples don't even do this any more.

Given away or not, she is not the 'property' of either her husband or her parents. Her wishes in this case are not clear and that is the arguement being put forth. Terri, by all acounts was a devout Catholic. Seeing as the Catholic Church would consider her choosing not to be kept alive as suicide and suicide as an unforgivable sin, it would seem likely that she did *not* say any such thing.

Since her own wishes are in dispute, and there is no living will or other documentation of her wishes, she should be kept alive until *her own* wishes can be positively determined. If her parents were in agreement that her wishes were not to continue, there would not and should not be any case or reason for legal involvement. But even though he has the right to make these decisions, her parents have the right to dispute them. with only his word to go on, he could say anything he wanted. her family must feel strongly that he is in error to go to these lengths.

 

[Amy Sweet]

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

Shang, I should just shut up

You say everything I want to say, only so much better and dispassionatly But you do brilliantly make the points that I want to make, but mainly stutter out.

And also, my heart was beating erratically the last time I was posting. I don't know if its' related, but I better be careful.

Someone remind me to make a doctor's appointment soon.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Don't you think it should be 'produce a statement or clear indication from terri that she doesn't want to live?

Lots of disabled people can't directly tell us they want to live. But we don't assume that they don't. And we don't starve them to death. Not being able to communicate doesn't mean that you can't still feel, that you aren't still aware or that you don't have feelings. We shouldn't have to prove these things. Indeed, there is no way for any of us to prove these things. I can't prove to you that it hurts me when you pinch me. I can tell you, but I can't prove it.

She is not a "disabled person". She is a vegetable.

Her brain has decomposed like someone who is dead - only parts of it survive. The parts linked to consciousness are long gone, by objective measures.

We don't kill "disabled people". This is a body without any "personhood". It is being kept alive against the wishes of its legal guardian, the person who legally has the right to make the decision.

It's not that Terri isn't able to communicate - it's that, by expert medical diagnosis, she doesn't feel, is not aware, and doesn't have feelings.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Everyone is right, you can dispute everything, different doctors will dispute everything, the asshole lawmakers are using this as a grandstanding opportunity to dispute everything.

Forget it all.

One thing is clear and not up for debate.

She did not have in writing that she wanted to die rather than (go debate something here) so her husbands words mean nothing to the parents.

Her husbands words should mean nothing to the doctors or lawmakers, without anything in writing from her, at least not when the parents are in opposition.

The parents ARE in opposition.

The husband should divorce her and turn over complete guardianship to her parents, on moral grounds because he can't be sure of the extent of her brain damage and her parents oppose his wishes, and on legal grounds because there is nothing in writing from her, only his words.

I am sick of hearing doctors and lawmakers talk about how painless they think starvation and dehydration is, once they have starved and died of thirst they will be qualified to make that judgement.

Give the husband a hammer and let him do it fast if that is how you feel. She is not an animal needing to be mercifully put out of her pain.

The husband apparently did, and perhaps still does, love her and wants to respect her wishes. If he loved her more he would say "I cannot be sure" and neither can her parents. If he wants her death, and they want her life, the doctors and lawmakers should not be allowed to kill.

There is nothing in writing from her, and definitely nothing saying "Starve me to death if you are not sure."

END OF DISCUSSION IN MY OPINION.

I am in total agreement. (not sure about the hammer thing though)

 

[Amy Sweet]

She is not a "disabled person". She is a vegetable.

You are an ass.

She is a person.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Vegetable is niether a legal nor a medical term.

It is considered an insulting slang term. I can be applied to just anyone that someone doesn't feel is 'productive' or useful enough to 'matter.'

Calling a person a vegetable, no matter what there condition disgusts me. A person is a person. Not a vegetable. Not a plant. Not a piece of furnature.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Ok, I'm probably wrong but isn't there something in the Hypocratic oath that says you have to preserve life rather than end it?

I agree with the view that, assuming that feeding and daily simple nursing are all her requirements then why can't she go home to mom's?

Force feeding is not an issue here because I am unwilling to believe that a hospital will feed her anything other than her 'requirement' probably in the form of some nutrient solution such as those available to anyone with swallowing problems.

Aspiration can be obviated (since she is I assume, gastrostomised) by a medical procedure called a Nissan Fundiplication. A vibrating matress will go quite some way to reducing bed sores. Excreta are managed as is obvious. And damaged brains have enough extra capacity to re-learn certain basic 'skills' (gross and sometimes fine motor control) via what is termed "patterning". What harm will it do that she goes home? Particularly home to someone willing to give the time and/or money necessary to care for her?

And I'll ask this again since no-one cared to answer or comment last time. Since when has feeding been medical intervention? In my view drowning would be quicker and less cruel but who's gonna do that?

I can't answer your question, because I agree with you. And I would like to add, that if I were in such a circomstance, my wish would be for my family to love and comfort me not to starve me. I certainly don't think that love and comfort are cruel, regardless of your condition.

 

[Amy Sweet]

A Nobel Prize winning doctor who has spent more than 10 hours with her (not just viewed her on video tape) says that he feels that she could be rehabiltiated with his help.

 

[Amy Sweet]

It is more likely that the present crew will be displaced by a crew representing a different set of corporations. Hightower says they ought to have NASCAR jackets showing the logos of their sponsors, so you'd know who you were dealing with.

Now that would be something.

 

[impressive]

This case is entirely propaganda and bias, based on fear and irrationality. I don't expect Imp to see that, given her situation. Still, I don't doubt that there are differences between her case and Schiavo's, and I don't doubt that any differences will be obfuscated to make sure to capitalize on any and every success story out there in any case with any similarity whatsoever to Terri's.

Oh, but I do see it. The difference is that I still see the family at the center of it.

I am as frightened by the hype and the twisting of the laws and the federal interference every bit as much as the next person. It should never have reached this phase.

Back in 1992, when Michael Schiavo refused to use the court-awarded money for Terri's therapy -- as it was earmarked and as he said he planned to do -- there should have been an ruling requiring it. End of story. Instead, he fought with her parents and things got nasty. All of a sudden, he remembers her death wish. Isn't that convenient? (Interestingly, there was no death wish during the medical malpractice proceedings. Oh, no! It was all about getting Terri all the therapies she could possibly need to improve. Fucking hypocrite!)

Then, lo and behold, he hooks up with a right-to-die attorney with a God complex and we're on our way. Sworn testimony from his first post-Terri girlfriend is buried, conveniently. The only medical professionals allowed access to Terri are those hand-picked by those actively working for her starvation -- except for one court-appointed (by the same court who didn't hold Michael to his word in the first place).

Terri, due to a roll of the judicial dice, gets another day in court with the cards stacked heavily against her. Her parents have no idea what they're up against. They're playing fair and trusting the system to work -- and more than a bit naive. Felos, however, is not.

Every judicial proceeding, filing, pleading since then has built upon the initial travesty. What's needed is not a review in federal court, but a complete "DO OVER!" That, however, is being buried in the political circus -- and it makes me profoundly sad.

Meanwhile, the initial settlement is being steadily eaten away by legal fees instead of being used to treat Terri (as intended). New and promising therapies have emerged over the years that stand a very good chance of helping her but, because she has this ALLEGED death wish, cannot be accessed.

The political agenda is being argued vehemently by those with far more expertise than I -- which is why I haven't said much on that subject. However, don't assume that because this case hits close to home, that I cannot see the forest for the trees. I find that rather insulting. (Of course, insulting Imp seem to be de rigueur these days.)

~ Imp

 

[elsol]

Here's a lesson on how to properly raise hysteria.

On March 19, 2005, congressional leaders announced that they were drafting a bill which would order the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube and transfer the case from state court to federal court. In the very early hours of March 21, Congress approved emergency legislation. Despite an absence of quorum, the Senate approved the bill(S 686 CPS) by voice vote. Only three Senators, Bill Frist (R-TN), Rick Santorum (R-PA), and Mel Martinez (R-FL), were present. The bill passed unanimously, with 97 Senators not present.

Now that is something that I did not know... not about Terri's law but that a Bill could pass with 3 votes because no one else was around. That's very interesting, and the Republicans are going to regret it.

Either the Democrats will come to see this is as fair tactic now... or if they ever get power again, they'll fix it.

Bad political strategy on the Republicans side when they already have the majority, there was no point to get dirty like this.

This was something that they should have saved for something much more important.

Sincerely,
ElSol