Comments on: Opinions on the Terry Schiavo situation

By: Kevin Slotboom

Kevin Slotboom — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:37:44 +0000

Hello everyone,

First of all, my deapest respect to terri’s family and other loved ones.

all I want to say about terri’s case is that I think it is a shame that the situation has been blown out of proportion like this. It should have stayed within the family instead of becoming a national issue, and a way for politicians to gain votes. It is still a human life we are talking about here.

By: Andrew H. Clapham

Andrew H. Clapham — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:57:16 +0000

It is amazing that the arguments of the Schiavo case have reached these heights… I would like to address one comment in particular:

posted by Barbara:
I donâ€™t believe living with a feeding tube is natural. If Terry lives without it, then it truly is Godâ€™s will.

Truly, you must live in a shell. There are thousands of people who require feeding tubes– there are also millions of others on specific medications that correct medical deficiencies and abnormalities. If we all placed faith in God under your terms, well, a lot of people are going to die. The advances in medicine allow all of us to live beyond what those diagnosed with similar ailments could 20, 50, 100 years ago.

But that alone digresses from the real issue– and that is that this is NOT a ‘right-to-die’ battle but a question of ownership.

There is a human life at stake. This is a human life that is wanted and cherished by her family. This is not someone who has been comatose for 15 years and has not ever opened her eyes– vegetative state or not.

The courts have (correctly in terms of the law) defended Michael’s case that he holds Terry’s fate in his hands.

These are the same courts that require a jury to find ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ when trying murder cases. Here, we have word of mouth from Michael that Terry would not have wanted to live this way. That’s it.
What other case has relied soley on word of mouth?

In the end, I am still questioning the polls out there which suggest a majority support for Michael. It seems contradictory. I do know this: no self-respecting parent would ever side with Michael. Imagine that it were your son or daughter lying in terry’s stead. Now imagine that you are willing to commit yourself to your child’s care. Now imagine that your son/daughter in-law has usurped your wishes.

Michael should step aside.

By: Jack Caffey

Jack Caffey — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:32:36 +0000

“The courts have, in my opinion, consistently reviewed this patientâ€™s care and agreed with her husbandâ€™s position. I see no evidence of bias here.” As Andrew McCarthy has noted elsewhere, the court reviews have looked only to determine an abuse of discretion by Judge Greer in his findings — the higher courts have NOT reviewed and weighed again whether Terri is in PVS, whether she has been cared for properly, or any other FACTUAL determination. Judge Greer decided the facts long long ago and that is why no MRI or PET scan or other tests have been required: an appellate review looks only to PROCEDURE and whether all the little pieces of paper got filed on time. The US Congressional bill required a ‘de novo’ review, meaning to go back and look at the FACTS again, but the court decided oddly to intrepret this as looking at only the PROCEDURAL aspects. So no, the courts have not ‘consistently reviewed’ the FACTS, as you assume. Death by bureaucracy.

By: Barbara

Barbara — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:41:31 +0000

What bothers me about the whole situation, are the protestors praying and claiming replacing the feeding tube would be morally correct. If these holy rollers had enough faith in God, they would leave Terry’s fate in His hands. I don’t believe living with a feeding tube is natural. If Terry lives without it, then it truly is God’s will.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:52:50 +0000

I had not been keeping track of the Schiavo case. (While keeping me down to an 80 hour work week preserves my sanity, it does not allow me sufficient web-browsing time).

I am shocked that Congress would make a law specifically pertaining to a single individual! From the vague things I heard, I assumed that they would be writing a universal law pertaining to feeding tubes, or life support for the mentally incompetent. I figured I’d probably disagree with it, but I had no idea they were doing something so morally repugnant.

I’d like to think that all US citizens have “equal protection of the laws.” How dare they they extend more protection to “any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo” than other citizens?

Replace

“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..”

with

and I think my point becomes clearer.

By: John Anderson

John Anderson — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:02:02 +0000

Times: “The Bush administration and the current Congressional leadership like to wax eloquent about statesâ€™ rights. But they dropped those principles in their rush to stampede over the Florida courts and Legislature.”

Uh, the Florida legislature passed a bill to keep the feeding and hydration in place. But it was declared unconstitutional as passed. A corrected version was punted when the Federal legislature showed willing to pass their law. Hardly dropping states’ rights.

By: John Anderson

John Anderson — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:56:15 +0000

TImes “This narrow focus is offensive.”
Maybe, but it is also standard. Every year a number of bills make it through Congress that pertain to a single person. Mostly one-time accolades, sure, but not always.

Keith Sader, look around. At least one person who was diagnosed as in a “persistent vegetative state” and had her feeding tube removed has been in the news – talking about the experience!

But yes, the original case under Judge Greer found no legal basis for transferring guardianship from husband to parent[s]. The appellate decisions repeatedly upheld that by not finding Judge Greer did anything procedurally wrong.

There are a number of strange things in the case, but the matter of removing feeding/hydration seems settled.

Not that it will necessarily end. One blogger pointed out that the famous trust fund was established with wording to the effect it was to be used for treatments (including but not lmited to rehab attempts) – but of the 700+ thousand, 500+ has gone to lawyers defending the position that such treatments should not be done. Do we smell a civil law suit charging malfeasance?

By: Keith Sader

Keith Sader — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:51:04 +0000

What’s amazing in all of the noise, is that no one has bothered to interview any other long-term terminally ill survivor. I’m sure more people have witnessed and gone through these slow deaths than the Schiavo family.

By: RGL

RGL — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:27:41 +0000

I agree with DB. The decision has been rendered, and no matter what our positions are on this isuue, we need to heed the judgement of the court.

The editorials of the NY Times and the Washington Times capture the split in thinking about this issue.

Everybody has been heard, and there are no winners or losers. Which means let’s leave politics aside and just be thankful we live in a country where we can passionately debate matters of this magnitude and disagree with one another. It’s a triumph of the rule of law.