As you may or may not know, I'm the only outspoken liberal in a family full of Republicans, which sometimes makes holiday dinners quite interesting. At any rate, two weeks ago my brother-in-law and I were going to Costco to pick up a gigantic play structure for his kids, and, since I know he has a fundamentalist bent, I was curious what he thought about the whole Terry Schiavo issue. He responded that he had no opinion at all, until he saw the video of her the night before on NBC. Now he was certain she should be kept alive. I had not yet seen the videos (I don't watch TV, don't even have cable), so I told him I'd have to hunt them down and see them for myself. I saw them, and then read that they were edited from over six hours of tape.
My forwarding this info onwards to my brother-in-law resulted in a lengthy discussion via email, which I decided to share with you.
Hey Rob,
Hope your day is going well. How's the play structure?
Sorry to send you something political, but I'm fairly sure, given your conservative views, that if you knew the whole Terry Schiavo story, your opinion might be different. Here's the URL of a report written for Governor Jeb Bush stating both sides of the Schiavo case:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf
It's 38 pages, so there's a slightly shorter summary here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/22/194615/400
At any rate, regardless of whether we believe Schiavo should be kept alive or not, we've already seen Congress step in to pass a bill concerning a single person, which is known as a "bill of attainder". Not only does this violate States Rights, it is also in violation of the Constitution-
"''Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties. . . . In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.'' 1701 The phrase ''bill of attainder,'' as used in this clause and in clause 1 of Sec. 10, applies to bills of pains and penalties as well as to the traditional bills of attainder."
This special bill was passed for Terry, and signed by the president- the same president who supports a "culture of Life"- and the same president who enacted a Texas law, used as recently as March 16th, that allows the hospital to pull the plug if the patient will not get better and the family can't afford to pay. It recently made news when a black baby had the life support plug pulled- against the wishes of the parents. Text of bill:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm
By the way, the five minutes of video you saw of Terry were edited from over 6 hours of video tape. The judge who heard the initial case saw all six hours, and concluded that Terry is, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state and cannot respond to external stimuli. In other words, out of all six hours of video, only those five minutes were the ones where Terry appeared to respond to stimulus- all her actions are more than likely involuntary reflexes. Nineteen different doctors who examined Terry agree with this. The only doctors who say she could make a recovery have not been ones who have actually examined her physically.
Sorry this was so long; I hope you have a great day!
-E
I obviously have not had time to read both sides of this situation but after briefly scanning what you sent and not understanding most of it.
Here I go.
Is the argument that it is wrong for congress to get involved when the courts have sentenced a person to death. And that death sentence is simply due the fact that this person is in a different physical state than is our cultural "norm." This woman has not harmed anyone, committed treason and she does not pose any physical threat to others.
The court has inflicted capitol punishment on this woman with no charges even being filed against her.
Why is it then that the courts have determined that she must die? Why is it that no one has raised the question that the courts may have overstepped their bounds in this case? Who's job is it to regulate the court system? What happened to the right to life being a truth that is self evident?
In a society where we cannot build a building because a burrowing owl may have its nest harmed it absolutely disgusts me that we would allow the innocent to die for no reason. This includes the baby that had its life support removed because the parent could afford not pay. (I do understand that many innocent have died due to actions taken by our country. People may not agree that the reason why those people died is valid - but there usually is a reason.)
We as a society have put to much faith in people and systems. I don't
expect to agree with everything Bush does, he is just a man. This
faith is perpetuated by the education system, the media and the government (both republican and democrat.) It is used as an excuse to not have to care about your neighbor. It allows me to live my life without doing anything that might involve self sacrifice that does not involve gain for myself.
That is the essence of this entire case to me. A person like Terry is a burden to us. There is no gain to be had by anyone that takes care of her. In the end if she does not survive all the hours they spent caring for her and fighting for her will be rewarded with heartache and sorrow.
This is happens if the courts sentence her to death or she dies from old age. I don't think the people that are looking at this case really care about the quality of life of the afflicted. They are more concerned with their own quality of life if they have to care for the afflicted.
What do you believe? Do you think she is not human so she should be allowed to die? Would you be willing to spend 4 hours a week watching her, feeding her and changing her? Look deep inside yourself and decide if you would want to die if you were in her situation. What if she is fully aware and just has no way of communicating with us. Is just being around those you love and love you a good enough reason wanting to live?
Is just being alive a good enough reason for wanting to live?
I don't know anyone who is wise enough to make these decisions for themselves without having experienced the situation. I definitely don't know anyone who can make it for someone else.
BTW the play structure is complete and my entire body is sore.
Rob
Rob,
Thank you for the well thought out reply. I'll respond (on my break here) with a counter-argument that will be (hopefully) easier to read on scanning.
This argument is mis-framed. It's not a capitol punishment case, and in no way should be treated like one. It is a custody battle.
Terry, when alive, expressed to her husband and her friends her desire to not be left on life support if she was in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Her husband and her family both stayed by her side until it was completely clear that she would never recover. At this point, her husband decided that, in accordance with her wishes, the feeding tube should be removed.
Her parents, on the other hand, have stated that regardless of Terry's wishes and physical/mental state, they will keep her alive as long as possible, no matter what the cost. Sadly, since Terry left no living will, the conflicting desires between the two parties started this whole legal battle.
Michael Schiavo loves his wife, as is evidenced in the GAL report (the one written for Jeb Bush); he believes he is carrying out her wishes by removing the feeding tube. If he simply wanted to be rid of her, he could have easily given full custody to her parents. He doesn't- he wants to carry out her wishes, though her parents don't respect those wishes. The judges have, over multiple years and trials, found that Michael, as a competent caregiver and guardian, has the right to carry out her wishes. Terry's parents, true to their word, are trying to keep her alive no matter what the cost.
Who is right? I don't know. I do believe that Michael is acting upon what he believes to be Terry's wishes, and truly has her best interests at heart. He feels she would not want to be kept alive in the state in which she is in. The courts have also decided in Michael's favor, multiple times, upon examining all the evidence. Who is right? I don't know, but the laws and the courts have decided that it is Michael's right to make this decision.
Glad to hear the play structure is up- are the kids enjoying it yet? I'm sure I'll see it soon.
-E
I have a problem understanding a person that claims to love his wife and has children with another woman. The wedding vows are in sickness and in health. Here is a man who cannot abide by his marital vows and we are supposed believe he really loves his wife.
How does he love her so much and find the time to meet another woman and have babies when she requires 24 hour around the clock care. He loves her so much he just left her to rot in a health care facility while he went on with his life. We obviously have different definitions of what love is.
When the courts determine that the only life line a person has is to be removed it is capitol punishment. This is not a simple custody battle, the courts are defining life. The DA can't even determine the value of my motorcycle with a blue book value print out in front of them.
For those of us that believe in a soul there is no way for science or courts to determine what life really is. I believe that I am more than a simple set of chemical reactions set into motion when a ball of gas exploded.
Once again - What do you believe?
This man and this case walk like a duck and quack like a duck - why can't you see that? My only information on this case is from NBC news and what you sent me and I am capable seeing this.
Rob
Rob,
One last email on this, and then I will drop it until you've had the time to read the official report made to Governor Bush in the .pdf file: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf
I'll just quote from the PDF, because it does relate to the issue you brought up concerning making life easier for those involved. It's from page 23:
"If persons unable to speak for themselves have decisions made on their behalf by guardians or family members, the potential for abuse, barring clear protections, could lead to a "slippery slope" of actions to terminate the lives of disabled and incompetent persons. And it is not difficult to imagine bad decisions being made in order to make life easier for a family or to avoid spending funds remaining in the estate on the maintenance of a person.
There is, of course, the other side of that slippery slope, which would be to keep people in a situation they would never dream of: unable to die, unable to communicate, dependent for everything, and unaware, being maintained principally or entirely through state resources - and for reasons that may relate to guilt, fear, needs or wants of family members, rather than what the person's best wishes might otherwise have been."
In Schiavo's case, the court, with all evidence available to it, must decide who is best suited to determine Terry's fate, and must take into account both of the scenarios listed above. "The Court" is a legal entity, but individual judges are people, as callous or compassionate as you or I. Terry's case was never heard before a jury; at least five separate individuals, with no bias towards one party or the other, heard all available evidence and carefully considered it, and determined it to be in Terry's best interests to have Michael continue to be her guardian and make legal decisions.
Terry's parents -encouraged- Michael to start dating again, after spending three years by Terry's side. Please, just read the PDF. Put aside any pre-conceived notions about both Michael Schiavo and Terry's parents until you do.
And, as for your question- if I were in a persistent vegetative state, with no hope of recovery, I would want my loved ones to get on with their lives, and to let my soul return to God's embrace.
At the very least, this whole case will impress upon us all the importance of writing a living will (like Mom and Dad have done.)
-E
Your argument has gone from what is legal and Bush is a hypocrite to he really loves his wife and is just doing what is best back to what is legal with a little religious compassion thrown in.
My question of what do you believe was not what do you want for your self. My question is what do you believe, as believe in. Do believe in the courts? Do you believe in the government? Do you believe in the media? Do you believe in yourself? Do you believe that the masses are always right? Where does your belief system come from? Is it timeless or will it change when we become more enlightened as a society?
You can pull the plug on me if my lungs and heart do not work but do not let me starve to death, I don't care how bad off I am. Don't ever give up on me and don't ever stop trying to rehabilitate me. I am here for a reason and even in a vegetative state that purpose will be done.
Did B__ buy your company? I heard he was after it.
Rob
OK so I read the info.
The house voted for the bill 203 - 58 and the senate passed with a voice vote. If Bush would have used his power of Veto he would have been overridden thus being a stupid move. This was obviously a bipartisan vote and he was following the will of those elected to represent the people. Has bush even used the power of the veto yet?
In reading the story I get that Michael initiated a malpractice case in 1993 and before the case was over he had introduced a new woman to the family. To me this means he had been dating for awhile. As you are aware meeting a woman is not easy and it takes alot of time to develop a relationship and be comfortable enough to introduce her to the family of his not yet deceased wife. How many other women had he met and courted prior to introducing this one to the family.
The document says he tried very hard to get her rehabilitated. Yet three years after she dropped he was able to have an established relationship with another woman. My question is how was he looking out for her best interest at the same time he was looking after his own romantic interests.
Why did he stop her therapy? I would cling on to the hope that someday there would be progress. This guy wants to move on with his life and he needs her dead to do it.
This document determines that we must put faith in the process regardless of what the outcome may be. This is very problematic as every process has flaws and does not take into account individual needs.
Rob
Rob,
Thank you for at least reading the information. I agree that the report doesn't offer a definitive answer as to what action would be best for Terry. It does, however, help to cut through some of the misconceptions which people have over this case.
I respect that you, personally, would cling on to hope as long as you were alive. Some people aren't as strong as that.
As for the house and senate vote, leaving the president's actions out of the equation, the fact remains that the bill itself, as brought up by the House, is entirely unconstitutional. The Federal government is not allowed to step in and make laws concerning individuals; this is written in to the constitution.
Sometimes faith must be put into the process. People can be stubborn, but when nineteen separate judges, each examining all available evidence, reach the same conclusion, one has to realize that either those nineteen judges are wrong, or the two parents are. How many appeals is too many? How many appeals should taxpayers pay for, when each appeal has the same result? If we have nineteen appeals for Terry Schiavo, should we have nineteen appeals for every death row inmate? After all, maybe they were falsely convicted (and I admit that false convictions have happened.) Who should we fight for? The baby who's plug was pulled in Texas had only ten days for appeals; Terry Schiavo has had fifteen years. Is there a difference between them? Should every person be kept alive in this situation, just in case? Even if they may be in horrible pain every moment for the rest of their lives?
I don't have the answers. No one has all the answers. There may be no absolute answers- the right answer could be a different answer for each individual involved. All I know is that Florida state law has determined that Michael Schiavo has the legal authority to pull Terry's feeding tube. Nineteen judges have independently confirmed this. Is it enough? My answer- I think it is. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
-E
So I guess your answer is that you believe in the rule of law and the opinions of judges?
As to who we should fight for we should fight for the baby, we should do everything possible to ensure a death row inmate is guilty. I can not allow someone to die based on the fact that they might be in horrible pain. Life is the most precious gift we have and life with pain is better than no life at all. Christopher Reeve's wife directly disobeyed his wishes in keeping him alive. He was later very thankful that she did for even though his life was significantly impacted he realized that living was worth it.
We are in an era where judges have been dictating legislation from the bench and creating a public moral code. The judicial system whose job is simply to interpret existing laws has completely overstepped its bounds in several cases. The Florida courts were in the spot light not to long ago when the Supreme Court had to slap them down for violating Florida state election law. Normally the supreme court would refuse that type of a case but the judges in Florida were so far out of line there was no other option.
It is time for the judicial system in this country to be reformed. It is broken and it does not protect the average citizen as it should - including those on death row. The judicial system in now politicized and has an agenda and it is apparent in most rulings.
A simple example of this is the standard constitutional code that the court system has convinced you of. I challenge you to find where in the constitution it demands that there be a separation of church and state.
Every body agrees that it exists and it is used in court rulings on a regular bases but I have never found it nor met any one that has.
Rob
Rob,
Here is our wall of separation between Church and State:
"Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The words "wall of separation between Church and State" do not appear in the constitution (they are used in a letter from Thomas Jefferson relating to the first amendment), but the concept is implicitly written into the First Amendment.
Last I checked, America did not have an official state religion. If we start passing laws to establish morality, then whose morality are we to go by? Protestant Christian morality? Catholic morality? Muslim morality? Jewish morality? Buddhist morality? To establish a law supporting the morality of one religion would imply the exclusion of all other religions. Wasn't one of the reasons the first settlers came to America was so that they could practice their religion freely, since it was not England's state religion?
Should we establish a State Religion? What would you do if it was Judaism, and you could no longer eat shellfish, and had to follow kosher?
The law is based on the commonly shared tenants of all religions, and the principle of social morality. All the religions I mentioned above have a religious taboo against murder, and all modern societies also have a taboo against murder, therefore it is ethically permissible (and fully in line with the rights set forth in the Constitution) to pass a law prohibiting murder. When you start legally mandating kosher laws, however, you're treading on dangerous ground. I don't know about you, but I like to enjoy a ham sandwich every so often.
-E
I didn't mean to imply that we should establish a state religion. I was simply pointing out that judges often use the terminology that there is a separation of church and state when making rulings.
The truth is that there can never be a separation of church and state because the state is made up of ordinary people. Every person has their own sense of morality and ethics. All people derive that from their religion. Atheist who claim not to believe in a god still must believe in something that has either existed forever or created itself from nothingness. When people elect their leadership they are electing a person that brings with them the sensibilities established by their religion.
We have many laws that establish morality. We have laws for prostitution, drug use, public decency, gun ownership, environment use and we even have laws dictating what showerheads and toilets we can use.
So who determines what the principal of social morality is? Shouldn't it be the people that the have been chosen to represent us. O maybe even the will of the people themselves when voting for rules and regulations in the voting booth. I don't think it is the courts place to determine what is socially morally or acceptable.
Rob
Fair enough, Rob. You're right on much of this. I'll keep my response short and only bring up two things. As far as the Schiavo case, probably the best point I've heard all day is this: it's not about Michael and his personal life. It's not about the Schindlers (Terry's parents), and it's not about whether you or I would want the plug pulled if we were in Terry's situation. It's about Terry, and what she would have wanted had she known she would be in this condition.
And the last point I bring up is a quote by Thomas Jefferson:
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
Hope you had a good day, happy Friday to you, and have a great Easter weekend!
-E
That is the only thing that can be argued in this case. The only problem is that we might find certain levels of existence acceptable once we are in a situation. It would suck to change your mind one way or the other and not be able to communicate it.
My biggest problem with this case is that a plug wasn't pulled. They allowed her to starve to death. We are a nation of barbarians to accept this. If the system agrees that this person is to die we should make it quick. Instead we are a nation of wussies that will condemn a person to death, but by letting them starve we will absolve ourselves of the responsibility. We convince ourselves that nature must have intended it because they did not get out of bed and go to 7-11 for a hot dog and a Slurpee.
So because this is a great deal of fun for me to let my brain go for a jog once in awhile. And in e-mail I never have to listed to someone get mad lets go back to the first e-mail.
Why wasn't the person that gave Jeb - yes we are now on a first name basis, he calls me crash - that report fired. If I were an executive - the governor is the executive branch of the state - I would expect a report with three sections. Section 1 facts. Section 2 arguments for one side. Section 3 arguments for the other. A fourth section could be added for the writer to give me a recommendation.
With the small amount of factual evidence provided in the report it could have been written to express a completely different view. It is typical of most news reporting today. When did editorializing become considered reporting?
Rob
Rob,
Sure- I'm up for some more political bantering. As far as your first point, I totally agree with you; it's cruel that the only option left for Terri is having her feeding tube removed. In Oregon, for example, she could have been prescribed a lethal dose of barbiturates.
Side note: I actually read a first hand account from someone who's grandmother, in constant physical pain from pulmonary fibrosis, decided she couldn't live like that much longer. They had a "living wake", and all the extended family members, in full support of her decision, gathered around with her to swap stories and eat cake. She left them all some parting words of wisdom, and joked around (quote from the story- 'The best moment, as always, was hers. "I don't suppose I could convince one of you to come with me," she said. "Take Danny," my aunt replied, "he's the oldest."') Then she took the pills and the family waited by her side as she drifted off, dying peacefully among loved ones, rather than "pathetic[ly] clawing for a few more moments." If you'd like to read it as well, it's located here:
http://www.poe-news.com/forums/sp.php?si=31&fi=000046204&ti=1000876563&pi=1000876563
As far as the GAL report- he did report on exactly the questions which Jeb asked him to investigate, and his editorializing was specifically requested:
"...make a report and recommendations to the Governor as to whether the Governor should lift the stay that he previously entered. The report will specifically address the feasibility and value of swallow tests for this ward and the feasibility and value of swallow therapy. Additionally, the report will include a thorough summary of everything that has taken place in the trial court and the appellate court concerning this case."
His answers are iterated at the beginning, and the end of the report (see page 32), and he requests that his duty as Guardian Ad Litem be renewed until the case is closed. Jeb didn't give him any further orders on how to arrange his report; I assume that you, in that position, would have requested the specific format desired. I guess since Jeb didn't really agree with his recommendations, and didn't retain him as Terri's Guardian Ad Litem, he was, in a sense, fired after all.
So, do you think Jeb's recent activities on the Schiavo case might be somewhat politically dangerous, especially if he intends to be re-elected as Florida's Governor? My hunch is that he's not made many friends, at least among the elderly, many of whom are struggling with the possibility of facing a situation like Terri's in the not-so-distant future.
I hope your Easter holiday went well; I hear you spent it with the family in Bakersfield. I spent Saturday and Sunday with Michele and her parents; her sister, brother-in-law, and their three kids joined us on Sunday to hunt Easter eggs and celebrate the youngest nephew's birthday- he turns two on the thirtieth. I like Michele's family, they're laid back and casual (and I can discuss politics with them without getting my head bitten off, since we're all a bunch of stinkin' liburals.) Well, have a great day, and talk to you later!
-E
Whether I agree or disagree with a point of view I always respect someone putting themselves in danger in order to stand for what they believe. Both of the Bush brothers took a huge approval hit because of there views in this case. And to my surprise they never changed position. They both just gave up before they seriously broke the law.
Neither of them offered an explanation of what they did, an apology or a statement that they acted with disinformation. In the long run the people will respect that and the short term approval rating will not be remembered.
You only get your head bitten off because you try to draw people into political debate with passive aggressive statements when they are mostly interested in talking about fishing. If you are not aware of what you are doing I can point it out in the future. (Fishing is just another green beer analogy - it doesn't have to be fishing it could be sports, kids, engines, painting a room, a good wine, hitting your head on a concrete overhang, running your new bike into a hillside, any type of common interest.)
Rob
Good morning Rob,
As far as acting with disinformation- if I recall, early in his presidency, JFK did issue an apology and took full responsibility for some actions taken by his administration. Rather than being political suicide, it made him even more popular.
I'm wondering if you'd be willing to give me permission to post our discussion on a blog site I occasionally write on. I think we've both brought up arguments that are valuable (or at least interesting) to share. I'll edit out the personal info, of course, and give you the link to read it for yourself (or send it over before posting it, if you like.) I quite understand if you'd prefer to decline.
Just to show you what sort of thing gets posted, here's another article I put up on the site (It's in opposition to gun control, actually. Sorry if it's a bit left-wing on some points.) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/11/194/79808
-E
Feel free to Blog away. Make sure my e-mail address is not included. I don't mind the banter with someone I respect but I don't need every internet fool in the world telling me how the really feel.
Rob