From the Village Voice:
And keep in mind from the Ralph Nader-Wesley Smith report: “The courts . . . have [also] ordered that no attempts be made to provide her water or food by mouth. Terri swallows her own saliva. Spoon feeding is not medical treatment. This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, they have ordered her to be made dead.”

You sound the death toll for liberalism.  There was a time when being liberal meant upholding the value of the individual - particularly the individual with no voice.  Liberal politics is what provided for elder care, disability treatments, assistance to the poor, health care, gender equality, etc. 

Now liberalism is death by starvation and dehydration to the disabled.  And now it is reduced to sick humor.

This site breaks my once proud liberal heart.  Count me a very sad, disillusioned and old liberal.

Oh please. You seem to forget that the courts have accepted the argument that Terri made her wishes clear to her husband that she would not want to be kept alive artificially. It was her individual desire expressed to the person who would be responsible for her care should the worst happen, which it did. I only hope that if I ever found myself in such a position that my wife would have the courage to fight for so long on my behalf as she would know best what I would want.

The argument on whether Terri was merely disabled or truly vegetative should be answered in a few days time when the results of the autopsy are revealed, but the courts seem to feel that they were presented with enough evidence backing the claim to honor her wishes.

What I want to know is why are you just now raising the hue and cry over letting people die via this method when it’s been in common practice for decades and was no big secret? What makes Terri Schiavo’s case so different that suddenly you’re appalled to find out that people are allowed to die of dehydration? Where were you when all those other people who died via this route were laying on their deathbeds? I agree it’s not the best way to go, but it’s legal as opposed to the right to choose to be euthanized.

1. Terri Schiavo became disabled and unable to speak for herself.
2. Terri Schiavo never received consistent, normal treatment and therapy available to disabled individuals even though she was awarded sufficient funds.
3. Terri Schiavo was sentenced to death on hearsay evidence litigated by her spouse with obvious conflicting interests and supported by the ACLU.
4. Terri Schiavo had no legal voice in the court.
5. Terri Schiavo was court ordered to have food and water delivered by feeding tube. The court ordered and therefore made it law that no attempt be made to offer food or water by mouth. She was, in effect, sentenced to dependence on a feeding tube.
6. Terri Schiavo had no appeals process for the death sentence.
7. Terri Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death.

Which part of this speaks to you as fair and just treatment of the disabled? Which part of that do accept for yourself, your child, your parent or your fellow man, as fair and just?

“I agree it’s not the best way to go, but it’s legal...”
Legality determines the rightness of the course?  The fact that it is now legal to litigate the death by starvation of an individual using hearsay evidence with no appeal and no legal representation on the part of the individual is contrary to liberal ideology.

Starvation and dehydration of an individual is inhumane - period.  A jail sentence awaits those who would starve and animal.  It is ok to do it to a human - who is non terminal, simply disabled - because they are less than human.  They are less than animal, I suppose.

“Right to die” has revolved around the terminally ill.  It addressed the use of medicine and treatment to humanely allow a terminal person to pass and not prolong suffering due to death which was imminent anyway.

Sorry, Kristen, but you’re just an idiot.  Your point numbers 2 and 3 pretty much bear that out.

Kristen is just very ill-informed.

1. Terri Schiavo became disabled and unable to speak for herself.

Duh.  Yes.

2. Terri Schiavo never received consistent, normal treatment and therapy available to disabled individuals even though she was awarded sufficient funds.

Bullshit.  She received extensive therapy, her husband even became a therapist so that he could help with her therapy, and she even had experimental therapy in California that didn’t work.

3. Terri Schiavo was sentenced to death on hearsay evidence litigated by her spouse with obvious conflicting interests and supported by the ACLU.
4. Terri Schiavo had no legal voice in the court.

Again, bullshit.  She had a guardian ad litem (look it up if you don’t know what that is) and she was ably and thoroughly represented by BOTH sides of the debate, that of her husband and her parents.  If they couldn’t cover all the bases between them in representing her alleged wishes, then nobody could.

5. Terri Schiavo was court ordered to have food and water delivered by feeding tube. The court ordered and therefore made it law that no attempt be made to offer food or water by mouth. She was, in effect, sentenced to dependence on a feeding tube.

It’s because SHE WOULD HAVE FUCKING CHOKED TO DEATH if they’d tried to feed her by mouth.

6. Terri Schiavo had no appeals process for the death sentence.

It was not a criminal trial.  It was not a punishment.  It was carrying out her wishes as determined by the court. 

7. Terri Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death.

Yes, she was.  Just as many people do to themselves by refusing food and water when they want to die and nobody will help them any other way.

Please read this page and inform yourself of the FACTS.  Please read the court documents and stop this hysterical hand-wringing.

Which part of this speaks to you as fair and just treatment of the disabled? Which part of that do accept for yourself, your child, your parent or your fellow man, as fair and just?

Which part of this do you not understand that THIS IS WHAT SHE WANTED?  How can you ignore the wishes of the disabled this way and their right not to be second-guessed?

I will fight for the right of my children, my parents and my fellow men and women to DETERMINE HOW THEY ARE TO LIVE AND DIE. 

Stop treating the disabled as idiots and children who don’t know their own minds and have to be protected from themselves.

“Conflict of Interest”
---------------------
Given that the husband could divorce Terri PLUS the two attempted bribes of $1million and $10 million for the husband to give up his legal rights and the fact that there is no money left in the original malpractice fund showed that he pretty much does not have any conflicting interests.

On the other the parents who claimed that even if their daughter expressly stated that she wants to die they would not have allowed it shows that the conflict of interest is on their side.

Right to Choose
---------------
The right for Terri to chose whether to live on or not is a fundamental aspect of the right to life, the right to be able to have one’s wishes respected. To prevent her from doing so would in effect rob her of her fundamental rights and invade the sanctity of her body by treating her as nothing more than property.

The Polls
---------
Is it just me or do you realise that almost every politician backed off on this issue the moment the polls came out to show that the majority of Americans are against the position of the Parents?

I had a lengthy and well cited response to Kristen’s reply that just got eaten by Adobe Reader locking up my browser right about the time I was thinking I should move it over to wordpad. Dammit. GeekMom hit most of the points I was making, but I was going into greater detail on them. Suffice it to say that Kristen needs to read up a bit more on the facts of the case and less on what the pro-lifers are claiming about it.

We do not agree on the facts. You find the court record as listed in Abstract Appeal to be sufficient. If you have ever been through the legal system, you know that what is and is not accepted as court record is of paramount importance and subject to judicial discretion.

The scope of the court record is small in relation to documentation available. Every hearing was held in the same district court, with the same judge, with the same court record - 17 times. Appeal was only on intervention of the executive and legislative branches. Even then, the appeal was based on the same court record.

Would you like those odds if your life wishes will be determined by a court case? Would you like your life wishes to be represented by an individual with an obvious conflict of interest?

This is reprehensible when there is a question - and there is a question in this case - as to a person’s wishes regarding their life or death.

Incidentally, Terri Schiavo- who was not terminally ill was housed in a hospice, contrary to hospice policy and purpose, for the years of litigation for death. A hospice is not equipped for nor is its purpose treatment and therapy for the disabled. As a disabled person, she was entitled to be in a facility purposed to caring for individuals in her condition.

Lastly, starvation and dehydration as a means of incurring death are inhumane - to any living breathing human being - regardless of perceived level of consciousness.

Those who cannot speak for themselves deserve a voice that is free of conflicting interests and a full review of evidence and findings when sentenced to death. Further, the disabled are never never appropriately housed in a hospice. Lastly, starvation and dehydration as a means of incurring death is inhumane. That is my fundamental issue.

The scope of the court record is small in relation to documentation available. Every hearing was held in the same district court, with the same judge, with the same court record - 17 times. Appeal was only on intervention of the executive and legislative branches. Even then, the appeal was based on the same court record.

Again I say, Kristen, you are an idiot.  Appeals are based on the same court record as new issues cannot be brought up on appeal.  I’ve not been through the court system - I’ve worked in it for 20 years.  Get your fuckin’ facts straight.

The Polls

I found the polls representative of the hijacking of the fundamental issue of Terri Schiavo’s case.  All of the poll questions assumed a firm knowledge of Terri Schiavo’s wishes.  Her wishes, despite the court rulings, are what is disputed.  The process by which her wishes were determined is fallible and suspect.

Her death by starvation and dehydration was cruel and ugly and romanticized by the media.  It is, by all standards and cruel way of incurring death.  Somehow, the media finds that Mrs. Schiavo is “not all there” and therefore death by dehydration and starvation is acceptable - desirable, even.

Terri did speak for herself back when her brain was still functioning and she made it known to her husband and 4 others that she did not wish to be artificially kept alive in such a fashion..
Fundies deny this to push their own agenda.

Terri was WAY past “disabled” she had no Cerebral Cortex, her EEG was dead flat, she felt no pain, she could barely see if at all, she could barely hear if at all, she could not speak, not eat, could do absolutely nothing whatsoever and had absolutely ZERO chance for recovery as the Brain does not regenerate like a lizards tail.
Again Fundies deny this irrefutable FACT to push their own lunacy.

While starving/dehydrating a normally functioning person can result in some discomfort, (though usually not since the bodies own pain management releases endorphins to combat this) that was not the case with Terri Schiavo as being without a functioning cortex left her without pain or any knowledge of what is happening around her, therefore your “Fundamental Issue” is moot.

“as the Brain does not regenerate like a lizards tail.”
One of many of your assertions that contain disputable facts.

Terri Schiavo was a living, breathing, human being.  As such, the level of disability does not make moot the cruelty of starvation and dehydration as an avenue of death.  It also does not moot the fundamental question of her wishes.

You appear to be of the “no perceptable use” school of human worth.

No I appear to be of the “she has no Cerebral Cortex thus ZERO chance for recovery” school.

This is irrefutable fact.

The CAT scan is painfully clear as im 100% certain so will the autopsy of this fact.

She died 15 years ago, it was macabre to keep her in the PVS like that once all medical possibilities were exhausted.
Michael Schiavo did just that, WAY more than anyone Iv personally ever seen actually.

Although I must admit I am increasingly feeling that Fundamentalist Christians fall right into the “no perceptable use� school of human worth.
They keep proving it over & over.

Kristen:

I have no dog in this fight.  With respect to the trial itself, I have not reviewed the trial transcripts and hold no opinion regarding the soundness of the initial decision.  I find it compelling though that through the countless appeals, the court was never reversed.

As to this:

If you have ever been through the legal system, you know that what is and is not accepted as court record is of paramount importance and subject to judicial discretion.

this is incorrect.  Furthermore, your mischaracterization leads to the inference that the trial judge was biased. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, because on a gut level I wished Michael would have let Terri’s parents care for her.  Giving you the benefit of the doubt, at best I can say you are ill informed about how a trial record is compiled.

The record made at trial is not open to any judicial discretion at all.  I repeat, there is no judicial discretion with respect to the trial record. Whatever happened at the trial was recorded, and transcribed verbatim.  That is the record.  No judge gets to mess with that. Any attempt by a judge to modify a trial record after the fact, other than to correct a clerical mistake, and even that would require consent of all the parties involved, would likely result in the judge being stripped of his official duties and being disbarred. This is not a grey area at all.  It is as black and white as we can get.

If there was evidence that should have been a part of the record, it needed to be introduced at the trial.  Failure to introduce such evidence would be grounds for malpractice.  Given everything I’ve read about the lawyers working on behalf of Terri’s mother and father, they were and are very capable attorneys.

We have a fundamental right to die.  A trial was had in front of an independent fact finder, the judge.  The judge, after hearing all the evidence presented to him by capable attorneys, issued a ruling.  That ruling has been appealed numerous times.

I fail to see how Terri was denied any due process at all.  If you believe that the law should be that if there is no written expression of a person’s desire to end life support that the individual waives that right, go to it and work to change the law in Florida and if necessary your state.  However, I find it objectionable that you are attempting to erode confidence in the legal system after the fact with misinformation.

Kristen keeps mentioning about this “conflict of interest” which is simply not there except on the side of her parents.

If one is truly concern about the means in which she dies, which I too agree I am concerned about. And if as Kristen says the means of death is a truly a “fundamental issue” then the solution is to change the law to allow active euthanasia, such as an injection to make death immediate.

By the way, Mr Jenkins, there seems to be some problem with the word one has to type before a post. Many times, it just is not there. Even if I place my cursor over it, and right click it does not even recognise there is a picture.

The post made by one “Consigliere” above that “We have a fundamental right to die” does not seem right to me as a statement of fact since I believe suicide in certain countries is still a crime. Furthermore, even if suicide is not a crime, many laws prevent a person from assisting another in killing themselves.

This leads to the interesting constitution issue on equality. If a fully abled person is able to kill himself then preventing a disabled person from getting assistance in killing himself means that the law fundamentally discriminates between abled body person and one who is diabled and unable to kill himself.

So perhaps it is more accurate to say that one has to right to reject any form of treatment while they are conscious or provide sufficient evidence to tell one’s guardian to reject such a treatment.

Meowy:

You are correct.  The right to die is not a blanket right.  The Court has found a right to refuse medical treatment, even if it will result in death.  In contrast, the Court has struck down laws allowing assisted suicide.

The first Guardian ad Litem recommended the court not approve Schiavo’s petition and is dismissed 6 months later.

The second guardian ad litem appointed (only after intervention from Governor Bush) The GAL should be permitted and authorized to move forward with a plan,
designed to gain the data regarding swallowing tests/therapy and neurological
capacity in a manner consistent with items 3 and 4, above, with and through the
advice and input of the parties’ counsels and the Court.

No Guaridan Ad Litem found the removal of the tube pursuant to Terri Schiavo’s wishes or interest.  The court chose to ignore and dismiss the guardian ad litems both times.

Again, I state, Terri Schiavo’s wishes were not represented.

Although I must admit I am increasingly feeling that Fundamentalist Christians fall right into the “no perceptable use� school of human worth.
They keep proving it over & over.

Exactly as I suspected.  You people are frightening.  The issue for you has nothing to do with a person’s right to die.  It’s just your right to hate Christians.

Terri Schiavo’s biggest mistake was having her cause first taken up by the Christian right.  Then the liberal left immediately assumed she must die.  Anything to be anti Christian.  You are a media sheep with no real liberal values.

This case was defined by the media as a “right to die” issue.  This is a euthanasia case of the disabled.  In tandem with your ideology, the useless woman is no longer with us.

Anybody else think Kristen is missing the point?

Firt, Terri Schiavo did not make a mistake.  “Her” supporters and parents, who were overwhelmingly obviously and loudly religious types, made the mistake of turning this into an undignified and baseless media free-for-all.  They were in it for their own political gain.  Terri had nothing to do with it other than being an unwilling body.

Sounds to me like you are the “media sheep” (whatever the hell that is).  Not everybody that has a dissenting opinion is doing it just to be “anti-Christian” as you so hysterically point out.  Have you ever noticed that these “christians” are very vocally anti-everything-but them?

Grow a brain.

Grow a brain

Wait!  I thought that was impossible!!! 

(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

Grow a brain.

In this case, it’s ironic that the people who apparently think this is possible have consistently failed to do so themselves.

DOF:  I was expecting somebody to snag the irony of that one.  Thank you.

Ulfrekr:  Maybe these people with no brains are afraid they’re next.

Terri Schiavo did not make a mistake.  “Herâ€? supporters and parents, who were overwhelmingly obviously and loudly religious types, made the mistake of turning this into an undignified and baseless media free-for-all.  They were in it for their own political gain.  Terri had nothing to do with it other than being an unwilling body.

And you think I missed the point?!! LOL!

Stay in school missy.