You are absolutely right.
This story has taken a religious twist and you can see complete strangers protesting, reading the bible, crying, making sure their judment gets across….like a big advertizing show…for their political and religious reasons. Where’s the compassion for the husband. I also feel for the woman’s family but they don’t seem to realise that she is completely broken, or maybe they have been brainwashed by the media, politicians and an army of lawyers.

The only thing I am not sure is why they would just stop feeding her. I find this a little violent. There must be a smoother way to end her “life”.

Even Michael Jackson’s case is taking a religious turn.

The Schiavo thing is really something I just don’t get…I really think the federal govt. has no place in this issue…but part of me wonders why the husband refuses to let the Dr.‘s do a PET scan or an MRI…which would be conclusive on the extent of the brain damage…

Sorry, this is off topic but every time I see King George II…I think of this little poem that an English Prof encouraged us to memorize…

George the First was always reckoned
Vile, but viler still George the Second;
And what mortal ever heard
Any good of George the Third?
When from earth the fourth descended
God be praised, the Georges ended!

I’m sure you have noticed this.  Every time George goes into his stupid mode and finds that governing the nation is “hard”, he shifts the issues to matter of personal choice, emotional issues, nipples, and his Right Wing responds magnificently with some Bible quotations, weepy rhetoric until the distraction has its effect and George can go back to his ranch again.
BlueEyedBanshee: thanks for the poem. It hits the spot!

Well, it did surprise me to hear that the law SPECIFICALLY states that ‘any parent of Terri Schiavo’ has a right to sue…

Only makes the narrow, heavy-handed way this is handled more apparent.

Though BlueEyedBanshee, I felt the same unease about her husband. Either he is a very fishy person or he knows absolutely for sure that she would not want to live that way. Otherwise it seems pretty cruel (if only to her parents) to not accede to their request to let them care for her.

As it is, the NYTimes is pretty much right. States laaw and simple dignity got pretty much stamped into the dust these days.

The cynical part of me wonders what case would hurt the Republicans more: if she dies before they manage to reinsert the tube, or if she is forced to survive.

And on a final note: her husband and judge Greer will need bodyguards for the next few decades…

The Senate voice vote is what caught my attention.  According to Wikipedia:

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.

Our government at work.

Your tuned into “The Weakness of Democracy in Action.“  Up next is Anarchy.  Until then enjoy the show.

I’ve been following this story for a while. The recent intervention by Congress and King George just sicken me. This is a personal matter that should have been handled with the family members, the husband, and their legal representatives. The government has no right to take matters into their own hands.
As for it taking a religious twist, it’s not all that surprising. Bush seems to be able to turn anything he wants into a religious issue. What is surprising is that the judge ruled in favor of the husband. We’ll have to see how the appeal plays out.

I had a pretty long response to the Schiavo situation worked out and lost it when I went to post.

So I’ll just say, where’s our confidence in our government? Maybe this is their way of letting us know that socialized medicine is on the way. Those rascals are just getting us worked up for the entertainment value before - SURPRISE, we got you free health care! Now don’t you feel guilty?

“Yes, I do US Government, yes I do, you playful nuts!“

People here keep saying Bush is turning this into a religious issue, but in the linked article all Bush says is that its a complex issue that federal courts should be allowed to examine more closely.

Any actual evidence of Bush turning this into a religious issue, or do we have another case of atheists talking out of their asses here?

What most people dont know that are just begining to notice this case (it’s been in Florida news for years) is that there have been tests done.  EEG showed no brain activity.  CT scan showed that her cerebral cortex has atrophied and most or all of it is just gone.  Fluid fills the space where what makes us human used to be.  All this is in the public court documents and most have been posted somewhere or other on line.  The parents want to try hyperbaric oxygen therapy and a bunch of other quack stuff and have a bunch of quack docs who have never examined her sign statements that their quack therapies might work.  You can’t regrow someones cortex. 

I guess at some point her husband said enough is enough.  Apparently he stands to gain nothing by her death, although it is often implied there is some “inheretance” to be gained. 

There are such ironies in this case.  The first that strikes me is that the Right has been harping for months about the sanctity of the marriage bond between a man and a woman, but here they are interfering in that marriage bond because this husband is doing something they don’t agree with.

They talk about cutting medicaid? Guess what pays for Terri’s care? A combination of Medicaid and the settlement from a medical malpractice lawsuit (which is almost gone). If the Republicans have their way, you could become incapacitated, not be able to sue a doctor for malpractice and not have medicaid to pay for your care, but be FORCED to be kept alive…Exactly how would care be paid for?

What about the republican motto of people being able to live their lives without government interference? At this point both the state and FEDERAL governments have passed legislation specifically and only related to the existence of ONE WOMAN.

These people supposedly believe in a God who has prepared a paradise for them. Why are they so afraid to let her go there? Why is it preferable to let this woman’s soul be trapped in a body with the approximate developement of a gold fish for endless years rather than let her peacefully pass on to her God and “Heaven”. 

Got Living Wills?  Hopefully they will be enough, although I have to question whether my right to refuse care, even when my wishes are expressed in writing, will at some point be overruled by a government that “knows better.“

Yeah, another example of States’ Rights being trampled into the dust.  Federalism died a swift death under this administration- there wasn’t even a need to remove the feeding tube for it.

People here keep saying Bush is turning this into a religious issue, but in the linked article all Bush says is that its a complex issue that federal courts should be allowed to examine more closely.

Any actual evidence of Bush turning this into a religious issue, or do we have another case of atheists talking out of their asses here?

Perhaps you’d do well than just look at the one sole article that was linked in this entry, Brian. Here, try the March 21st Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan at the White House webpage for starters. In it McClellan explains Bush’s reasoning for signing the legislation. When pressed on why the legislation is limited to just one person rather than broadened to protect anyone else in similar situations McClellan gave the following response:

I think I addressed that previously Anne, when you brought it up. This is an extraordinary circumstance. And this law was narrowly tailored. It didn’t create any new substantive rights under federal or state law, but it is an extraordinary circumstance. We stand with Terri Schiavo’s parents. We stand with members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, and all those who are on the side of defending life. There are a number of questions that have been raised in this case and the President believes we ought to err on the side of life in this situation.

Furthermore there’s the President’s own statement on the legislation also available which reads:

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Today, I signed into law a bill that will allow Federal courts to hear a claim by or on behalf of Terri Schiavo for violation of her rights relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. This presumption is especially critical for those like Terri Schiavo who live at the mercy of others. I appreciate the bipartisan action by the Members of Congress to pass this bill. I will continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans, including those with disabilities.

Now given that President Bush has made it more than clear that he is Pro-Life and that his position is definitely a result of his religious beliefs and given the various statements about this issue such as the couple cited above, it’s pretty clear that Bush sees this as a Pro-Life issue making his stance on it religiously motivated.

Of course, if you’ve got some other statements the President has made that indicates he’s basing his decision on some other rationale we’d be more than happy to hear them.

Amen, Loris. So eloquently said!  I agree 100%

Thanks, Loris. Good research and excellent questions. One more thought: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.“ U.S. Constitution, Amemdmemt X. Didn’t the members of [strike/]Parliament Congress and the [strike/]KingPresident take an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution? Can they be impeached for breach of that oath?

It sounds like Bush has been pretty careful about not making it directly religious, but his religious base are the ones who are whipped up into a frenzy by this.

Her husband, who lost his wife 15 years ago, is vilified for his relationship to another woman.  That is just sad.  His wife is DEAD and has been for a decade and a half. 

Ingolfson, I don’t think he’s a fishy person.  How many people do YOU know who would insist on being kept alive in Terri’s condition? What is the proportion of people who feel that way to people who feel they’d rather die?  Ask around.

Even if he didn’t know his wife at all, chances are excellent that he is right.  And he did know her.  When you marry someone, you trust them.  She didn’t say, “If he makes a decision my parents don’t like, I want them to take over.“

What really, really scares me about this is what Warbi said - the death of federalism.  Bush just put a bullet right through its heart - again.  Every time states have wanted to do something he disagreed with, Bang!

Well I wouldn’t say this is a step towards a theocracy, but it is a gross violation of states rights and an unacceptable injection of politics into the judicial process.

Being a lowly foreigner, I am interested to know how this would usually be handled.  Through the courts as per the rest of the world, or is George always willing to dispense his wisdom (or lack thereof) to all who deserve it? 

Oh, and if America collaspses into anarchy, does that mean it’ll cost more to fill my gas tank?  I’m already at $90 a week -_-‘

What I find interesting about all this is that in 1999, Mr. Bush took the position that the spouse (not the parents) had the primary authority to act on behalf of an individual who fails to leave a directive or is incapable of issuing a directive regarding treatment or the withdrawl of life-sustaining treatment.

See section 166.039 of the following: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm)

I suspect that this is Mr. Bush’s means of pandering to the religious right (to whom he owes a huge debt) who aren’t about to obtain serious action from him on abortion.

This is all so unbelievable, yet I can only shake my head and not be too surprised.  In the past 5 years we’ve seen our government do things that 15-20 years ago would have been unthinkable.  The voices of reason, moderation and just plain common sense no longer matter or are even heard.

As a mother, I feel for Terri’s parents, but in my opinion, they and their whackjob supporters should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.  Their reliance on bad “scientific” information and dubious medical opinions is delusional at best and dangerously ignorant at worst.

But no, I am not surprised.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the case of Robert Latammer in Canada.  He “killed”(and I use the word with hesitation) his severely handicapped daughter by putting her in a running car with the fumes coming in, and was charged. 

But when it happened in Canada, it went to the supreme court without any interference or hysteria on the part of the government.

I don’t mean to flout Canada here, I just think it’s sickening to see the US government so blatantly doing whatever they feel is “right” this week.

On another note, is there any precedent for the US government passing a bill on the behalf of ONE person?

not only is there no precedent, this type of legislation is EXPRESSLY prohibited under the constitution of the U’S'A’.

What about the “sanctity of marriage,“ or is that only in so far as the spouse agrees with our Glorious Leader’s theology, umm, philosophy? And what about the other testimomy of witnesses that lead Judge Greer to come to the decision that Michael’s side had presented “clear and convincing evidence” that Terri did not want to live as a vegetable? That was all that was required to prove the case in court, not “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,“ as in a criminal case. The Law is obviously on Michael’s side, which just makes the Fundies furious.

Okay, now this is over the line. . . I just heard on CNN that the parents are claiming that by some miracle, Terry mouthed the words, “I want to live” to her father as he told her about the struggles to keep her going. (Somehow I sense a Monty Python moment here . . )

Bring out yer dead.
[a man puts a body on the cart]
Large Man with Dead Body: Here’s one.
The Dead Collector: That’ll be ninepence.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m not dead.
The Dead Collector: What?
Large Man with Dead Body: Nothing. There’s your ninepence.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m not dead.
The Dead Collector: ‘Ere, he says he’s not dead.
Large Man with Dead Body: Yes he is.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m not.
The Dead Collector: He isn’t.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, he will be soon, he’s very ill.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m getting better.
Large Man with Dead Body: No you’re not, you’ll be stone dead in a moment.
The Dead Collector: Well, I can’t take him like that. It’s against regulations.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I don’t want to go on the cart.
Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, don’t be such a baby.
The Dead Collector: I can’t take him.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I feel fine.
Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, do me a favor.
The Dead Collector: I can’t.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won’t be long.
The Dead Collector: I promised I’d be at the Robinsons’. They’ve lost nine today.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, when’s your next round?
The Dead Collector: Thursday.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I think I’ll go for a walk.
Large Man with Dead Body: You’re not fooling anyone, you know. Isn’t there anything you could do?
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I feel happy. I feel happy.
[the Dead Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences the Body with his a whack of his club]
Large Man with Dead Body: Ah, thank you very much.
The Dead Collector: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
Large Man with Dead Body: Right.

I know it’s terribly insensitive of me, but I burst out laughing when I read that Schiavo was making an impassioned plea for her life. . . 

“Whoa, the vegetable speaks!  You’re supposed to be brain dead!“

“No I’m not,  I’ve just been faking, get away from that feeding tube, you heartless bastard!“

Apologies for the lengthy quote, but it made me giggle, so I wanted to share.

source

Don’t feel bad, nowiser.  My boss and I have been reciting same Monty Python bit for the past two days.  Since the Supreme Court just now ruled against Terri’s parents, maybe this abuse of the judiciary and nationally embarassing farce will come to an end.

I do, however, expect this to be a South Park episode in the near future.  Heartless, maybe, but I cannot wait.  Well, maybe not heartless, just heartily disgusted at the whole thing.