Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by viet_mom
Can anyone find which Senators voted yay or nay on the bill? I found the House bill vote here

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll090.xml

To the extent a husband automatically assumes the role of Guardian in deciding what the wife "would" have wanted, with no rebuttable presumption for cases where the husband has moved on and is with a new woman and has kids with her, stands to benefit from a life insurance policy, he is the sole person who wants her dead, the "machinery" here is just a feeding tube and he is the only one who heard the wife's offhand remark about "not wanting to be kept alive by machines".....well, that seems enough to rebut any presumption.

The Senate was a voice vote. Expect the number voting against to vary depending on expediency.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by viet_mom
To the extent a husband automatically assumes the role of Guardian in deciding what the wife "would" have wanted, with no rebuttable presumption for cases where the husband has moved on and is with a new woman and has kids with her, stands to benefit from a life insurance policy, he is the sole person who wants her dead, the "machinery" here is just a feeding tube and he is the only one who heard the wife's offhand remark about "not wanting to be kept alive by machines".....well, that seems enough to rebut any presumption.

OK, for those who are interested in actual facts (no offense, viet_mom, but your hypothetical is off a bit) ... click here and find a series of articles and columns from Terri Schiavo's local paper http://www.sptimes.com/2003/webspecials03/schiavo/

I've cut and pasted one of the first ones -- it sets forth both positions pretty clearly. Other articles discuss the trial and the appeal, and (of course) the subsequent political battles.

• Deciding the fate of Terri
  
  When Michael Schiavo decided to take his comatose wife off life support, her parents saw things differently.
  By ANITA KUMAR
  
  © St. Petersburg Times, published January 25, 2000
  
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  Michael Schiavo thought he had done everything he could to save his wife.
  
  In 1990, after she lapsed into a coma from a loss of potassium, he took her to California for experimental treatment. He hired an aide to take her to salons for a beauty make-over. He took her to the mall to buy new clothes, the museum to look at art. He even made tapes of her family and friends, hoping to find a stimulus that would lift her from the coma.
  
  After three years, Schiavo stopped waiting for a miracle. He decided it was time to take his wife, Terri, off life support.
  
  Terri's parents see things differently.
  
  Bob and Mary Schindler say their daughter, now 36, can still feel and understand. She laughs at her dad's joke. She cries with her mom. And, they think, she could get better.
  
  The Schindlers think that Michael Schiavo is after as much as $700,000 he would inherit if his wife dies and that he is eager to remarry.
  
  "We're fighting for her," said Bob Schindler, who is opposing the withdrawal of life support. "We want her to live. It's as simple as that."
  
  Now, nearly a decade after Mrs. Schiavo's accident, the matter is before Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer, who could decide as early as this week whether Mrs. Schiavo can be taken off life support.
  
  Tragic fall
  The Schiavos had been married five years when Terri started having abdominal pains and missing her menstrual periods, family memberssay
  
  Her doctors never tested her blood or told her what was wrong, Mrs. Schindler said.
  
  On Feb. 25, 1990, Michael Schiavo woke up about 5 a.m. to use the bathroom. That's when he saw his wife fall on the floor. Her heart stopped beating and she was deprived of oxygen for five minutes before she was taken to the hospital.
  
  Terri Schiavo has not awakened since and currently lives in Palm Gardens nursing home in Largo.
  
  Family members say doctors never discovered why Mrs. Schiavo suffered the loss of potassium that caused the heart attack. Despite several theories, including one that she had an eating disorder, no one has given the family a clear answer.
  
  Terri, meanwhile, has remained in a coma through about 100 doctors visits and countless hospital and nursing homes stays. She breathes and sleeps, blinks and smiles. But she cannot talk and has to be propped up in a chair during the day.
  
  In 1993, a Pinellas County jury awarded Terri about $700,000 in a malpractice suit her husband filed on her behalf against two of her doctors. Michael Schiavo also received $300,000 for loss of consortium.
  
  Today, much of the $700,000 used to help pay for Mrs. Schiavo's care still remains.
  
  The Schindlers question Michael Schiavo's motivation in seeking the withdrawal of life support. They think money, and marital freedom, are behind his request.
  
  Michael Schiavo, a nurse at Morton Plant Mease Hospital, has been engaged to another woman for four years. He declined to comment Monday.
  
  'No treatment'
  In testimony Monday before Judge Greer, a Dunedin neurologist testified that Terri Schiavo is in a "persistent vegetative state" and any movements or sounds she make are just reflexes
  
  "There's no treatment, no cure," said Dr. James Barnhill, who said Terri Schiavo would die in one to two weeks if the feeding tube was removed. "Nothing known to science will help this woman."
  
  But Pamela Campbell, the Schindlers' attorney, responded at Monday's trial that Terri's parents have seen her laugh, cry and smile in reaction to specific things.
  
  The Schindlers, of St. Petersburg, visit Terri a couple times a week and believe they are communicating with her.
  
  "Doctors aren't gods," Mrs. Schindler said. "They don't know."
  
  Legal fight
  Mrs. Schiavo, 25 when she had the accident, never wrote a will
  
  Under Florida law, her hus-band is able to make decisions about her care. But her parents protested, saying they want to give their daughter a chance to live.
  
  Michael Schiavo testified Monday that his wife told him several times that she would not have wanted to be kept on life support.
  
  His brother, Scott, and his sister-in-law, Joan, also gave similar testimony and said Terri told them the same thing in the years before the accident.
  
  "Terri didn't want to live like that," said Joan Schiavo, Terri Schiavo's best friend, who also testified Monday. "She didn't want people to see her like that. She didn't want to do that to her family and friends."
  
  George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo, says Terri would not have wanted to live that way.
  
  "Should she be kept alive when she didn't want to be?" Felos said. "Should she be kept alive to keep her parents happy? This is about letting go."
  
  But the Schindlers don't see it that way.
  
  They say their son-in-law never brought it up until the litigation began in 1993. Before then, her parents and her husband agreed to keep Terri Schiavo on life support.
  
  That changed in 1993 when Terri got an infection. The Schindlers wanted to treat it; Michael Schiavo did not.
  
  Schiavo eventually agreed his wife should have the medication, but the two sides have been battling since.
  
  The Schindlers have tried unsuccessfully to become their daughter's guardian. They have accused Michael Schiavo of withholding medical records from the couple and refusing to allow their doctor to examine her.
  
  Perhaps underscoring the rift between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo is the caution taken during visits to Terri's nursing home.
  
  The Schindlers and Schiavo are never there at the same time.
  
  © Copyright 2003 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So you want her to slowly starve to death and slowly dehydrate - for her husband's financial gain?

Funny that you talk about the courts getting it right - and certain Democrats unending fight to free the murderer Mumia - within 2 posts of each other.

I'm trying to figure out the bidding here, but we have so many different cases.

There's the federalist question, where Republicans have been converted to proponents of an interventionist federal government by repeated victories on the national stage. Odd that.

There's the question of when someone is alive and when they are dead. Does brain-dead count? I know the medical community overwhelming favors pulling plugs in hopeless situations, knowing the level of resources required to maintain what is likely false hope. I'll confess to having doubts, however, and wanting to err on the side of preserving life. I think this is a legitimate area to visit with legislation, but have real doubts about the wisdom of legislation that is focused on a single situation and person.

Then there's the question of who should be making the choice. While I have sympathy for her parents, I'm much more ready to think that her husband is the person more likely to know and understand her wishes. Would any of us choose our parents rather than our spouse to make these choices for us? I wouldn't.

I think this one has gone on long enough and that it is time to emphasize the need for finality in decisions, not use the federal government to revisit issues that have been repeatedly visited by this poor family at the state level. I don't know that the court has made the right decision, but if Congress was going to speak on this, they've had many years to do it, and stepping in now strikes me as prolonging personal agony for political gain.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'm trying to figure out the bidding here, but we have so many different cases.

Don't worry, it doesn't create any precedent. Query: Is this a lower nadir for Congress than Bush v. Gore for the S. Ct.?

• For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.
  
  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
  
  SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.
  
  The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
  
  SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.
  
  Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. 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, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.
  
  SEC. 3. RELIEF.
  
  After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
  
  SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.
  
  Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
  
  SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.
  
  Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.
  
  SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.
  
  Nothing in this act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--
  
  (1) to assisting suicide,
  (2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.
  
  SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.
  
  Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.
  
  SEC. 8. NO EFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.
  
  Nothing in this act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990.
  
  SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
  
  It is the Sense of the Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

BTW: 1) What "rights" are being determined de novo? The "federal" rights she has, or the state rights? What federal rights weren't already litigated? 2) And aren't any determinations of state rights subject to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But we have ways of resolving these conflicts, ways which the Schiavos and the GOP are seeking to overrule.

I guess my problem here, similar to my problem with death penalty cases, goes deeper than, did we follow The Procedure. I'm not that impressed that we followed The Procedure when we are using The Procedure to justify killing someone. We can have seventy-two layers of appellate review followed by a voice vote among all nursing home residents throughout the country, and I still end up thinking that, if someone wants to maintain her care at private expense, why would we ever want to kill her off? The Procedure is a nice way of reassuring ourselves that we took all the right steps to ensure that this was one of the proper cases in which to kill someone, but, what if your essential premise is, we as a society shouldn't be killing the inoffensive? The Procedure is meaningless at that point.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
I guess my problem here, similar to my problem with death penalty cases, goes deeper than, did we follow The Procedure. I'm not that impressed that we followed The Procedure when we are using The Procedure to justify killing someone. We can have seventy-two layers of appellate review followed by a voice vote among all nursing home residents throughout the country, and I still end up thinking that, if someone wants to maintain her care at private expense, why would we ever want to kill her off? The Procedure is a nice way of reassuring ourselves that we took all the right steps to ensure that this was one of the proper cases in which to kill someone, but, what if your essential premise is, we as a society shouldn't be killing the inoffensive? The Procedure is meaningless at that point.

The fact that some third party is willing to pay for her care rather misses the point of honoring her wishes. Even more so that abortion, there's a fundamental question of self-determination. You're unstated premise is that she wants to live, but others won't let her. That's fundamentally backwards. The original question is "what did she want?" The answer, which has gone through extensive "Procedure" is that she wanted to die. Why should the answer to that question be biased towards life?

Is it so hard to comprehend that a person would, in certain circumtances, prefer to end the misery than to continue alive? IF You can't comprehend that, how can you explain the hundreds, if not thousands, of other people who make that very decision for themselves each year, and are entirely mentally capable of doing so?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

BTW, in light of the Schiavo stuff, I believe that it is inappropriate to discuss this week the following topics:

1) Tom DeLay's ethics/fundraising issues
2) The President's social security reform proposal
3) The war in Iraq

Thank you for your cooperation.

(if I have missed any other issues, please feel free to add them to the list)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Fill out a living will, then...and hope your SOB husband doesn't do it to save some cash.

You truly are now wallowing somewhere off the deep end.

The cash is gone. If the husband had just wanted to be rid of her, rather than seeing this though to what he believes to be the proper end respecting his wife's wishes, he could have washed his hands of it, walked away and filed for divorce. Did he?

If footage from a home video camera -- selectively edited by interested parties from footage taken over a long period of time, is all the proof you need -- then I truly hope that I have 12 jerks like you on the jury the next time I have a client with no substantive merit to their case.

S_A_M

P.S. None of the video excerpts I've seen are inconsistent with the premise that the body that used to house Terry Schiavo has nothing more than unthinking, unconscious reactions to stimuli -- with no brain function behind it.

P.P.S. The problem and controversy here arises from the family feud. If not for that, she'd have died long ago, like most people in her state. People are unplugged every f-ing day.

P.P.S. I have not been vocal on this issue, but in response to Bilmore's post I'll say that as to the families, I agree that this is enormously sad. A whole lot of folks don't seem to have any sympathy for her husband. As to the politicians and outside crusaders -- I am furious with them for the same reasons I have a near-visceral hatred of Tom Delay. They are, once again, jamming their nose in and imposing their moral views into the midst of an agonizing, gut-wrenching deeply personal family situation. [If the husband had lost the case, would we see a federal bill giving him the right to appeal? I think not. Motherfuckers.]

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The fact that some third party is willing to pay for her care rather misses the point of honoring her wishes. Even more so that abortion, there's a fundamental question of self-determination. You're unstated premise is that she wants to live, but others won't let her. That's fundamentally backwards. The original question is "what did she want?" The answer, which has gone through extensive "Procedure" is that she wanted to die. Why should the answer to that question be biased towards life?

Is it so hard to comprehend that a person would, in certain circumtances, prefer to end the misery than to continue alive? IF You can't comprehend that, how can you explain the hundreds, if not thousands, of other people who make that very decision for themselves each year, and are entirely mentally capable of doing so?

Actually, I consider her, at this point, to be as alive and sentient as a Big Mac. Further, I think I've posted five or six times that I would want to be unplugged in that situation, and in fact I have the paperwork to prove it.

I'm thinking more of her parents. Keeping her alive will have no effect on her whatsoever. With her brain deterioration, I doubt there's any pain or misery going on there. Any comfort and hope is going to reside in them, not her. So, where's the harm on each side? Kill her off, and the parents are devastated. Keep her alive, and . . . . what harm?

(If you really want to get into the "she wanted to die" issue, I think you need to do more than merely parrot that the judge decided that hubby was telling the truth. This was a hotly contested issue, and I'm sure he made the decision he did impartially, but because she never signed the right docs, that decision isn't going to be accepted by some. Had she signed a DHCPOA, that would make all the difference, in my mind, but this way, parents are always going to consider that hubby lied, and murdered their daughter. I'm sort of amazed at the judge's decision, given that most courts treat the presence of the signed docs as dispositive, but also treat the absence as dispositive the other way.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
BTW, in light of the Schiavo stuff, I believe that it is inappropriate to discuss this week the following topics:

1) Tom DeLay's ethics/fundraising issues
2) The President's social security reform proposal
3) The war in Iraq

Thank you for your cooperation.

(if I have missed any other issues, please feel free to add them to the list)

Can we just generally talk about Howard Dean?

[Hank Chinaski]

okay- hope for moving beyond a world where we have to worry about massive terrorist strikes?

Well flying airplanes into stuff to kill yourself, at first I thought was pretty novel. then I remember the Kamikazes did that shit awhile back. No kids on board, but still.

Then attempt to have massive civilian deaths from WMD? Check this out---

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/20/jap....ap/index.html

They found a WWII Japanese sub that was intended to do WMD attacks--

They were 400 feet long and nearly 40 feet high and could carry a crew of 144. The submarines were designed to carry three "fold-up" bombers that could be assembled for flight within minutes.

Kerby said the main hull is sitting upright and is in good shape. The I-401 numbers are clearly visible on the sides, and the anti-aircraft guns are in almost perfect condition, he said.

An I-400 and I-401 were captured at sea a week after the Japanese surrendered in 1945. Their mission -- which was never completed -- reportedly was to use the aircraft to drop rats and insects infected with bubonic plague, cholera, typhus and other diseases on U.S. cities.

When the bacteriological bombs could not be prepared in time, the mission was reportedly changed to bomb the Panama Canal.

so maybe we can move beyond the current threats- on the other hand maybe this means that even if we do move beyond there's always the next group coming,

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
(If you really want to get into the "she wanted to die" issue, I think you need to do more than merely parrot that the judge decided that hubby was telling the truth. This was a hotly contested issue, and I'm sure he made the decision he did impartially, but because she never signed the right docs, that decision isn't going to be accepted by some.

I think I've gotten into it, and others certainly have, well beyond parroting the decision. It's not just a judge's decision, but one upheld through multiple appeals. Regardless of the merits, can there ever be an end to such contested decisions, if the judge doesn't reach teh "right" decision?

If your argument is that the level of proof is insufficient, that's fine, but Florida reached a different decision on the question. I'm in no position to challenge that--maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong; you can always create paperwork to obviate it.

I certainly don't see some federal constitutional "right" of higher proof required by that document.

In short, is there any principle on which you are willing to say a decision to let someone die in this area is final and legitimate?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Can we just generally talk about Howard Dean?

Yyyyyeaaaaaaaghhhhhh!!!!!!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
In short, is there any principle on which you are willing to say a decision to let someone die in this area is final and legitimate?

Sure. A clear and unambiguous expression of the will of that person such that it not only easily constitutes legal proof, but also makes it clear to any dissenters that dissent would be in opposition to the person's wishes.

I don't think this is an issue that should be decided by a judge based on 51% of the evidence. We require more evidence to fine me for speeding than to kill someone? Wow. As I stated earlier, in most courts, if you haven't filled out the form, then no other testimony will suffice to prove an intent to be unplugged.