A good and well thought out post on a complicated issue. My only disagreement is on the matter of moral conservatives having claimed it as their own, although in the minds of some MCs, perhaps they have.

I would hope that moral conservatives and liberals(and even immoral liberals and conservatives), look beyond the politic of Terri Schiavo's life and instead think of what could aptly be called an epiphany of recognition that for most of us, we have much more that we can agree upon, than disagree about. I believe that the ultimate fallout of Terri's case will do just that. At least I hope so!

" In Paris, people don't talk about the Jews as yet. Their babies were handed over to female officials responsible for strangling Jewish infants and experts in the art of execution by putting pressure on the carotid arteries. They smiled and said it was painless." -- Marguerite Duras

"It is the supreme duty of the state to grant life only to the healthy and hereditarily sound portion of the population.... The life of the individual has meaning only in light of that ultimate aim." -Nazi medical authority, Dr. Arthur Guett

Eugenics, Euthenasia, Abortion, Gulags, Socialist

Things that go together.

This whole thing is like a Twilight Zone episode. Are the Republicans trying to make it illegal to die? Disagree with the husband as I may, I think that as her guardian, he has the right to chose what kind of medical treatment she should or should not have. Tampering with this is extremely dangerous. The state must not interfere here. This damages the authority of the family in a way that I find very frightening.

Well, I think he's violating his duty as guardian. However, I don't see any federal issue here. It's also interesting to see the Democrats on the side of states' rights.

"Tampering with this is extremely dangerous. "

On the side of life ?

Death is the nazis the commies and the postmodernist like singer,, thats what is dangerous

She has parents that want her to live, to err on the side of death ?

how very NAZI Euthenasia of you

"t's also interesting to see the Democrats on the side of states' rights."

Should the states pass laws to have gulags?

The fed, whos duty is to be a garrantor of life and liberty consitutional rights overide any states violation of them.

Yes, strange, but then again what matter to the left is mass murder the davalueation of life, abortion, death camps, Euthenasia, the devalue of the individual.

Leftism has always been a death cult, its no different now.

Socialist and death, always together.

Well unless they are defending a butcher, the only life they ever defend are killers and mass murdering butchers

For the innocent and the helpless, they care not.

This is just a bad case to set precedent. There's too many 'dark closets' shrouding corners that only the family themselves know.
I can understand republicans wanting to keep this woman alive... I don't completely understand democrats fighting to let her die. I agree with self-inflicted euthanasia, but I'm not sure this falls under that category.
The best thing this husband could do is to walk away and leave her. If (big if) he truly loved her, I can see not wanting to leave her pain. Kindof a moral obligation if you will. But I would just accept that she's dead anyway, and let the family worry about her.
And, yes, I am sick to death of this case. We have bigger fish to fry.

I was going to respond to this post, but then I came across such brain-dead responses as:

"Eugenics, Euthenasia, Abortion, Gulags, Socialist - Things that go together."

and

"Leftism has always been a death cult, its no different now. Socialist and death, always together."

So it looks like brain-dead people are rushing to defend their own kind. Can't argue with tribalism.

''So it looks like brain-dead people are rushing to defend their own kind. Can't argue with tribalism.''

That must be why our coward Bush and his right wing ilk allowed pulling life support from the baby in Texas.

No great public proclamations from our coward Bush nor Congressmen rushing back to make new laws.

Rightism is the new death cult.

The Texas situation you linked sounds terrible and rather like a horrible, horrible descent into nazi-like euthanasia.

But then you go and read the article and discover that the 6 month-old boy had his RESPIRATOR turned off, instead of his FEEDING TUBE REMOVED, and suddenly it's rather a bit different.

Having had two premature children in the Newborn ICU for 10 days, and having seen the bill for that, I can tell you that the hospital had invested at least $500,000 into keeping alive a child who could not survive without a ventilator.

Rather different than what you had implied.

I would encourage everyone to read the 38 page report prepared by the Guardian ad Litum to Terri Schiavo, who was appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush. In addition to spending 20 days with Mrs. Schiavo, he reviewed thousands of pages of court documents, reviewed all the financial records, interviewed everyone involved with the case, and spoke to numerous ethicists, physicians and attorneys. The information contained in this report, contrasts sharply with much of the "facts" floating around the internet.

Salient points that are not included in the information disseminated by the Right to Life machine, include: 1) Mr. Schiavo pursued three years of standard and alternative treatment and rehabilitation, before conceding that she was in a PVS; 2) The parents themselves, petitioned the court that Mr. Schiavo be named his wife's guardian; 3) Mr. Schiavo lived with the parents for nearly three years after her wife's collapse, and enjoyed a close relationship with them; 4) the parents encouraged him to begin dating at a certain point; 5) all expenditures were approved by the court, and he was found to be a responsible manager of the $700,000 fund that had been awarded for her care; 6) the relationship between Mr. Schiavo and the parents broke down after the award had been made; 7) the parents testified that even if they knew Terri did not want to be maintained in her current state, that they would not abide by her wishes, and further that they would be willing to amputate all of her limbs and to subject her to open heart surgery, in order to maintain her in her current state; 8) the two nurses claiming knowledge of alleged mistreatment of Mrs. Schiavo, were not deemed credible.

I am involved with the promotion and planning of hospice programming, and became interested in this case several years back. I first became suspcious about this case after I visited the parent's website, and found that they were selling videos of their daughter for a $100 "donation." Further investigation demonstrated that this case is being used to motivate substantial donations to the Right to Life lobby.

To review the GAL's report, go to:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

Interestingly, neither this nor any other court report that provides substantive information is available on the parent's website, or on any sites I've visited, that are soliciting funds to "Save Terri."

''into keeping alive a child''

Not a good thing, huh?

You don't mention if you had the life support pulled from the two children.

Emmetropia: thanks for the sensible comments, and for the link. I intend to pass it on to my own readers, to go along with this one:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

The Wolfson report is interesting as far as it goes. But there are a couple of problems:

1. Wolfson's recommendations were never acted upon.

2. The remainder of Wolfson's report -- inexplicably omitted in that .pdf link -- casts at least some doubt on the characterizations made by Emmetropia about the Schindlers.

Here is the omitted text -- containing Wolfson's conclusions:

***QUOTE***

Within ten days of the presentation of this report, the GAL will provide the Governor and the Court with a written status update along with the details of an implementation plan.

[pdf file ends here; additional text follows]

But that is not enough. This evidence is compromised by the circumstances and the enmity between the parties. Until recently, while both Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers agreed that Theresa was in a persistent vegetative state, they could not agree as to the matter of discontinuation of life support. Recently, the Schindlers have adopted what appears to be a position that Theresa is not in a persistent vegetative state, and/or that they do not support the fact that such a medical state exists at all. Yet throughout the nearly ten years of litigation, it is the issue of her ability to swallow, ingest food and hydration, and the findings regarding any residual cognitive ability that have marked the medical substance of this dispute.

Of the Schindlers, there has evolved the unfortunate and inaccurate perception that they will "keep Theresa alive at any and all costs" even if that were to result in her limbs being amputated and additional, complex surgical and medical interventions being performed, and even if Theresa had expressly indicated her intention not to be so maintained. During the course of the GAL's investigation, the Schindlers allow that this is not accurate, and that they never intended to imply a gruesome maintenance of Theresa at all costs.

Of Michael Schiavo, there is the incorrect perception that he has refused to relinquish his guardianship because of financial interests, and more recently, because of allegations that he actually abused Theresa and seeks to hide this. There is no evidence in the record to substantiate any of these perceptions or allegations.

Until and unless there is objective, fresh, mutually agreed upon closure regarding measurable and well accepted scientific bases for deducing Theresa's clinical state, Theresa will not be done justice. There must be at least a degree of trust with respect to a process that the factions competing for Theresa's best interest can agree. To benefit Theresa, and in the overall interests of justice, good science, and public policy, there needs to be a fresh, clean-hands start.

The Schindlers and the Schiavos are normal, decent people who have found themselves within the construct of an exceptional circumstance which none of them, indeed, few reasonable and normal people could have imagined. As a consequence of this circumstance, extensive urban mythology has created toxic clouds, causing the parties and others to behave in ways that may not, in the order of things, serve the best interests of the ward.

***QUOTE***

Oddly enough, this report was posted at the following site which supports the "Save Terri" movement:

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Moreover, Wolfson himself is still troubled by recurrent second thoughts about the case.

Under the circumstances, I'd still be disinclined to pull her tube.

If nothing specific is found wrong with previous court proceedings in this case, then why do we need "a fresh, clean-hands start?" Are you saying we should keep on doing this over and over until the courts make what one person or interest group considers the "correct" ruling? The mere fact that both factions cannot agree on the current decision-making process does not make it invalid. Nor does the "extensive urban mythology" that has sprung up around the case, unless it can be proven that said mythology has skewed the court proceedings.

We have no shortage of politics, religion, law, and science in this country. These have become so merged, and at the same time so segregated, by the labels Right and Left that their intrinsic individual values, if we hold any of them, are becoming unidentifiable when we try and apply them to a situation like this. Our opinions, if we have the courage to offer them in this climate, are labeled. And, Right Left labeling makes clear thought near impossible. That said:

If Terri Schiavos is in a court recognized vegetative state, let her stay there. If, as the court has acknowledged, she has no cognitive abilities then she has no notion that her, professed, wishes to be other wise have been denied. She is in no pain. There is no harm in allowing her to live by the prescription of her professed religion. There is no harm in allowing her first family to care for her.

When politics, religion, law, science, and the media converge to confuse and befuddle clear thinking we can only hope to - do no harm.

"However, I don't see any federal issue here."
If you think not, then why is there a federal issue over a state Judge ordering the execution of a murderer?
Why is a state Judge ordering a disabled woman be killed any less amenable to similar federal court review? What about those cases where the FEDERAL courts upheld then later struck down STATE JUDICIAL action to sterilize disabled people? Is there not an even great 14th Amendment rights issue here - LIFE - that is at least as important as the right to procreate?

"It's also interesting to see the Democrats on the side of states' rights."

Why, its a natural for the party of slavery and segregation. call em Retro Democrats.

" the parents testified that even if they knew Terri did not want to be maintained in her current state, that they would not abide by her wishes, and further that they would be willing to amputate all of her limbs and to subject her to open heart surgery, in order to maintain her in her current state; "

Emmetropia is repeating a Felos (Schiavo's lawyer) talking-point here, the followup comment corrected it. It aint so, the Schindlers were and are willing to give her standard medical care and in a deposition Felos the lawyer listed a parade of horribles to get them to draw a line of when they would kill Terri. they refused to draw the line. It's a damned if you do/damned if you dont; if they drew the line Felos would say "they'd let her die if she had diabetes or heart disease, but not if she's brain damaged." Typical lawyers trick.

And talking about Schiavo and mentioning the 'court says Schiavo used the money wisely' without mentioning that the court signed off on letting most of the money in the settlement that was meant for terri's rehab go to lawyers!! Only a lawyer could think that was a good idea.
... Makes me think he/she is perhaps related to Felos' hospice, and leaves the other points suspect ...

"If, as the court has acknowledged, she has no cognitive abilities then she has no notion that her, professed, wishes to be other wise have been denied."

By your logic, she will have no notion that her "professed wishes" have been granted, either.

"She is in no pain."

And how do you know she is in no pain? And is she able to experience any kind of pleasure?

"There is no harm in allowing her to live by the prescription of her professed religion. There is no harm in allowing her first family to care for her."

Does the prescription of "her professed religion" override her own "professed wishes?" Or are they, by definition, the same?

And is there any harm in allowing her husband, whom she chose to marry, to care for her as he sees fit, based on his understanding of her desires?

"When politics, religion, law, science, and the media converge to confuse and befuddle clear thinking we can only hope to - do no harm."

Whose clear thinking has been "befuddled?" The courts have been sifting through conflicting allegations, expert testimony, medical evidence, and legal reasoning, for YEARS, and seem to have a pretty clear picture of the situation. What makes you think that they, and/or the person legally entrusted with the actual decision, are more "befuddled" - and thus less qualified to decide - than you are?

“By your logic she will have no notion that her professed wishes have been granted either.”

Exactly my point...

“And how do you know she is in no pain? And is she able to experience any pleasure?”

“Pain” as implied here, is mental suffering. “Pleasure” in that same sense would not be possible without cognitive abilities.

“Does the prescription of “her professed religion” override her own “professed wishes?” Or are they, by definition, the same?”

Pardon the imprecise word choice, “Professed wishes” should have read “alleged wishes”... no, they are not the same.
And, yes there is great harm in letting her husband care for her as he sees fit, she dies.

“Whose clear thinking has been “befuddled”?”

The legally entrusted decision maker, his council, and the courts are clearly focused on the law, they’re not in the least bit befuddled. I didn’t suggest they were.

The general public’s clear thinking has been befuddled. Congress is befuddled. The labeling Right Left that replaces reasoning is evidence of it. It’s everywhere. Most of the rhetoric has nothing to do with this woman’s life. The life and death aspect of this situation has been lost.

I get to decide nothing. I can only post an opinion. Do no harm.

Debe: how can you be sure that keeping Terry alive "does no harm?" If there is still a thinking, feeling human in there, then she is a human utterly unable to interact with her immediate surroundings and loved ones in any meaningful way. How would you feel if you were trapped in that situation? I strongly suspect that within a year - if not a month - I would be utterly raving mad beneath the unresponsive exterior. Keeping me alive and conscious in such a state could easily be considered torture.

Bee: I never said there was a thinking, feeling human in there; in fact, I allowed that the courts considered opinion of Terri’s condition was correct, PVS. From that point of view, I suggested that what ever wishes she supposedly made while in good health no longer mattered to her. Allowing her to live and be taken care of by her family would do no harm.

Frankly, I think you underestimate yourself Bee. What ever hand you’re dealt, you’ll deal with. I hope I can do the same. Keep Raging, and do no harm!