“Pull the plug” sounds wrong and feels horrible. I truly hate to say this, but I think I’m just barely on the “pull the plug” side in this particular case.

I'm not particularly worked up about this. Maybe I should be. Nonetheless, I think clarity on the issue is in order.

First, the anti-life side wants to euthanize her in the name of compassion, or whatever. But why starve her? Isn't it far more compassionate to kill her by lethal injection? So why don't they do it??? Because of appearances, pure and simple. It would give "the wrong impression." So instead they'll let her die slowly, and linger. Is that compassion? Or is it cowardice, and disregard.

Second, "pull the plug" gives the wrong impression. She isn't on life support. Schiavo doesn't need machines to live. She just needs food to live, just like everybody else needs food to live.

"Second, "pull the plug" gives the wrong impression. She isn't on life support. Schiavo doesn't need machines to live. She just needs food to live, just like everybody else needs food to live."

Yeah, that's the thing that gets the average joe's I talk to. They're not big on extraordinary measures, but starving someone who just needs food, folks think that's creepy, especially given some of the, um, irregularities, involved in this case.

And I don't understand how this is not the business of the feds. I mean I support the feds correcting the shady court dealings in that part of the country in the 60's - prejudice biased the jurisprudence. Reading the good old left blogs on this one, despite my sympathy (and first-hand experience) with the whole hospice movement, it appears prejudice (see the usually intelligent Glenn Reynolds who suggests that supporting not starving someone to death makes one the equivalent of Randall Terry) may have effected the jurisprudence down there again.

I truly don't understand how it's "grandstanding" to keep someone from starving. And yes, I also oppose the death penalty and support the right of judicial review in that case too. I certainly hope that if I need Congress to save my life, they will not be shouted down then!

Ah, Michael,

You may be right, but you haven't bothered to inform yourself first. Terri's wishes were inferred by the judge, acting in her behalf, from several casual remarks. She never made any definitive statements. That is the first point of contention, as the requirement is to error on the side of life. Then there is the role of money: Michael won 300K for the loss and 700K for taking care of her. Some claim that he had no interest in her care. True? Don't know, but at the time he stood to inherit the 700K if she died. The court itself remarked on the muddying effect of money. And it may be significant that it was shortly after this that he made the petition to the court. Then again, why did he not simply divorce her and let her parents care for her? He took up with one girl friend after about a year, and a second shortly after, with whom he now has two children. Mind, he still won't divorce his wife. Then there are damning documents supposedly from Nurses. Fraudulent? Maybe. Anyway, the issue is not as clear cut as you make it sound.

Chuck: the issue is not as clear cut as you make it sound.

I don't think it's clear. I thought I made that much clear, at least.

This has nothing to do with "pulling the plug" - not really, although it has been framed that way by a lathered up media. This woman is not on life support, she is not being kept alive by a machine. She IS alive. She is being fed through a tube, like thousands of nursing home patients, because she cannot feed herself. I am mystified at the constant references to her as "brain dead" - she is clearly not brain dead at all....severely brain damaged for sure, but since when do we euthanize physically healthy, brain-damaged folks?

Schiavo responds to stimulus. The sounds she makes are not from someone who's brain dead. It's like moaning or something, and it's reaction to human stimuli. When she's alone she doesn't make those noises. It almost sounds like she's trying to break through but can't. Only God knows what she's trying to say. Maybe she's saying kill me, or maybe not. Should we as a society err on the side of life? Shouldn't we as a society err away from the devaluation of life? This is a societal issue, not just about Terri and the parties involved.

I'm moving to the militant "pull the plug" side beause of the high-handedness and moral-preening of the self-styled "culture of life" crowd. They're taking this really, sad awful case with no happy solution and turning it into this poltical football. Simultaneously, they're engaging in a disgusting media smear campaign against Michael Schiavo.

I'm also wondering why ever blogger is talking about this. It seems like such an old media thing. Isn't this a foreign policy blog? Bloggers break free! Liberate yourself from TopicAism.

"I'm moving to the militant "pull the plug" side beause of the high-handedness and moral-preening of the self-styled "culture of life" crowd."

This doesn't make any sense. Do you support killing African-Americans because Louis Farrakhan is an ass?
I mean, what language do I use if I'm concerned someone is not getting the full benefit of our justice system here? Hello?

Start at the very begining, with the circumstances of her initial injury and work your way forward.

A sequence of events emerges that's kinda chilling.

A sequence of events emerges that's kinda chilling.

Follow the money. Michael Schiavo sued for money to use for Terri's care, and then shortly afterwards he wanted her euthanized. That's what I heard. Is that correct?

Clearly we're dealing with a tough moral issue. If it were up to me, I'd probably not pull the plug. The thing is, it's not up to me, it's up to Terri's family (including her husband). Self-serving politicians like DeLay and the Republicans in Congress have lost their way. The talking points memo proves there is a political motivation here. It's disturbing.

This bill they're voting on will set a bad precedent, and wreak havoc on the Constitution. Politics as usual, I guess...

While I support an individual's right-to-die, I also support an individuals right-to-live. The central issue for me is if Terri actually gave permission to pull the plug in case she ended up like this. Given Terri's comparatively responsive condition (she's NOT in a coma and NOT on life support), and the manner in which she will die (ie. starvation) I think it's especially important to have her case sent to trial for a proper hearing.

What I can't stand are those people who are claiming that Terri's "rights are being trampled upon" by sending this to trial. Rubbish. It is NOT clear at all that she would have wanted to die. In my opinion, her rights are being PROTECTED by letting this case go to trial.

From what I've read:
She has no cerebral cortex, her skull is now mostly filled with spinal fluid. She does have a brain stem which gives out involuntary reactions to stimuli (the video of her 'responding' to stimuli is cherry picked and mostly seems to represent coincidence as she displays the same responses at random). I'm pretty (not completely) sure that the parents are simply desparately looking for signs of hope. Understandable, I'm sympathetic, I'm sure I'd do the same in their place, but I think they're wrong.

In addition to the husband, she has a guardian ad litem who could find no major fault with the husband's care and has also recommended removing the tube.

In addition to the tube, I assume she needs round the clock specialist care (to prevent bed sores, to massage her muscles daily, keep her from choking etc. etc.). That's where the great majority of the settlement money has gone. I have no idea of the relative qualities of the husband vs parents as human beings, but despite the negative press he's getting, he did walk away from a million dollars (okay a lot less after taxes). So I'm presuming his motives aren't only financial.

If it's true that then governor of Texas Bush signed the futile care act* (in which ability to pay can be a factor causing the plug to be pulled against the family's wishes) then presidential involvement is ... (I'll let the reader supply their own adjective).

*I haven't read the act and am going by third hand sources

The thing is, it's not up to me, it's up to Terri's family (including her husband). Self-serving politicians like DeLay and the Republicans in Congress have lost their way.

I'm no fan of DeLay, but in my opinion the case needed to go to trial because thus far it wasn't up to Terri's family whether she lives or dies. A trial I think gives the family a much better - and fairer - shot at stating their case. Ironically, thanks to DeLay the parents will finally have a fair hearing.

This bill they're voting on will set a bad precedent, and wreak havoc on the Constitution.

Why would this wreak havoc on the Constitution? People keep saying this and I yet to see any evidence these people know what they're talking about.

Delay is basically maintaining the status quo by making this a federal issue. For example, if the "right to privacy" (see abortion) is a federal issue, then why shouldn't right to life also be federal issue? I don't don't see any upturned apple carts here. This is going to the federal courts, and maybe all the way up to the Supremes. If abortion can go that route, then sending right to life issues up that route only makes sense. Now, if they invent new law in the process, THAT'S wreaking havoc on the Constitution.

I'm pretty (not completely) sure that the parents are simply desparately looking for signs of hope. Understandable, I'm sympathetic, I'm sure I'd do the same in their place, but I think they're wrong.

Wrong or not, if Terri isn't feeling any pain, and if the parents are willing to look after her on their own dime, I honestly don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to have her UNLESS it can be conclusively proven that Terri gave permission to pull the plug.

In addition to the husband, she has a guardian ad litem who could find no major fault with the husband's care and has also recommended removing the tube.

Michael Schiavo is Terri's guardian, and he alone seems to be deciding what's in her best interest, not some guardian ad litem.

That's where the great majority of the settlement money has gone.

But it wasn't very long after he received that money that Michael Schiavo tried to have her tube removed. That was over ten years ago. Had he succeeded back then, he'd have been rolling in over a million dollars cash.

And I heard somewhere there was still a sizable stash left, around $300 thousand. I'm not sure how reliable that is.

Isn't it far more compassionate to kill her by lethal injection? So why don't they do it??? Because of appearances, pure and simple. It would give "the wrong impression." So instead they'll let her die slowly, and linger. Is that compassion? Or is it cowardice, and disregard.--Carlos

The answer to your first question is Yes.The answers to your second question are more complex.I have no firm information on the 'specific'laws that would apply to this and other similar cases,but myguess is that whereas simply not supplying 'nourishment' somehow falls within the 'correct'category,actively taking actions which directly lead to death,makes one liable for legal ramifications.Blame the 'STATE',not the unfortunate medical staff who have to tap-dance around the legal structures established by our political guardians.
I,like everyone else,am discomforted by this case.Upset by the scumbag media(well my default position on it is contempt,so this is no big news);upset by the legal system which has taken almost a decade to decide anything;upset by Congress who are as always behaving as panderers and hypocrites.Just upset,period.
That said,I have to state clearly that if it were me--------- Pull The Plug.And don't take 10 years to do it.I cannot speak for anyone other than me,but if this poor soul is indeed in a PVS as almost all experts seem to suggest,then what 'life' is truly being saved?
More horrifyingly,I found this quote at GM Roper's Blog(http://gmroper.com/).

"Attorney Barbara Weller was with Terri earlier today. She told the media that, during his visit with Terri, she explained to her what was happening. According to Weller, Terri began to cry and could not be quieted. She tried to coach Terri to say "Let me live" but she simply was having too much difficulty."

Assuming that this anecdote is both true and meaningful(assuming)this leads to two horrendous questions,namely;
a.How can you support,the deliberate killing of an innocent person who wants to live?
b.How can you impose yourself in a process,in order to INSIST that someone, who wants an intolerable existence to end,be kept alive because YOU wish it?If you were to do this to me,consider yourself cursed onto the end of time.
The truly frightening part of this tragic affair is the HONEST answer to the question -- What if I am Wrong ?

Isn't it far more compassionate to kill her by lethal injection? So why don't they do it??? Because of appearances, pure and simple. It would give "the wrong impression." So instead they'll let her die slowly, and linger. Is that compassion? Or is it cowardice, and disregard.--Carlos

The answer to your first question is Yes.The answers to your second question are more complex.I have no firm information on the 'specific'laws that would apply to this and other similar cases,but myguess is that whereas simply not supplying 'nourishment' somehow falls within the 'correct'category,actively taking actions which directly lead to death,makes one liable for legal ramifications.Blame the 'STATE',not the unfortunate medical staff who have to tap-dance around the legal structures established by our political guardians.
I,like everyone else,am discomforted by this case.Upset by the scumbag media(well my default position on it is contempt,so this is no big news);upset by the legal system which has taken almost a decade to decide anything;upset by Congress who are as always behaving as panderers and hypocrites.Just upset,period.
That said,I have to state clearly that if it were me--------- Pull The Plug.And don't take 10 years to do it.I cannot speak for anyone other than me,but if this poor soul is indeed in a PVS as almost all experts seem to suggest,then what 'life' is truly being saved?
More horrifyingly,I found this quote at GM Roper's Blog(http://gmroper.com/).

"Attorney Barbara Weller was with Terri earlier today. She told the media that, during his visit with Terri, she explained to her what was happening. According to Weller, Terri began to cry and could not be quieted. She tried to coach Terri to say "Let me live" but she simply was having too much difficulty."

Assuming that this anecdote is both true and meaningful(assuming)this leads to two horrendous questions,namely;
a.How can you support,the deliberate killing of an innocent person who wants to live?
b.How can you impose yourself in a process,in order to INSIST that someone, who wants an intolerable existence to end,be kept alive because YOU wish it?If you were to do this to me,consider yourself cursed onto the end of time.
The truly frightening part of this tragic affair is the HONEST answer to the question -- What if I am Wrong ?

Oops.Sorry about that double post.I blame my computer.

I don't know the particular circumstances of this case. However I support controlled euthanasia and I support life support machines being turnwed off in certain circumstances. It's a tough decision, but certain utilitarian decisions have to be made.

If this case is about the usual religious fundamentalists and their "right to life" schtick, well, I don't support that stance, nor the intervention of the govt - because that may threaten the seperation between chuch and state, apart from anything else.

Anyway, I don't know the specifics of this case, there may be conplicating factors. But that is my general position on such matters.

Did anyone else happen to catch George Will's take on this, on, uh...that one that isn't Meet the Press (the one w/ George Steph.)?

He didn't hold back. As a principled conservative, he lambasted the Republicans in Congress for this. He tore into them harder than anyone else, in fact, even the liberals on the show. This got me to thinking, "What would Barry Goldwater do?" And then I got really really pissed off at John McCain for being so stridently in the "culture of life" camp on this one. I'm usually a big fan but, I sware to God, is there nothing the man doesn't want the government involved in?

All of this "culture of life" bullshit on the Christian Right, it isn't conservative. It's, arguably, verging on not even being liberal in the broader sense. At issue is a group of legislators bound and determined to pass a law, overturning decades of legal precedent, for ONE person's benefit. It's extremely bad politics for the Republicans, it's bad for the country, and it only further adds fuel to the argument that today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals...not recognizing the proper limits to federal power when those limits ought to be ridiculously obvious to anyone with half a brain.

I admit it's strange that I, a Democrat and a liberal, am missing the old "leave us alone" Republicans so much. There needs to be a leave-us-alone group in this country. They don't always need to win the debate but, for the good of the country, they need a seat at the table. Are the Democrats the leave-us-alone party, now? Is this a new Progressive Era, with both parties pushing their own version of activist government? It's amazing how much a political culture can change in only a few years. Remember "the era of big government is over"? That wasn't even 10 years ago! I mean, 9/11 changed things and it should, but this is way bigger than just foreign policy now. Sammy Sosa is testifying before Congress and a woman who has been a vegetable for 15 years is setting the political agenda of the most powerful nation in the history of the world. Seriously...WTF?!

I've heard people say they'd rather die than be a cripple. Paraplegia, much less quadraplegia, is allegedly hell on earth. (See the film Million Dollar Baby for the most recent Hollywood treatment of this. And note that the woman on which it is based is still walking around, albeit with some memory deficit.)

As someone with an incurable degenerative disease I find such talk pretty disgusting. Maybe I'm going to end up floating in a dream, unable to move, maybe coming halfway conscious for five minutes at a time now and then. That would be a different mode of existence, sort of like being a brain in a bowl, but I tend to have a very active, technicolor dreamlife, so it might not be that bad. If sleep is like death then in my case the preview's not that bad.

And before somebody decided to starve me to death (which is NOT, repeat NOT an easy way to go) I'd like it if they'd at least do an MRI or PET-scan of my brain (CAT-scans are comparatively very crude). And if I seem from the outside no more than a cheerful vegetable well then let me be.

"...if the 'right to privacy' (see abortion) is a federal issue, then why shouldn't right to life also be federal issue?"

Moreover, the right to life is actually in the TEXT of the federal constitution, unlike privacy. The Fourteenth Amendment makes due process for a state deprivation of life a federal requirement. The argument would then be that there's no state action, this is all private and thus doesn't come within the scope of the Due Process Clause, but Judge Greer's order was mandatory, not permissive: the state court did not simply authorize, but commanded, under pain of contempt, that Terri Schiavo no longer receive food and water. That certainly looks like state action to me.

"Michael Schiavo is Terri's guardian, and he alone seems to be deciding what's in her best interest, not some guardian ad litem."

Judge Greer both appointed Jay Wolfson as Terri's guardian at one point and also served as her guardian himself for a period of time, but neither of these is the case at this point. A permanent GAL was never apointed, despite Michael Schiavo's glaring conflicts of interest.

Miklos: As someone with an incurable degenerative disease I find such talk pretty disgusting

I understand. And I'm still slightly persuadable on this, by the way.

I hope you have a living will. I hope you've written down what you just said somewhere other than here.

"if this poor soul is indeed in a PVS as almost all experts seem to suggest,then what 'life' is truly being saved?"

She hasn't been conclusively diagnosed as PVS by experts. She was diagnosed by one doctor (hired by her husband) who is a known "right to die" advocate, who didn't do the proper testing, because the husband wouldn't allow it. A number of neurologists have since signed affidavits that if the facts are as they have been told, she was not tested properly.

Simply the fact that the husband has a conflict of interest and has been able to remain her guardian makes this a case which is applicable to anyone. I posted some comments from pro-choice, pro-right to die people who still think this case raises some disturbing issues.

Some have made the analogy to death row inmates getting appeals and last minute stays from the governor. I also think of children abused by their parents or guardians and the state not being able to remove them before they are beaten or starved to death. There is plenty of precedent for the state to intervene in extraordinary circumstances to bring justice to innocent helpless people.

At the same time, we very sensibly don't want to grant the state the power to stick its nose in our intimate relationships. It's a delicate balance.

Michael,

Thanks for your concern. I don't want to hijack the thread with my personal (and momentarily emotive) anecdotal concerns.

I will say though that I have thought that not being able to breathe, in other words requiring a respirator, might be Nature's way of saying goodbye. I always thought that the patients in Intensive Care looked like puppets -- but then I remember a patient who had so accustomed himself to the respirator that he would occasionally detach himself, go for a short walk (to pee or whatever), then return, reattach himself, lie down and go back to watching TV.

A limited life? Sure. When seen from without.

It is illegal to kill a dog in the manner mandated to end this woman's life.

To allow her to die by starvation and dehydration and to prohibit even placing shaved ice in her mouth to ease her suffering is an abomination.

From the instant she left her mother's womb she became a citizen entitled to the full protection of the Law her life cannot after that moment be ended for the convienience of anyone else.

This is not pulling the plug and allowing a person to die with dignity. It is torturing her to death,

Anyone who supports this action should not try to fool themselves, you are supporting killing this woman in a horrible fashion.

Please consider the reasons for the state execution, of the innocent and the guilty.

In Terri's case, for convenience, the convenience of her husband (who HAS the choice to divorce, but refuses to). Terri is only guilty of being inconvenient. In the case of abortion, rather than birth and adoption, the human fetus is executed for the convenience of the mother.

In the case of death penalty criminals, proven beyond reasonable doubt (as OJ was not) as guilty, they are executed as punishment/ justice/ retribution -- for the benefit/ convenience of the surviving relatives of the victims. For "justice". I have no problem with executing the truly guilty; but I'm sure that some innocent folk have been wrongly executed. This error is so terrible that I'm willing to accept life imprisonment rather than death for anybody convicted yet who maintains their own innoncence. Every justice system makes both kinds of errors.

Michael, GREAT link to the Lefty sites on lack of money as a reason to pull the plug -- the pro-life folk should be organized such that this virtually never happens. And improving the actions of your political rivals should be a goal constructive criticism. It's almost always my goal.

Powerline notes that if Terri is executed by starvation, she'll prolly die right around Easter. For believing Christians, Easter is the Most Holy of Holidays.

Oh, Michael, I think the main emotional reason you are slightly on the "pull the plug" side is because you recognize that most anti-abortion pro-life folk are against this death; and you don't really want to be on the side that so many pro-life Christians are on.

See also NRO for some more facts on the flawed process.

You're right that the Fed. gov't is all about politics; but how can you honestly say that W has more important things to do -- then implicitly ask where he is, where is the "right to life" crowd, on getting money for those too poor to pay for the care?

I truly hope the pro-lifers DO solve the "too poor for feeding care" problem; though I doubt that they'll score many genuine points with you if they do. (They DO lose points from me, for now, because they haven't.)

In no way has this woman been given a fair shake. As far as I can see, her husband has been trying to kill her since the night she "collapsed" - for reasons, btw, that are unclear. The limited scans that have been done show that she did NOT have a heart attack, which is the cause invariably given by the husband's side. If Ms. Schiavo dies, he husband has given orders to have her immediately cremated, so that no autopsy can be done. He has steadfastly refused to have an MRI or PET scan done, so that that she could be definitively diagnosed with PVS - very probably because these scans would show that she is NOT in PVS, and might indicate some other cause for her condition.

There is reasonable cause to believe that the husband in this case is motivated by greed and possibly the desire to cover up a crime. There is reason to believe that this woman has not been properly diagnosed. She left no written directive, and the only witnesses to testify that she "wished to die" under these circumstances are the husband and his relatives -and even they did not "recall" her wish until almost 9 years later ( and, conveniently, after he had won a malpractice suit that provided for his wife to be cared for during a presumed "normal life span").

And despite all of this, despite the fact that starvation and dehydration are considered torture, despite the constitutional guarantees that we all have to life and liberty, you think that this is about political grandstanding on the part of the right?

What bothers me about this case is that the judge ruled as if Terry had a living will but has instead judicated only upon the hearsay of the husband. Yes, the husband is the legal guardian but the husband has not provided any documentation clarifying Terry's desires so how is it that he is able to legally defend something which has no legal bases. If Terry had a living will expressing her desires then I could understand the judge's ruling but there is no such document yet the judge ruled as if there was.

Has not the judge violated the concept of having a living will? I am not an attorney, but won't this action make all living wills expressing a person's desires when faced with such decisions null and void.

There's a saying that hard cases make bad law.

I haven't followed this story super-closely, so there are probably many details that I don't know about which could turn my opinion one way or another. But if she isn't on "life support" then I think Carlos hit the nail on the head in the first post: "...She just needs food to live, just like everybody else..."

But this is an issue that we, as a society, are going to have to face more and more. Advances in medicine will make it easier - but not necessarily cheaper - to keep people like Terri alive. And the aging of the Baby Boom generation will mean that there will be a lot more people like her.

Yes, congress should be involved, but only if that means the beginning of a debate on the whole "Right to Life/Die" issue - not just the "moral" questions but the economic ones as well. Health care premiums are spirally now. Would you support legislation which would make them spiral further?

I would, I think. But by how much? 20%? 75%? 500%?

Ok, I have an honest question for conservatives here, that I very kindly ask be treated seriously, because it does confuse me.

I can understand if the argument to keep her alive were "because of the absolute sanctity of life, Terri Schiavo must be kept alive at all costs, regardless of her ability to make a recovery".

Instead, the argument seems to go something like this: "Terry Schiavo has the potential to recover and we should keep her alive, just in case, because to do so would potentially be to murder her, and as a humane society we should avoid that at all costs".

My question is this: from what I've read, Terri Schiavo's frontal cortex has essentially liquified. This is a condition from which there can be no recovery. So what I'm curious to know is:

From where does the notion that Terri Schiavo might ever make a recovery come?

This, of course, does not deal with the tangential issues, such as why so many people seem to think that Schiavo's husbad, who spent years of his life and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to care for Terri (who has been in this state since 1990) is just out to kill her because she's gotten in his way and he wants the malpractice money. He even, for example, attended nursing school so as to better care for her. As far as I can tell, he has not behaved in any way like someone eager to murder his wife for money. He could, after all, just divorce her, and he could have taken the million dollar offer to keep her alive. Instead, he's acted, as far as I can tell, like someone interested in honoring his braindead wife's wishes.

This does not deal with the tangential issue of how our legal system typically works in cases such as these, either. Susan raises this issue by asking about a lack of a living will. Susan, in general, the legal system takes the approach that when no will, living or otherwise, exists, then the best person to make the decision is not a judge, or a faceless civil servant, or even the person's parents or anyone else related by blood. The courts have adopted the approach that the best person to make the decision is the spouse - the one person in the world with whom you have chosen to spend your life, and hopefully the person who knows you best and would know your actual wishes in such a case.

Until Schiavo became a prop for the Florida State Legislature, this sort of thing happened all the time - the spouse decided. So far as I know, this continues to be the case. Why this one is any different, I'm not sure.

And of course, Mr. Totten raises the very good point of the Texas law, signed by then-governor Bush, which allows hospitals to literally pull the plug if the patient's family can no longer pay, regardless of their wishes. Ah yes, the Texas Futile Care Law, under which a baby was recently removed from life support. Culture of Life, yeah!

So when Bush starts talking about Schiavo, it's fun to remember that the Leader of the Republican Party made it possible for hospitals to decide whether or not to kill poor people. When we talk about Bush being disengenuous, and using Schiavo's braindead body as a political prop, this is what we mean.

Well, for one, the testimony that her "frontal cortex has essentially liquified" is somewhat suspect, since the appropriate scans that could actually determine this have never been done.

Secondly, to say that Terri Schiavo is "being kept alive" gets to the very heart of the matter, in my opinion. She is not being "kept alive", she "is" alive, she breathes on her own and appears to make attempts to interact with her environment. No "heroic measures" are needed to "keep" her alive - just food and water. If, in fact, Ms. Schiavo is beyond recovery, it has always been in her husband's power to have that demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, yet he has not.

If, as Ms. Schiavo's parents suspect, he caused her injuries in the first place, then he would have every reason not to divorce her and cede control of the situation to her parents, who have made it clear that they would call forensic specialists into the case.

He has moved on with his life and away from his marriage and can no longer be said to be the spouse of this woman in anything other than name. He clearly desires her death, the sooner the better. We do not know if he stands to benefit from a large life insurance policy, but that is a possibilty. He is not remotely suitable as a guardian of this woman's rights, and should not be permitted to make a life or death decision for her, in the absence of any evidence that she would have wanted to die.

Formerly Conservative

So based upon the concept that spouses have the legal say in what happens to you if faced with such a dilemma why then have a living will in the first place? I thought this was the purpose of having a living will, to clarify to your legal guardian what your wishes are if faced with such a dilemma.

Say for example, I have a living will which states my desire to die if I am incapacitated, what is to stop my legal guardian husband from going to the courts and stating that I had changed my mind about pulling the plug but did not have a chance to change my will?

The problem with these cases is that people can so easily wrap themselves in the pro-life cloak and stand grand, which needlessly stirs up the strong emotions of sincere people. It's a form of asymmetric ideological warfare that prolongs the anguish of the husband and parents. Every rational viewpoint of this case says that Terri Schiavo will never recover as much mental function as a pet gerbil. Unfortunately for the family, rational people do not really care what happens to the body. For them, Terri is already dead. Fanatics and fantasists are, however, so fired up that they are willing to torment the family for the greater good, encouraging false hope and waiting for a miracle. It is just so sad.

What I think about is the anti-life impact of these extraordinary measures. It takes a lot of resources to sustain the body and wage the legal battles. If all those resources could be directed toward cost-effective health measures for the living, how many could be saved? A related, but ideological question concerns the perennial contradiction among the pro-life people. If Michael Schiavo were to sneak a gun into the hospital and kill the zombie, how many would be howling outside the courtroom demanding his death?

The question isn't so much what is being done to Terry Schiavo, but who gets to decide. Do you want the government to make the decisions for your spouse? I don't. Maybe some of you can't/won't make a decision like this and would rather the government intervene for you. Part of responsibility of marriage is making these types of difficult decisions. My wife and I discussed this case and we both agreed that we would want the other to "pull the plug" if we were vegetables. We felt the money spent on keeping us alive as a vegetable could be much better used actually curing someone else of a treatable ailment.

Susan,

As I already said, in situations where no will exists, living or otherwise, the decision defaults to the spouse. This is what happened with Michael and Terri Schiavo. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't pretend to know what happens when there is a conflict between the two, but I assume that a living will, a legal document, trumps word-of-mouth, but then there is only word-of-mouth, or no word at all, our legal system assumes that our spouses, the people who should know us best in the world, are the only people qualified to make that decision.

Priscilla, I am confused. From what I know, CAT scans were performed in 1996 that showed her cerebral cortex had largely been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. This was admitted as evidence into court and was cited in the court's opinion.

jj

My mother was diagnosed with a terminal disease four years ago yet she is still alive and living independently without suffering. She refused to believe that her 'terminal' diagnosis was an automatic death sentence.

My father, on the other hand, was diagnosed with a terminal disease much like my mother's just a few months before my mother was diagnosed yet he believed the doctors when they told him there was nothing further they could do to help him so he opted for the 'inject me with a feel-good mercy killing drug' and died shortly after. I do not fault my father's decision but am angered by the idea that the doctors convinced him nothing could be done to cure him.

Had my father ignored the doctors advice like my mother did he perhaps would be alive today.

Just because doctors tell you that you are terminal or forever incapacitated does not mean they hold all the answers to the future.

Somethimes the complete opposite happens and you end up living longer than what the doctors had forecasted.

I am puzzled by the way the so-called "Christian" right is attempting to undermine the institution of marriage. The pro-life activists are so focused on their single cause that they have lost perspective. The apostle Paul said very clearly: "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise the wife hath power over the body of her husband." (1 Corinthians 7:4). This is fundamental to the Christian understanding of marriage. Terry's husband may be wrong, but it must be his decision and his alone. God will judge him if he is acting out of malice. If the US Congress attempts to give to parents the rights over a daughter whom they have already given away than marriage is now meaningless in this country.

This woman has been in a permanent vegetative state for FIFTEEN years. It is evident to me that this is about naked political calculation. Why don't the politicians spend a fraction of the time that they have spent on the Schiavo case, figuring out to provide BASIC health care to 45 million uninsured Americans. How delusional has this country become.

A CT scan does not have the resolution necessary to determine whether or not a brain has "liquefied". CT scans are primarily useful in cases of immediate brain trauma and, even then, do not provide the type of detailed information that would be available from an MRI or PET - both more expensive and superior in their ability to acertain damage from anoxic brain injury. Both scans are non- invasive, have been available all along and Ms. Schiavo's parents have repeatedly requested that they be done. Most importantly, they have been and are considered STANDARD in diagnosing PVS.

The court has essentially ignored the affadavits, presented by Ms Schiavo's parents, from board certified neurologists willing to testify that further testing is needed to fairly determine the extent of Ms. Schiavo's brain damage. Why? I don't know...... but I consider Michael Schiavo's refusal to permit these tests as evidence that he already has the diagnosis that he wants and is not interested in having that diagnosis challenged.

Miriam

Common sense at last. Spot on.

In a memo distributed only to Republican senators, the Schiavo case was characterized as "a great political issue" that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives, whose support is essential in midterm elections such as those coming up in 2006. . .

Republicans acknowledged that the intervention was a departure from their usual support for states' rights. But they said their views about the sanctity life trumped their views about federalism.

An unsigned one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators, said the debate over Schiavo would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who is up for reelection next year and is potentially vulnerable in a state President Bush won last year.

"This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, which was reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."

Yehudit, make stuff up much? Every doctor who has evaluated Terri has said that she is conclusivly without any substantial brain tissue at all - the medical debate is if she has any cerebral cortex, or if she's got just a teaspoon full. She will never regain conciousness, can never feel, will never respond. The court apointed doctor said this.

The issue can't be money, because Michael was offered 1 and then 10 million dollars to walk away. He took neither offer. Anyway, the $700k awarded almost a decade ago is gone.

Pricilla - if you think Michael has been trying to kill her since day 1, you have not read a single unbiased timeline of the case. You seem to think a CT scan is not conclusive proof of CSF replacing the cortex - where did you get your medical degree from, again?

To me, this appears to be another pathetic Statist grab, an obvious example of why we may no longer be a country of Liberals and Conservatives, but a nation of Libretarians and Statists.

looks over the comments again

I had no idea that Tom Grey, Carlos, Priscilla, Ged and the rest were cough*socialists*cough...

Here I was, thinking that they understood the dangers of socialist thinking, the problem of expecting the Government to handle every issue that comes up in the nation. Next thing you know, they'll want the government to take some money from us every week, so we'll be able to live in retirement in style. They'll probably want to have some quotas put together, so that the government makes sure all of these poor minorities get good jobs. Surely, since they believe the federal government knows best in this medical situation, then they'll be ardent supporters of the federal government handling all of our medical needs. I'm suirprised that they weren't cheering old John Kerry on to victory with his wonderful government health insurance.

Or do they only want government intervention when it means they can get their way?

Wow, sounds like Democrats to me.

Ratatosk

Maureen Dowd said the conservatives were pulling a Weekend at Bernie's. That says a lot about the Liberal elites. This is all just "schtick" to them.

And to Grant, it's just more "culture of life" bullshit. And now he's romaticizing "old style conservatives", as if pro-life fundies are just the latest fad out of red state America. Conservatives don't do fads, Grant.

You Libs have gotten the government involved in everything, even keeping me from smoking in public. But here, the government should stay out. Welcome to the upside down world of the Liberal. Your Liberal government is even inside my head to make sure that I don't have the wrong thoughts when I commit a crime. Yet the government should stay out of life issues? Backassward Liberals.

And to Benjamin, this is just more pro-life "schtick", and his view leans more towards the "utilitarian". More Weekend at Bernie's.

Euthanasia has always been about utility, and compassion. That's how the Nazis marketed it. They pioneered it, and they argued utility like Benjamin does, and they argued compassion for their handicapped, even as they injected them full of poison.

You think the Nazis didn't argue for the "compassionate" solution to their useless humans? Of course they did. And utility too. They knew how to market themselves.

It's all very familiar, and we always come full circle, don't we.

Of course, the leave us alone crowd like Grant and Benjamin don't mind the Supreme Court grabbing hold of something like abortion, but if the same federal courts take jurisdiction of other life issues, they're shocked SHOCKED. I'm so sure.

The world is a better place without Terri Schiavo mucking things up for the beautiful happy people right?

My objections to the Terry Schiavo case are based on the apparent incompetence of the Florida Court system, and the brutality of the laws that demand death by starvation. If Michael Shiavo demanded a physician-assisted quick and painless death, that would be against Florida’s laws.

Michael, if Terry lived in your home state, Oregon, where physician assisted death has been legalized, this would be less of an issue.

It seems that the administration is forced to step in due to the incompetence of the Florida courts, and I’m glad that they’re doing that. But I would like to see Oregon’s laws applied nationwide, and I know that a Republican administration would never do that - in fact, they'd try to prevent it. I definitely don’t like them dealing with ‘right to life’ and family-related issues at all.

For all of the people who have trouble sympathizing with a “zombie”, or a “gerbil”: Just pretend that Terry Schiavo is a terrorist who was convicted of planning to kill thousands of Americans, and pretend that she’s been sentenced by the American courts to death by starvation. Would you be demanding that someone, anyone step in to stop this grotesque travesty of human rights, this horrible breach of justice?

Carlos,

I'm a bit confused. You just wrote a rant on how liberals want government intervention in 'everything'. You seem to think that government intervention in your freedom to smoke is a Bad Thing (though one might wonder why the gov. should not pass laws on tobacco smoke, when they pass laws on marijuana, peyote, belladonna and datrua smoke).

So far, I agree 100%.

You point out that the Liberals are waffling over government intervention. I agree.

Then you somehow miss that you (and all the "conservatives" who are pissing on Florida's States Rights) are absolutely no different. You scream about Big Government, yet your administration has arguably made some of the largest Big Government moves in the past several years. You scream about Federal involvement in a State's right to ban abortion, yet you seem more than willing to support federal involvment, if it will socre a point for you.

Perhaps, you are no different than any other Statist.

Ick

Ratatosk

I had to make the decision on whether or not to pull the plug on my mother (we did). It is not a decision I would wish on my worse enemy. It is also a decision I will question to my dying day. Having said that, I hope my wife has the courage to pull it on me if needed. Power of Attorney ladies and gents. Don't put your loved ones thru Hell.

Every opinion given here is BS. None of us know the facts well enough to be entitled to an opinion. It has all been filtered and refiltered into a meaningless white noise.

Semper Fi

No medical degree, just 27 years spent as an RT, specialized in the following imaging techniques: CT, Ultrasound, MRI, Nuclear scans. Seen my share of brain dead people, never saw one that was responsive in the way that Ms. Schiavo is.

Look, I don't know the truth here - but, then again, neither do you. What I do know is that I would not want a spouse who had abandoned me and refused standard medical testing and therapy for me making the decision to have me starved to death. I would not want his cherry-picked medical testimony to determine my fate. And I would sure as hell want the government to assert that my right to not be killed trumps hearsay evidence that I would want to die.

If this were truly a case of "pulling the plug", i.e. if Ms Schiavo were being kept alive by extraordinary means, I would have a very different opinion.

Tosk,

the only "socialism" I see here is of the national socialist variety.

You know, I wasn't particularly stirred up about this until I started reading just how callous most Libs are about human life. It's just "schtick". Now I see just where we are heading with this. Thoughtless, selfish, shallow post-modernism. The Pope is right. We are living in a culture of death where people are just meat. It's as if their value is not inherent. And without God, it's not. Behold this thread. So let's admit it. Terri's life isn't worth a hill of beans, and has no inherent value because she doesn't pay taxes, and she can't party with us on the weekends and make my life my pleasurable. Didn't you know that you folks are only here to make my life more entertaining? Yup. Short of that, you have no inherent value. Pull the plug, stop throwing good food after bad.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) has been mentioned in reports of negotiations on this matter: a few years ago his staff helped me above and beyond the call of duty when an overzealous Social Security examiner sought to really screw up my life. No publicity, nothing to gain.

The pharmaceutical company Biogen also has furnished me with thousands of dollars worth of the semi-experimental drug Beta Interferon when coverage was interrupted because of the Oregon health plan suddenly failing. (This med runs $900/month.)

So not everyone grandstands all the time.

mary:

What would the point be of pretending that when the two situations aren't remotely analogous?

You scream about Federal involvement in a State's right to ban abortion, yet you seem more than willing to support federal involvment, if it will socre a point for you.

Tosk,

The problem I have with Roe vs Wade is NOT that it went to the Supreme Court, but rather that the lawyers in black robes invented Constitutional law out of whole cloth. And THAT'S why it should go to the state legislatures. Is that more clear?

Carlos,

So, is your argument based on the Pope and some metaphysical valuation on life?

Last time I checked, the Federal Government didn't rely on the Pope or Metaphysics to do anything. I could be wrong.

Perhaps Florida's Laws are wrong, perhaps the idea that a husband, by marriage, is the legal guardian of his wife is wrong (maybe you should ask the Pope). I don't know the answers to these questions, but I do know that the current push by the religious right is Statist. And Statism has rarely been good for anyone... including someone who apparently no longer has a brain.

One must choose between values and hypocricy. The Statist always thinks they hold the first, and always act in a way that defines the second.

Sad really.

Carlos just went Godwin's law on us. Contrary to popular belief that doesn't mean that the discussion must be shut down it merely means that he has proven the proposition that as the number of comments increases the likelihood of one side calling the other Hitler or Nazis approaches one.

Rick M has made the single best comment about this I've seen anywhere. Everyone should just shut up about this (including me). It's none of our business.

Eric,

sorry I went Godwin's law on you (never heard of it, and don't really care). How is Nazi euthanasia any different? Do you have the balls to address that? Because if you say Bush is Hitler, I'd be happy to argue with you on the merits if you like. Would that be a fair exchange?

What would the point be of pretending that when the two situations aren't remotely analogous

I was trying to fit Terri into a leftist's definition of "a human life worth considering."

It's one thing to defend a person's right to die. Everyone should have the right to make that decision. Dehumanizing that person doesn't help anyone's argument.

Carlos,

Indeed, I agree. Roe V. Wade is a very bad Statist law. It sets a dangerous path. So explain to me how Terri is any different? Why should the State get the right to decide on abortion of a healty unborn child , yet no right to decide on the "life" of a severly damaged person with no hope of any sort of 'life' at all?

Either States have rights, or they don't. I swear the religious Right seems to waffle as badly as Kerry.

Tosk

Last time I checked, the Federal Government didn't rely on the Pope or Metaphysics to do anything. I could be wrong.

Tosk,

We don't have to go to the Pope for metaphysical. It's in our Constitution.

As in, "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." How's that for metaphysical.

How is Nazi euthanasia any different?

I dunno, how is the prisoner abuse scandal any different than concentration camps?

Oh yeah! I remember, they're not remotely the sssame. We're talking about a person, who, without a feeding tube would die, who does not respond to stimuli and hasn't improved in 15 years. The Nazis were killing people who were conscious, had a modicum of health and could communicate.

Are you trying to sneak in some Moral Equivalence here?

Tosk

We're talking about a person, who, without a feeding tube would die, who does not respond to stimuli and hasn't improved in 15 years. The Nazis were killing people who were conscious, had a modicum of health and could communicate.

Tosk,

pretty good. But you're wrong on the facts here. Terri does respond to stimuli, and is not braindead. Nor is she surviving on machines. If she were indeed a braindead vegetable surviving on machines, then this wouldn't even be an issue.

The fact that she does respond to stimuli, and doesn't need machines to live is what takes this dangerously close to nazi euthanasia.

Carlos,

Well, that says "endowed by their Creator". What if my creator thinks that living an unlife is just as much a trivialization of life as aborting a healthy fetus?

Creator doesn't automatically equal YHVH and Jesus, and it surely doesn't equal some old man's personal take on some interpertation of some religious texts.

Canard after canard and still no valid argument.

Pri:

Terri is not "responsive." She does not react to stimuli, she has reflexive responses, which actually were "Cherry Picked" out of hours of tape to give you 10 seconds of "responsive" behavior. In a test run on Terri by her parents, she did not respond to 111 commands and 72 questions given by her parents physician or her physician.

Of course, we could just listen to the phsicians Terri's parents chose. You know, the one from Quackwatch?
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/tcd.html

You allege that Michael abandoned her and refused standard medical treatment. Have you examined the treatment given to Terri between 1990 and 1994 before reaching this conclusion? Pay special attention to the trip to California when evaluating.

You argue that the medical testimony was "Cherry Picked." Does that include the testimony of Dr. Peter Bambakidis? How exactly was he "Cherry Picked?"

Tosk,

I'm not so sure we can say that the patient here has no "life" at all. Comas are mysterious states. Some people dream for seven years and then come out of it, at least to some extent. Maybe they're "retarded" then, but is that a living hell? Are you sure?

She hasn't even had an MRI. A brain scan. I've had three. PET-Scans are in some ways even more informative. CAT-Scans are old technology, very crude.

"George W. Bush isn’t intervening to save one person’s life. I really truly hate to say this, but it’s true: he has more important things that he needs to tend to. For him this is all about politics."

Disagree. Had it been all about politics, he would have been involved for quite some time, trying to score political points.

The late action, only when inaction would result in certain death, suggests it is not just political. Yes, there will be political benefits and costs, but that will be true of anything that is of sufficient public interest.

As for the whole affair, I think this strikes to the entire debate of judicial temperment. I would love to see where the Florida legislature enacted a law that says that a living will is not required when a single person says that someone else expressed a desire to die. I am pretty sure that no such law was ever passed. As such, I am also pretty sure that means that once again a judge was legislating from the bench.

Creator doesn't automatically equal YHVH and Jesus, and it surely doesn't equal some old man's personal take on some interpertation of some religious texts.

Tosk,

That just begs the question. If it doesn't equal "some old man's personal take", then whose take does it equal? That is precisely what this is all about. Welcome to the fight.

One of the many problems with this case (besides the "hard cases make bad law" reality of it) is the difficulty in ascertaining the facts. Each side makes statements about Terri's medical history, her prognosis, and the actions of the husband--not to mention, of course, assertions about her stated wishes, which is the issue at the very heart of the trial--that are very contradictory. For many people, their opinion of what is to be done at this point rests on knowing which side is telling the truth, and we simply don't know. I've not read the entire trial record, nor even much of it, and I doubt anyone else has, so it's very very hard to know the reality of Terri's condition.

That said, I agree that Congress jumping into this sets a bad precedent, especially for those of the libertarian persuasion.

But I respectfully disagree, Michael, with your statement about Bush, "For him this is all about politics." I think it is indeed partly about politics (or even mostly?). But all? Don't you think at least some portion of his position is motivated by his moral and religious beliefs? I do.

Interesting discussion of the CT scans (or, at least on of them) at this blog:

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/

Ann Althouse (law prof) has weighed in on federalism and states' rights on her blog.

Carlos,

Responding to stimuli usually requires a couple things. First, it must be consistant. Second, the person should be responding the way they respond to Stimuli, when the stimuli is not present.

Ergo, moaning when stimulated... aand moaning when not stimulated doesn't equate (in any way) to response. Multiple Doctors, including the Court Appointed one have stated that every reaction from her is involuntary.

I haven't seen information from ANY doctor who has examined that woman to support your assertation that she has responded to anything. Though quite a few have stated that they 'believe' she has/might/will/could.

I called up a friend of my who is a neurologist, they told me that a CAT scan is more than sufficient to determine if Terri's brain is still there. Now, he may be wrong. Perhaps he's an evil bastard who wants to gleefully rub his hands together as Terri slowly starves. Somehow, though, I doubt it.

Tosk

From a commonsense perspective (forgetting about legalities and precedences), if we as a society wants Terry dead why not put her to death in an humane way?

Not feeding her (not being proactive) seems a pathetic way to avoid responsibity even when it means condemning Terry to a painful, lingering death. This seems like cowardice. In other words, we don't want blood on our hands; it's all about our delicate feelings, not about the unfortunate victim.

Or, again, maybe we should starve and dehydrate our death row inmates rather than perform lethal injections.

Just to clarify (since my Dr. Friend read my post and called me back).

A CAT scan is not able to determine how much damage oxygen deprivation has caused. However, a CAT scan is able to determine if the cortex has liquified.

Tosk

While there may be relatively small stories to be told, such as politicians engaged in political maneuverings, spouses remembering the other's wish not to live as a "vegetable" only after a court medical malpractice settlement has paid the cost of a full time gardener, conservatives hypocritically championing the rights of parents over spouses thus destroying family values, which don't you know, is purely a conservative issue, as is hypocrisy itself, the real story is how one family moved the Congress of the United States to enact legislation just for them, and only for them. Read the legislation and tell me that you are not amazed. Perhaps it has happened before, and I just have not seen it, but when has one family, and that family alone, ever been given standing to bring a claim in federal court?

But what is more significant is the fact that the Florida courts have already ruled, already decided the main case as well as a multitude of additional cases, claims, and legal theories and objections. Yet Congress sees fit to grant the federal district court with "de novo" review, and remove from the district court the option of abstaining. The bill even provides that there has been no "change in substantive rights." Incredible, really incredible. If there has been no change in substantive rights, and the substantive rights of the parties have been fully and finally litigated in the state courts, what can the federal district court do now? Can Congress just sweep away the prior rulings of the Florida courts? What if the federal judge rules the same way? Why is what Congress done significant?

Dave: Terri cannot feel pain. I wonder how allowing someone to pass painlessly is more "lingering" than forcing them to "exist" without higher brain function or hope of recovery for over a decade. I'd say "lingering death" is what she's being given now.

Not feeding her (not being proactive) seems a pathetic way to avoid responsibity even when it means condemning Terry to a painful, lingering death. This seems like cowardice. In other words, we don't want blood on our hands; it's all about our delicate feelings, not about the unfortunate victim

That's exactly what bothers me the most about this case. I think Oregon is the only state that has a reasonable attitude.

FC - How do you know that Terri can't feel the effects of dehydration and hunger? These are not "pain". From what I know, people who are receiving morphine don't feel pain, but they know they're thirsty.

Regarding the federalism issue/states's rights, and general role of government in this case:

I am unpersuaded by the left's newfound sense of federalism here. The left has waged fights for federal intervention in state issues in countless areas involving civil rights, from desegregation, to the voting rights acts, to the civil rights laws regarding business establishments and "public areas", to violence against women, to the Americans with Disabilities Act, to gender quotas for sports teams in state universities. All of those aspects of life, regulated by the states as late as the early 1960s, are now federalized.

Civil Rights Acts (first racial, but now understood in general) are properly understood to be an area of Federal Concern, because under the 14th Amendment, no STATE can deprive someone of their life without due process of law. Federal jurisdiction of the courts can also be controlled by Congress, according to Article 3 of the US Constitution. I'm quite satisfied that the legal standing of Congressional action in this matter is sound, despite what the talking heads may say.

But what this issue is REALLY about is the role of the judiciary. The left now worships at the altar of the judicial bench, for it is by the bench which most leftist programs are enacted. Judges raise taxes to increase funding for education (where are concerns about separation of powers in those instances?), they find "rights" which don't exist in the Constitution, they find all legislative acts not in accord with leftist agendas to be unconstitutional, and they generally worm their way into undoing most of society's basic institutions, like marriage.

The problem the left has with this case is that it's an instance where the "right" is fighting back against a Judge, which is totally unacceptable by liberals. Their callous nature and hopeful glee that Terri soon starve to death betrays a lust for a culture of death which is increasingly supported only by the judiciary. Unelected, elitist philosopher-kings determining who lives and dies is not, to put it bluntly, the American way. But it is the liberal way. And that is why there is a fight over this.

Hmmm. Perhaps PC is correct about the futility of discourse such as this. As part of my training for the ministry, I served as a chaplain in a brain injury unit in a children's hospital for three months last summer. My job was to listen to and be there with families struggling with many of these same issues of life and death. Empiricist that I am, I came out a lot stronger devotee of the culture of life than I was going in.

Luckily, I have this comments section to inform me that what I really am a partisan hack and that the co-called culture of life is sham. Right. Keep telling yourself that. These are not the droids YOU are looking for, apparently. Wish you all well. RL beckons.

Ged,

So how many of the patients you helped with grew a new brain, or at least a new Cortex?

Also, what is 'living' in your 'culture of life'?

Or, again, maybe we should starve and dehydrate our death row inmates rather than perform lethal injections.

Give Terri a lethal shot then, instead of starving her like the cowards you are.

Give Terri a lethal shot then, instead of starving her like the cowards you are.

Carlos,

Very good point. I'm sure that there are many people that support your view that a quick death is better than starvation (I do). However, I would prefer a relatively quick death than another 15 or 20 years of laying in a bed, unable to communicate, unable to eat or drink, unable to roll over or even smile.

Quick death, not so quick death, or 20 years of dying.

I'd take either of the first two.

mary,

Just to get it out of the way; the pain response center of the brain is in the anterior cingulate cortex. Terri does not have an anterior cingulate cortex. She cannot feel pain. I don't know specifically where the hunger and thirst impulses are processed, but wherever they are, Terri cannot feel them, because she dosen't have that part of her brain. She cannot feel anything, because she does not have a higher brain. There's nothing there.

(Oops, I do know where the hunger bit is - frontotemporal, paralimbic, occipital and parietal sensory and ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Terri doesn't have any of those.)

My understanding is that VSED can be painless. I have not read the following cites, so don't ask me what they say.

Printz LA. Terminal dehydration, a compassionate treatment. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152:697-700.
Bernat JL, Gert B, Mogielnicki RP. Patient refusal of hydration and nutrition: an alternative to physician-assisted suicide or voluntary active euthanasia. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153:2723-8
Sullivan RJ Jr. Accepting death without artificial nutrition or hydration. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:220-4.

Mary: From what I know, people who are receiving morphine don't feel pain, but they know they're thirsty.

Here's one data point: I shattered every bone in my right foot when I was a teenager and needed surgical reconstruction. I was hopped up on morphine for a week. I still felt plenty of pain, even when I was asleep. Morphine lessens pain, but it can't make it stop.

However, I would prefer a relatively quick death than another 15 or 20 years of laying in a bed, unable to communicate, unable to eat or drink, unable to roll over or even smile.

Tosk,

personally, me too. But I'm assuming the person has the mental capacity to make that choice. When he doesn't, and we make that choice for him, that's troubling. Clearly human fetuses are now just meat. And now retards are just meat too. What's next. I think the Pope makes a very good point.

What would be happening if the roles were reversed - that is the Florida judge ruled that the feeding tube must remain and then a Democratic Congress and Democratic president started passing bills in an attempt to reverse the decision? Carlos, GED, et. al. would be going insane - screaming about the abuse of power and that the Federal government should stay out of it. How hypocritical. And I'm not buying all the crocodile tears either. (FYI I'm not a liberal and I think Michael should give guardianship to Terri's parents - but it's not my, or anyone else's, decision to make except his.)

Carlos,

If Terri were retarded, I would agree with you. As for fetuses, I personally think that they may be alive, but I'm not so hubristic as to expect the world to revolve around my metaphysical thoughts.

Unfortunately, Terri appears to be suffering, not from retardation, but from missing important sections of her brain. Now, while I do not rule out the possibility that she could grow a new brain (just because we have no proof that its ever happened, probably doesn't rule out the possibility that it 'might'). One might suppose that God could heal her, but after 15 years, I think he's stuck in traffic or not gonna make it over.

Now, here's a poser for you:

A doctor determines that he may be able to stimulate regrowth of brain tissue for Terri. However, he determines that it would require 6 months of research using stem cells.

What do we do? Does our "Culture of Life" mean that a fetus (which was gonna be aborted anyway) should not be used to give Terri life? Should she remain a unmoving, unthinking husk for as long as God determine that she should lie in her own feces?

Personally, I think that might be a decision for the family (which according to your Bible and the Law, would seem to be Terri's Husband, not her parents).

Ratatosk

Tosk and others assure us they would want a quick death rather than dragging it out. If you lost the use of your legs, would that be bad enough? Life as a cripple is pretty tough. People don't look at you the same when you're in a wheelchair. It's hard to have the same self-image as when you were dancing all night.

If you're a quad should we shoot you? What about Christopher Reeve? Or cartoonist John Callahan, who's hung around for twenty-some years since his carwreck?

What about quarterbacks such as Kurt Warner or Troy Aikman? One too many concussion... if it makes them forgetful should we put them out of their misery? What if they pee on themselves and don't know their wife but smile in the sun?

What about boxers Meldrick Taylor, Aaron Pryor, Riddick Bowe?

If Muhammad Ali becomes bedridden and can no longer communicate in ways easily understood, should we leave him out in the Arctic night until he's gone?

Some of you are very cavalier about what seems to me a pretty damn slippery slope. If you say that life isn't good enough for YOU then it's easy to say it's not good enough for somebody else (some stranger you don't know).

Brian,

I'm an ex-Liberal and have never been a "state's rightser" type. In fact, I've observed since my switch that both sides pull that same contradiction whenever it's convenient to them. So in my view, they basically they cancel each other out in their hypocrisy. Therefore, it's not an issue as far as I'm concerned.

As I explained to Tosk, if I believe abortion should go to the state legislatures, it's not because of "state's rights", but because there is nothing in the Constitution about abortion. It's invented law. Thus, because it's invented, it's an improper subrogation of the rights of both Congress and state legislatures.

What do we do? Does our "Culture of Life" mean that a fetus (which was gonna be aborted anyway) should not be used to give Terri life?

Tosk,

we already have good results from adult stem cells right now. So it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned.

Miklos:

All of the cases you mentioned involve people with at least part of their brain. This is different than Terri, who has no brain. Terri expressed a clear desire not to live "life" as a vegetable. None of the people you list, who are perfectly able to communicate has expressed a clear desire to die.

Don't know enough to take sides in this debate, but I will point out that anyone who doesn't have a living will exposes their loved ones to a terrible risk.

Think about the possibilities, figure out what you would want to happen to you in those cases, and write your decisions down!

As medical technologies get better, the chances you'll need a living will go up.

This is different than Terri, who has no brain. Terri expressed a clear desire not to live "life" as a vegetable.

If that were true. But it isn't. She reacts to stimuli, and she SWALLOWS when fed. That's "no brain"? Gimme a break. We need a proper diagnosis, and that's what's going to happen in the federal courts. If convicted murderers have that right, then so does this woman.

Also, we don't know what Terri wanted. The only source for her desire comes from Michael Schiavo, the same person that sued and won 1 million dollars for her maintenance and rehabilitation, and then immediately proceeded to have her tube removed right afterwards. He's shady.

miklos rosza,

The difference being that all of the people you named seemed to have most of a functioning brain. Terri, does not appear to have a functioning brain... unless you know of some new cognitave capabilities in spinal fluid.

Or are you just being silly?

Tosk

So in my view, they basically they cancel each other out in their hypocrisy. Therefore, it's not an issue as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe that's why I can't relate to either Democratic Party or the Republican Party as both are built on a foundation of hypocrisy.

Here was Neil Boortz' take on the Terri Schiavo controversy:
This isn't about Terri Schiavo. It's about abortion. The anti-abortion movement saw an opportunity to take Terri's tragedy and turn it into a spectacular pageant in support of life. Quality of life means nothing to these people ... only the fact that some sort of life is present.

If a procedure was in place that could restore Terri to full mental capacity and it worked 50% of the time, but the procedure killed the patient 50% of the time, and you had to make the decision what would you do? I take the chance of a quality life. Your thoughts Carlos?

If she breathes on her own she's still a human being, so why kill her?

And sure, maybe I've fallen prey to one-sided propaganda, but the husband seems hinky. If he has any financial gain here whatsoever he's hardly disinterested, and the nurses' statements -- all put-up jobs? -- are disturbing.

Does she suffer from staying alive? How?

She reacts to stimuli, and she SWALLOWS when fed.

1. She appears to react to stimuli based on several hours of edited film. She does not appear to react to stimuli when simply observed without any editing.

2. She seems to swallow when being fed on occasion, but there is much debate over the voluntary vs. involuntary act of swallowing.

3. When examined by several different doctors, she appears to be missing the necessary parts of her brain to achieve conscious thought, pain, or higher brain function.

None of these appear to be in question for any individual mentioned in Miklos' post.

Your statement seems , at best, to be an opinion... and I'm not really sure how much medical training you've had, so I;m not sure how much value to place on it. From my perspective, though, Miklos' argument seems like a pathetic straw-man based on the old slippery-slope argument that everyone appears pulls out when they pray to the Statist gods.

Even if, in Terri’s case, there would be no pain, I doubt that the Florida courts opted for death by starvation because they thought it was the most painless way to go. It’s the most painless option for the courts, not the patient.

If Terri lived in Oregon or Vermont, this whole case would probably have been settled by now. I still think the main problem is Florida’s courts and laws. Death by dehydration can’t be painless for every terminally ill patient, and Florida has a large elderly population. These laws need to be fixed. It’s just a shame that this case had to come to national attention when the administration in power is so socially conservative.

Miklos,

So... breathing = life?

Using that reasoning, could an infant in the first or second trimester be alive, since they can't 'breathe' on their own?

Now, if you argue that a fetus is alive because it can respond, then how is Terri alive, since she cannot respond?

Or do you just grab whatever rationale you can to support your dogma?

What if she wasn't breathing and needed a ventilator? What then? The point is is that it's not so black and white. How do you define living? Where do you draw the lines? Everyone will draw their own, including judges. One judge says she is a vegetable, another one might not. The judicial system isn't perfect, but if Congress tries to circumvent the system, the system will collapse eventually. Innocent people are put on death row. Murderers are let out on parole only to kill again. It's an imperfect system, but I think the slippery slope is circumventing judges decisions only because Tom Delay or whoever doesn't agree with their decisions.

Carlos-

When you consider her initial injury was from hitting her head on concrete in the presence of her husband, it seems to me that at some point the husband should have been removed as her guardian. He's spent virtually no money on her and has two kids with another woman.

Interesting debate.

Terri does not react to stimuli. Swallowing is involuntary. She has no brain. No. Brain.

The husband was offered $10MM to walk away. That is his only current financial incentive, as the $700k devoted to her care is gone. Michael is not required to be disintrested - he's required to represent Terri, along with the Guardian ad Litem. The Guardian ad Litem thinks Michael is doing a fine job.

Terri has no brain. No. Brain. The nurses statements are products of their beliefs, not their observations.

Does she suffer by not being flogged into staying "alive?" How?

Raymond,

her initial injury was from hitting her head on concrete in the presence of her husband,

I'think that your statement may be speculation, based on Dr. Baden's review of files, not any doctor's actual examination of Terri. Personally, I wouldn't consider that as any sort of fact. I would also wonder how 15 years worth of medical examinations would have missed something picked up by a doctor who looked at a file.

...

But, hey, make your own reality. Its the only way to fly.

Tosk, I worked as a clerk in a surgical intensive care unit for two years at a time when I was seriously considering going on to medical school. In the particular culture of that SICU, I read x-rays, sometimes suggested lab tests (nailing acute pancreatitis once for instance), became quite familiar with respirators (my roommate then was a respiratory therapist -- a good one) and knew the values of every lab test in common or uncommon use.

Later I worked in a busy emergency room for five years, during which time my two best friends were ER docs, my girlfriends were RNs, and I triaged everyone who came in. I was still interested in medicine, and I wrote a book about a fictional ER physician which was widely reviewed, won an award, and sold 25,000 copies in the USA and was translated into French.

My roommate, near the end of this period, was a neurologist from Boston; we talked about medicine incessantly and neurology in particular (I regard it as the most interesting specialty). He went to Africa on a fellowship, I moved, and we fell out of touch.

I was diagnosed with MS, since then I've had the opportunity to see the other side of the equation, as a patient with an incurable progressive disease.

So no, I have no professional expertise, but I'm probably a reasonably informed layman. I've looked at MRIs and PET-Scans and CAT-Scans and been subjected to the first and third.

Have to go. It's Uncle Bernard's birthday in Marseille.

Michael - Whenever I’ve taken strong painkillers like codeine, they make me thirsty. People who’ve had morphine usually say the same thing. They also say the painkilling (and psychedelic) effect varies. Based on my very limited information, I figured that pain and thirst are not related. There's no way I could get into a real discussion of neurology, but it seems that confirmed medical knowledge about how the brain functions is still pretty limited.

Miklos,

Good credentials for a blog poster ;-)

I'm still not sure how you equate a broken spine (Reeves) with missing necessary chunks of brain (Schivo). However, I am more than willing to listen to your rationale.

The Guardian ad Litem thinks Michael is doing a fine job.

Terri has no guardian ad litem. Michael Schiavo is her guardian (that's my understanding). The court won't release any documents on how much Michael has spent on her care or rehabilitation (that's also my understanding). Let's see all the info shall we. Until we do, the fact that he wanted her euthanized since day one speak very badly of him. I think he kept the cash.

Tosk, you missed my point. I don't have a "dogma" on Schiavo and certainly when I mentioned the boxers and other athletes etc I was being IRONIC, as in what if they become worse... and burdensome, and cannot communicate. As for the specific brain situation of the patient in question, this wasn't even on my radar until last night. It was only when I looked at the documents of the NAs's statements that I started becoming uncomfortable.

And I really can't see why they don't do an MRI.

But yes, I'm reacting a little to the slippery slope I have at least inferred from some comments along the lines of "I wouldn't want to live like that." Lots of people say they wouldn't want to be a cripple, and I find that offensive.

(written in a hurry because my wife has to call Marseille)

Mikos,

Fair enough, have fun with the Birthday. ;-)

Carlos,

Terri has no guardian ad litem.

If you look at the document in the link below, you'll find a "Report to Governor Jeb Bush and The 6th Judicial Circuit In The Matter of Theresa Marie Schiavo" written by "Jay Wolfson, DrPH, JD, Guardian Ad Litem for Theresa Marie Schiavo"

I am under the impression that this was not fictional, and thus your information may be a bit incorrect.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2005-02/16435770.pdf

Ratatosk,

Both Wolfson and Judge Greer have acted as GAR, but as I understand it, Terri has no permanent GAR. Throughout this thread there seems to be lots assumptions as to the facts. Few of us have had time to become thoroughly informed, certainly not me, so perhaps it is best to operate with a certain presumption of ignorance.

I take the chance of a quality life. Your thoughts Carlos?

This whole affair is such a damn shame. I've seen pictures of that woman before the accident and she was pretty damn hot. I mean a really hot. A real looker.

Neil Boortz is onto something. He's right that it's bigger than just Terri. But it's also more than just about "abortion." It's about the kind of things our society will place value on. Will our society continue on the road to devaluing human life, or will it not. Quality of life vs inherent value of life. We need both.

Carlos states that, and I quote "Terri has no guardian ad litem."

This is factually innacurate. Terri's second GAL was Professor Jay Wolfson. Terri's first GAL was Richard L. Pearse Jr.

Carlos states that, and I quote "The court won't release any documents on how much Michael has spent on her care or rehabilitation." This is factually innacurate. In the Pearse report, the amount remaining the the guardian estate was disclosed (in court filings, Michael formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardian estate.) There are further updates on the financial status of the guardian estate in the court docket - you should feel free to treck down to Clearwater and go get them.

Carlos states that "he [Michael] wanted her euthanized sinze day one." This statement is in error. Michael did not wish to euthanize Terri on day one. In fact, Michael never motioned to euthanize Terri untill AFTER the parents attempted to have him removed as guardian in 1993(they alleged that he was not caring for her and that his behavior was disruptive immediatly after the malpractice judgement.) In 1994, Michael gave up hope, signed a DNR and attempted to withold treatment.

Everything the right wing gives you? Grain of salt.

Whoops - self correction - 1st ad lit was John H. Pecarek, who determined that Michael never abused Terri and was, in fact, very attentive.

Carlos,

But it's also more than just about "abortion." It's about the kind of things our society will place value on.

I think this is very true. Many have argued this case from the legal point of view. I think legally Michael has every right to have the tube pulled. Others argue from quality of life, but to be honest, those arguments strike me as received conventional wisdom rather than considered, with lots of assumptions as to what Terri would want. The larger context is what sort of moral climate we want to live with in this country. Who do you want at your side when you are ill? Wolcott? I think not. Remember, we the people make the laws and set the tone. This is not just about current legalities, it is about what sort of place we want our country to be. So argue on.

I'm a former police officer, Ratatosk. Her injuries are/were suspicious.

My only concern in this case is that her husband doesn't profit from her death as I think she may have been the victim of domestic abuse.

Michael did not wish to euthanize Terri on day one. In fact, Michael never motioned to euthanize Terri untill AFTER the parents attempted to have him removed as guardian in 1993.

FC,

so Michael wanted Terri euthananized only when her parents took action that would actually require him to spend that money on her (because he wasn't caring for her before that). Is that any less shady?

And I'll admit my knowledge of all the facts is less than complete. Feel free to correct me.

Who do you want at your side when you are ill?

Well, I sure as hell don't want any congressmen there... that would just worsen whatever condition I already had! ;-)

Carlos,

Where are you getting your information, Sean Hannity?

This whole affair is such a damn shame. I've seen pictures of that woman before the accident and she was pretty damn hot. I mean a really hot. A real looker.

Agreed.

Quality of life vs inherent value of life. We need both.

I agree, but there is also the question of whose decision it is. I prefer to make the decisions about my spouse and she decides about me. I don't believe the government or other people should intervene in that decision. And if other people want to keep their vegetated spouses alive forever, that's fine, I respect their decision.

Here's another interesting take on the case at http://www.samizdata.net/blog/

Excerpt:
The case for a legal mandate that nutrition and hydration be given over the objections of the legal guardian rests comes down to the argument that, where there is any doubt as to what the patient would want, we should err on the side of keeping them alive. This argument, however, founders on a couple of points. Logically, it cannot be limited to nutrition and hydration, and thus requires that we keep all life support, no matter how extraordinary, in place. Further, it begs the question of how much certainty is enough. Even where a written living will exists, the question can be raised about whether the patient changed her mind.

For him (President Bush) this is all about politics.

So you know the President's heart? Congratulations Michael! I actually agree with most of your summation as to the difficultness of the topic, but projecting such cynicism on the President seems to make it fair to conclude you to be suffering some cynicism on this very same topic. Very, over the top my friend.

What injuries, Raymond? Can you beat someone into a potassium deficiency?

If Michael was removed as guardian he would not only not have to spend money on her, he would be unable to have anything to do with the case. He was caring for her since day 1, and was appointed the guardian on June 18, 1990. Nothing the parents could possibly do would force him to spend money on her, at all, ever, untill that $700k ran out. He's been offered $10MM to walk away. He's not the bad guy here. There is no bad guy here (well, except the quack doctor that is egging on the Schindlers so his hyperbaric shit can get press, and everyone flogging the living corpse of this woman so that they can wage culture wars.)

From the 3rd GAL report: "After the malpractice case judgement, evidence of disaffection between the Shindlers and Michale Schiavo openly emerged for the first time... It was determined that he had been very agressive and attentive in his care of Teresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the adminstrator as 'a nursing home adminstrator's nigtmare.'"

One of the many problems with this case (besides the "hard cases make bad law" reality of it) is the difficulty in ascertaining the facts.

That's what happens when people lie a lot, as the folks in favor of keeping the tube in have been. Poor Carlos has been stuck repeating points which have been thoroughly and repeatedly found non-credible in a court of law, because he has been lied to by people he finds credible (or they have been lied to, etc.).

Give Terri a lethal shot then, instead of starving her like the cowards you are.

It's illegal, so we can't. I agree that it would probably be humane, but the part of Terry Schiavo that suffers is currently liquid, so she won't "feel" anything.

Hey, if the President and Congress have this kind of time to devote to this, the War on Terror must be pretty much over. When're the troops coming home?

Michael Totten -- good for you to mention the Texas law yanking people off life support after 10 days if the hospital they are in doesn't want to pay for them and an alternative place cannot be found. You neglect to mention that this bill was signed into law by that great defender of the culture of life, George W. Bush, back when he was governor of Texas. The "right to life" movement also seemed to have no problem with such a law...

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/metropolitan/3079622

Re Kimmet and Markus,

I forgot the it's all politics crowd. I just know there is oil in there somewhere.

It seems to me that if you are going to demand that a court order a woman starved to death, then you should, at the very least, be absolutely, positively sure that that woman is a vegetable with absolutely no cognitive functions whatsoever. And that means utilizing the standard diagnostic tests available. Any guardian who refuses to do this is suspect and, therefore, unfit to make this demand.

chuck -- no I'm not in the all politics crowd, I'm in the "I hate hypocrisy" crowd.

One post you're talking about our the need to have a quality "moral climate", the next post you're belittling people who are concerned about a Texas law, signed by President Bush, that allows hospitals to cut off life support based on inability to pay, REGARDLESS of the wishes of the patient or family.

Raymond,

I'm no expert on the fantastic advances of Police science, but I'm curious as to how you examined the evidence and came to your conclusion.

Has a doctor finally gotten around to examining Mrs. Schaivo personally, or are we still working off of assumptions made by a single doctor, who examined some medical records?

It seems to me, that one would expect to examine the evidence before making statements of fact like : "Her injuries are/were suspicious."

Now, I know that Pigs get a bad rap for being dumb. I know there's the perception that many police follow their own biased views as opposed to the law. But, surely these are misconceptions, a policeman would never state in the definate, what has yet to be proven... would they?

Tosk

The standard diagnostic test for totally liquified brain is a CT.

I agree, but there is also the question of whose decision it is. I prefer to make the decisions about my spouse and she decides about me.

Brian,

I agree it's best left to family, and in most cases the husband. But two things about Michael Schiavo bother me. First, he only "remembered" that Terri wanted to be euthanized several years after she went into a coma. According to FC, it happened when the parents tried to assume control in 1993 because Michael was neglecting her. In other words, he wasn't using the money to rehabilitate her. Tell me, is that not shady? Who can tell me that's not shady.

Second, Michael Schiavo is common-law married with another woman, with children by her, and has been so for over ten years or more. He's hardly a husband. Do not the blood ties of the parents come into play here? I think they do.

This case gets weirder and weirde. Michaels lawyer seems to be a bit of a religious nut:

“As I continued to stay beside Mrs. Browning at her nursing home bed, I felt my mind relax and my weight sink into the ground. I began to feel light-headed as I became more reposed. Although feeling like I could drift into sleep, I also experienced a sense of heightened awareness. As Mrs. Browning lay motionless before my gaze, I suddenly heard a loud, deep moan and scream and wondered if the nursing home personnel heard it and would respond to the unfortunate resident. In the next moment, as this cry of pain and torment continued, I realized it was Mrs. Browning. I felt the mid-section of my body open and noticed a
strange quality to the light in the room. I sensed her soul in agony. As she screamed I heard her say, in confusion, ‘Why am I still here … why am I here?’ My soul touched hers and in some way I communicated that she was still locked in her body. I promised I would do everything in my power to gain the release her soul cried for. With that the screaming immediately stopped. I felt like I was back in my head again, the room resumed its normal appearance, and Mrs. Browning, as she had throughout this experience, lay silent.” (73)

This is not "pulling the plug"

Here is the description of how she will die
according to a Nobel Prize nominated neurologist.

"“People who die of starvation, their acid eats through their stomach, they develop infections in their body, their body starts to dissolve from the inside out, they develop seizures, [and] frequently it breaks their back,” he said. “They have to have medications to essentially put them into a coma to not have their body break their back or something of that nature.”

Doctor claims Terri Schiavo could eat on her own if court allowed it

Chuck,

Oh I dunno, people screaming out of their midsections is pretty common, if I've had a lot of shrooms or LSD.

Otherwise, he sounds like a loon to me, based on the quote you posted.

Where are you getting your information, Sean Hannity?

Ok so I'm not a Schiavo expert. Sheesh!

Carlos,

Sorry that should have had a smiley by it.

However, this may have been a good debate for all of us to use E-Prime, instead of stating certainties which none of us seem truly certain of.

Including me.

Tosk

"Neil Boortz is onto something. He's right that it's bigger than just Terri. But it's also more than just about 'abortion.' It's about the kind of things our society will place value on."

Funny, but I was agnostic on Terri's situation until I listened to Boortz' support for her starvation. Boortz indicated he'd consider it worse than death to live as Terri is living. Fine and dandy so far -- his life, his choice. But the more he talked, the more I heard a subtext. He sounded disgusted at the idea of anyone being kept alive like Terri. The idea was repulsive.

I've listened to Boortz for years and I think one reason he leans the way he does on Schiavo is that he has no respect for or belief in a spiritual side of life. So he's being entirely consistent -- where there is no soul, where the definition of "life" derives entirely from personal achievement and utilitarian considerations, Terri's continued existence serves no purpose. I think most Americans agree with that.

That really got me to thinking about where our society is headed.

Carlos - blatently false again. Seriously, man, stop trying to introduce facts into this discussion, because you are always wrong. At this point, I believe you are a serial liar who cannot be trusted with the facts of anything.

Terri had conversations about her opposition to life support in terminal cases with people other than Michael.

Michael didn't claim to have only "remembered" said conversations at a point. They were not relevent when he held out futile hope for her recovery.

The Schindlers, before the monetary judgement and their false accusations of abuse against Michael, encouraged him to date other women. A guardian is not disqualified for moving on with their lives. You can think whatever you want, but the courts do not agree.

At the point the parents attempted to assume control, Michael was still agressivly persuing rehabilitation. It was not untill more than a year later that he gave up hope.

Dan: Dr. Hammesfahr is a quack. From the Nobel Foundation, and I quote "Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years."

Do not the blood ties of the parents come into play here? I think they do.

That's what the Florida courts ruled on and sided with Michael, imperfect as the decision may be. Yeah, there are shady issues to this case on both sides, and lot's of unknowns. What bothers me is Congress circumventing the state courts because they didn't like the decision made by a Florida judge. You said that you wanted abortion laws to be decided in the State Legislatures (and I agree). However, the Schiavo case sets a very bad precident. Suppose California legalizes abortion, and an abortion case goes to court there. Should Tom Delay be able to use Congress as a tool to try to override any of the California judges' decisions just because he doesn't like them? Maybe we should have all the state legislatures and courts abolished and replace them all with federal ones. This seems to be the direction that the US is going in. Leaning libertarian I would hope for less control from the federal government.

I've been wondering about something all day... however it would likely derail the entire debate from the actual discussion. So, I decided to wait till it was time to go home... ;-)

If the Christian belief system is right, if there is an afterlife, if at death, 'we are changed in the twinkling of an eye' to something ethereal, to spend eternity with God and the Saints...

Why in hell are some Christians, bent on stopping this poor woman from gaining that blessed release? When doctors talk of 'recovery' they're apparently talking about things like being able to possibly swallow on her own. That seems the extent of her recovery that most doctors think possible. If I were to weigh laying in my own feces and swallowing as the height of my future, or an eternity singing Hosannas...

Well, I'd go for the gold slippers.

Eris knows if 'twere me in that position, I'd be yearning for the Void like no man before me.

Centrists - Read this: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090044/&#schiavo

Carlos - blatently false again. Seriously, man, stop trying to introduce facts into this discussion, because you are always wrong. At this point, I believe you are a serial liar who cannot be trusted with the facts of anything.

LOL!

Thanks for the laughs FC. As usual, a cheerful fellow.

S,

Thanks for the link. Here's another. Lileks:

In short: err on the side of life is not a bad motto to keep in mind. This seems simple enough. I respect those who nod, count to three, and offer a soft “however” so that we may refine the particulars. But I don’t have much time for those who hear “err on the side of life” and automatically bristle, because they hear the voice of someone who, damn their black and God-addled brain, once sent $10 to a politician who opposed parental notification law that did not have a judicial review.

Oh, yes. I think Schiavo may be euthanized because she has no cerebral cortex. But Lileks frames things in the right way. I confess to a deep and abiding admiration of many to the right and religiously right of me.

Joseph, I love your writing, but I have to concur with Michael that this whole story has turned into an ugly display of political gamesmanship, and that the Republican side (and Bush in particular) comes off looking really ghoulish.

The subtext to the whole debate is whether government has a role in defining the moral good for the country. In my gut, I don't think a government can make a society more righteous, so this is where I part ways with the Right.

Get thee behind me, Nanny State.

Mark Poling,

The issues may be more significant than that, Kaus.

From the Kaus article:

Opposition to the Florida court's ruling seems like a legitimate protest against what appears to be a disingenuous machinery of euthanasia lawyers are busy establishing under the guise of a "right to die" (a right Terry Schiavo can only be said to be exercising by an extremely suspect chain of reasoning). ... Our society is going to have to have this out at some point--why not now? And why isn't it a perfectly reasonable issue for the national legislature to address? ...

It's a messed up world, ain't it? And if this really were a debate about the euthanasia movement (a boon to Big Business if ever there was one -- Progressives reflexively lashing out at Bible Thumpers, please take note) then I'd grimace and deal with the circus this case has become. But the fact that we're parsing the noise in this case like Kremlinologists studying the seating arangements at a May Day parade for clues as to what it all means....

Sorry, I like my debates a little more honest than that. Kleiman's article points to the stories that should be yanking our chains, but since there are actual facts involved, the Head Chatterers would prefer to play elsewhere. And that's a pity.

Raymond wrote upthread:

When you consider her initial injury was from hitting her head on concrete in the presence of her husband, it seems to me that at some point the husband should have been removed as her guardian.

OK, just no. She had a heart attack, caused by a potassium imbalance. It was likely caused by undiagnosed bulimia. I say likely, b/c that had never been proved. OTOH, the husband sued the doctors involved for not diagnosing the eating disorder. A jury agreed, the doctors appealed, and the matter was settled out of court. You would think that if there was any evidence of abuse, the doctors would have brought that up at trial. They did not.

This doesn't, IMO, affect whether or not the feeding tube should be removed. Let's stay away from rather obvious sliming.

Liberals always go on about the test of a good society is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens.

That obviously doesn't apply to its most vulnerable citizens.

It strikes me as a little odd that many of the same people who would argue that Terry Schiavo will feel nothing when she starves to death are some of the same people stating that her condition is no way to live. Because the assumption that she won't suffer when starved means that she isn't suffering now in her present condition. You can't really have it both ways. It would be one thing if she were on advanced life support and the taxpayer was footing the bill for a vegetable and noone wanted to take care of her - but she is not on advanced life support and someone very much DOES want to take care of her and it's my understanding that they are willing to foot the bill themselves. Further, it's not like those are some strangers. That is the woman who brought the girl into the world. So what is the harm in turning her over to her parents? But apparently this all turns on the definition of "husband" - a guy who long ago moved on to a new life and for all practical purposes a new marriage. But, there's that piece of paper which says he's "married" to her. Fine - if we're granting so much importance to pieces of paper - where is Terry Schiavo's living will - where are her wishes not to live this way in writing? I do think it's a slippery slope. And it isn't very encouraging in that regard that the apparently main medical expert witness for the husband's case, Ronald Cranford, is an advocate of discontinuing the feeding tubes of even Alzheimer's disease patients. Given the extremely high rates of Alzheimer's disease with each decade into old age - I can only hope that many of the advocates for discontinuing her feeding tube are keeping that in mind.

Dan: Dr. Hammesfahr is a quack. From the Nobel Foundation, and I quote "Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years."

Posted by FC at March 21, 2005 01:40 PM
*************************************************
I can't find your exact quote, it would have been nice if you had sourced it. BUT I will stipulate that your claim is true?

So now explain how you derive your claim of his being a quack, absent the statement of who or whatever org may or may not have nominated the man we will have to wait til the mid 21st Century before the Nobel Foundation will say yeah or nay,

I don't find it beyond the realm of possibility that someone nominated, may have found it out.

Whether advertising this is or is not in bad taste has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the statement.

http://www.hni-online.com/
http://www.vwcdexpo.com/booth.cfm?keywords=&s_booth=206556&show=56

This therapy also garnered him the 1999 nomination for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology. His nomination was of the highest order, a Congressional nomination with Medical Peer Review. His peer-reviewed publications are among the few written by private physicians found on the Internet home page of the Karolinski Institute, home of the Nobel Prize in Medicine.

FC: "At this point, I believe you are a serial liar who cannot be trusted with the facts of anything."

Factcheck - you are a serial 'liar-accuser'. You've done it to me and at least 1/2 dozen posters here and to tell the truth, I'm beyond sick of it. If you fancy yourself akin to the Star-trek character "Data" - you might pause to consider that one of the main ironies of the character was that despite his name, he was in many respects more compassionate than many of the human characters.

To FC

A case could be made that I do not think Dr. Hammesfahr because he supports my views, as a case could be made that you think he is a quack because he does not support your views. You have presented no evidence that I can see to show that the man is not qualified.

To me he seems to have impressive credentials even if one disregards the validity of the Noble Prize nomination.

This is ALL beside the point.

I have thought about this issue myself. I would not want to spend years in a vegetative coma. That does NOT mean I would want to be tortured to death!

So if I make up a living will, should I put in specific provisions to preclude the following?

"“People who die of starvation, their acid eats through their stomach, they develop infections in their body, their body starts to dissolve from the inside out, they develop seizures, [and] frequently it breaks their back,” he said. “They have to have medications to essentially put them into a coma to not have their body break their back or something of that nature"

To me the real question is this and this alone is the above a true description of what the Court has ruled to put this woman through or not?

Nothing else is germane.

That is a truly horrible way to die and I cannot comprehend how anyone would willingly support doing such a thing to another human being to make a political point.

This case for me is all about "doubt." Are we certain what Terri's wishes were? Husband on one side, parents and siblings on the other. No certainty. Does she require anything other than basic nutrition to remain alive? No.

In cases where doubt exists, shouldn't we err on the side of life? When we have the choice to starve someone to death, or not do so, shouldn't we NOT starve someone to death?

Were it me? I'd hope someone would have killed me years ago, but Terri's not me.

Seems to me a basic moral rule. Don't intentionally starve innocent fellow citizens to death.

Mr. Schiavo, why don't you just use a pillow to snuff her out. What's the difference?

You're not "allowing her to die" by withholding her food, you're just killing her. Admit it, and have some balls if you're going to kill her.

Look her in the eye and then do it. You owe her that at the very minimum.

Carlos, why do you persist in advocating that Mr. Schiavo take illegal action?

spc67: "In cases where doubt exists, shouldn't we err on the side of life?"

I am not willing to state that we should ALWAYS err on the side of life, if it means that the taxpayer has to pick up the tab for every one of those cases - for the obvious reason that as technology improves there may come a day (if it isn't here already) that very expensive machines can keep anyone alive for eternity even.

But how is that the case here? Terry's parents are willing to pick up the tab. At least that is my understanding. At the point that they ask the rest of us to pick up the tab I might think that those in favor of pulling the tube have a point. My opinion is that if there is a private individual who is willing and able to pick up the tab - in the absence of evidence of suffering on the part of the individual concerned (and isn't this precisely the case that the pro-euthanasia folks want to claim about what she will suffer in the face of starvation?)- and in the absence of a living will on the part of the individual concerned stating their clear preferences in this matter - then life has to take priority. I have no problem with Michael Schiavo saying enough. I do have a problem with him denying his wife's parents the right to say that they haven't had enough. And if they ever get to that point - then I would support them.

Either she is at least somewhat aware, or
she's not.

If she's not, then this is just a feel-good action by her parents.

If she is aware, then "to err on the side of life" is to condem her to hell on earth: alive, looking out, unable to move, talk, or communicate.

"If she's not, then this is just a feel-good action by her parents.

If she is aware, then "to err on the side of life" is to condem her to hell on earth: alive, looking out, unable to move, talk, or communicate"

If she's not aware, then why deny her parents the right to feel good by caring for her "dead" body? If she is aware, then she is quite likely to feel the horror of being starved to death. Like I said - you can't have it both ways. Of course one way to resolve that question is to do what numerous neurologists suggest needs to be done - an MRI, further evaluations. But her husband won't have it. Why is that?

Maybe I missed it but a quick search through the comments turned up no references to Mike's suggestion "do[ing] something about people who are taken off life-support because their families ran out of money" is much more important.

Hello out there! If this is a problem in our current system then Congress needs to be taken out behind the woodshed for a spanking. Or maybe "death by poverty" is an act of God.

My take on this case is that I'm too far from it to know which way it should go, and I think I'm glad it's not my problem...

Carlos, why do you persist in advocating that Mr. Schiavo take illegal action?

Kimmit,

LOL! spoken like a true nihilist.

Because legality and morality are two entirely distinct things. He can hide behind the legality of it, but not the immorality of it.

When you come to understand that, then you'll understand my appeal to Mr. Schiavo.

This is the culture war: the culture of life vs. the culture of death.

Those against Christianity will feel, irrespective of their logical thinking, more comfy with pulling the plug. With lots of related culture war issues.

Yes, abortion -- the execution of the innocent, unwanted fetus.
Yes, euthanasia -- the execution of the old, disabled, unwanted. With or without a Living Will.

A little bit on death penalty -- the execution of the guilty ... why do guilty criminals get more legal protection than Terri?

Yes, on sexual promiscuity. Dennis Prager notes that the Jews started the first huge sexual revolution -- by placing moral limits on the male sexual urge and only accepting as moral married heterosexual relations. Sexuality is ALWAYS part of the US culture wars. Too often unspoken.

Yes, on gay marriage, and marriage responsibility, and respect for marriage. When is marriage less sacred, and why?

Yes, on political posturing. Both by Reps AND by Dems. The usually anti-death penalty Dems should be, at least, supporting a full range of brain scan tests and multiple doctor examinations. I don't see how anybody can support pulling the plug before doing a few more tests. [Michael, even after "No. Brain." is confirmed, I'd support feeding -- but think the plug-pullers would be more justified.]

Just as political operative Reps see this as an issue (red meat?) for their pro-Christian base, the Dems are reactionary against it.

Dems that think supporting the execution of Terri will increase their Catholic vote count shouldn't be surprised when the 48% for Kerry drops to 38% in the upcoming rout -- which is the goal of the Reps, and the fear and loathing of the Dems (who want Catholic votes without supporting Catholic values).

I am stunned by this case simply stunned. You see the correct posture of the case is this. Terri Schiavo cannot make decisions for herself so a guardian must make them for her. A husband does not have a god given right tobe named guardian. The standard is the best interests of the Incapacitated person (IP) If the husband was the correct person at the beginning, then he no longer was once he abandoned her, took up with another woman and had children with her. I am not criticizing him for moving on with his life but at that point I believe he forfeited his right to Terri's care to her parents who have NOTHING but her interests at heart. It is my understanding tha Michael's decision to alert the Court to Terri's wish to die came 7 years after when he came into an award of money. It is my understanding that Terri's diagnosis is hotly disputed by many doctors who have seen her and that the decision to kill her at her husband's behest has been made by a single judge who has refused to hear additional testimony. I am no doctor but I think it is safe to say that this woman is not brain dead. I think it is worth investigating whether it is possible that she is not in a persistent vegetative state as many doctors are claiming. The husband has never been willing to try anything that might help her, anu rehab or other therapies. Let us understand. She is NOT brain dead. She is NOT being kept alive artificially. She is being assisted in eating and otherwise cared for the same as millions of other disabled patients that nobody would think of starving and nobody would say is already dead. All Terri's parents want is a chance to present their evidence to a new trier of fact at a new hearing. Why the hell not? It is not up to us to judge her quality of life or its potential. No judge is to be put in that position and we out in society are in no position to judge. I am no Christian and consider myself to have liberal sensibilities but it is starting to appear that those who cry slippery slope are right. Why kill her? She will be dead forever and there is no going back. Understand. This judge has not allowed ANY additional testimony. He has NEVER in the past ten years permitted any additional evidence to be added to the record. Condemmed prisoners get infinitely more due process than this. Who cares if Tom Delay wants to make political hay out of it. A human life is at stake. Even more, our claim to be a civilized decent society is at stake. I have known of this case for years but never focused on it until now. If Terri is allowed to starve over the objections of her family on the say so of one man and one judge without even the benefit of a living will or health care proxy, we as a nation will have committed a grave sin. I don't care whether you believe in god or not. Life matters and we are not in a position to say what life has value. At least let us err on the side of life when her family DESPARATELY wants her to live. This is an easy easy case. No written evidence of her wishes. Nothing but hearsay from a husband who (understandably) abandoned her to the care of her parents but wants to retain the right to bring abouther death. A woman who is NOT brain dead but clearly lives and is still a human being. The case would be harder ethically if EVERYONE wanted her to die and she were on a ventilator or other machine as with Karen Anne Quinlen. In that famous case, the hospital fought the parents who wanted her removed from the machine. Now we have the machinery of the state forcing her own parents to watch her starve on the say so of an abandoning spouse who has every reason to want her gone. If everyone who knew her wanted her gone, there is still a strong argument that the state has an obligation to preserve her life and rehabilitate her. That's not even at issue here. I am not an overly religious person but I pray PRAY that this federal judge agrees to give the parents a true day in Court. It has been a long time since I have felt so strongly about something as this not related to the war on terrorism. But I will tell you this. National Review is correct. The advocates of death have made the case for the slippery slope loud and clear. I can NEVER support Euthenesia under ANY circusmtances. It is clear that these people will soon be determining who may live and who should die and I don't want my future or anyone elses to be decided by those who would debase life

Kleiman lied about everything. Now we know.

Too bad Teri Schiavo can't be given the decision to starve the Florida judge along with her very unhusbandly husband. I think her parents could get her to pass judgment with enough coaxing and enough time. Put the feeding tube back in and let's give it a try.

By the way here is an account of a similar case to exersize your ethical discernment, except in this case a daughter decided that her father life was over and no one objected.

It's not clear from the description whether the man was even bed ridden let alone a vegitable, just that he couldn't communicate. Nor is it clear what country this happened in - clearly euthanasia is legal in some countries... And yet again the only 'treatment' withheld was food and water - the same treatment that all prisoners are entitled to.

Reading this reminded me that there IS a slippery slope that societies can go down - because people are anything but perfect, allowing euthanasia too easily WILL mean that some will die who ought not.

We need a balance of course.

"Seems to me a basic moral rule. Don't intentionally starve innocent fellow citizens to death."

Agreed. Hard to believe there is even debate on this.....

Anonymous at 5:38 - I agree with everything you said. But no taxpayer (i.e. the state) is even being asked to care for her. And in my opinion - that is what really represents the very dangerous slippery slope. There are private individuals - the girl's own PARENTS for god's sake - that are not asking anything from anyone - but to take care of their daughter. And there is no evidence of suffering apparently - as that is the very case that the pro-tube pullers want to make in arguing that she will not suffer from being starved to death. This is not an abandoned person we're even talking about. If this goes forward, I am rather inclined to agree with your sentiments - as expressed by your many capital letters - God help us all (and I am not even particularly religious).

Carlos: "Because legality and morality are two entirely distinct things."

I quite agree but I would also be willing to throw in the notion of "utilitarianism" there - as in the case of taxpayers having to foot the bill for an endless number of folks prolonged forever on technological devices - but "utilitarianism" plainly doesn't even apply to this case, which in my mind makes the pro-death case all that more pathetic. In other words, save your arguments for when society is really going to need them. If you're that willing to cave in on the pro-death side in this case, then we're obviously going to wind up quite quite prematurely - way way down the slippery side of the slope.

Disconnecting the feeding tube- according to Marc Cooper this happens hundreds or even thousands of times a year already.

Second - I heard an ethicist who is an MD on NPR today. She said there is major agreement withing the ethics community that disconnecting the feeding tube in such a case would NOT cause pain and suffering.

Third- Somewhere I read today that people with a terminal disease who have PURPOSEFULLY stopped eating in order to be able to die, have maintained before they died that such starvation has not been painful.

miriam,

have you heard anyone on NPR who doesn't support pulling the tube?

The rule of law in this country holds that this is a federalist system—in which private domestic matters are litigated in state, not federal courts. The rule of law has long provided that such domestic decisions are generally made by competent spouses, as opposed to parents, elected officials, popular referendum, or the demands of Randall Terry. The rule of law also requires a fundamental separation of powers—in which legislatures do not override final, binding court decisions solely because the outcome is not the one they like. The rule of law requires comity between state and federal courts—wherein each respects and upholds the jurisdiction and authority of the other. The rule of law requires that we look skeptically at legislation aimed at mucking around with just one life to the exclusion of any and all similarly situated individuals.

Members of Congress have apparently also had super-analytical powers conferred upon them, as well. Senate Majority Leader, and heart surgeon, Bill Frist felt confident last week—after reviewing an hour of videotape—in offering a medical diagnosis of Schiavo's condition, blithely second-guessing the court-appointed neurologists who evaluated her for days and weeks. His colleagues are similarly self-appointed neurological experts. Years of painstaking litigation, assessment, and evaluation by state courts are dismissed by Tom DeLay as the activist doings of a "little judge sitting in a state district court in Florida." Only the most extraordinary levels of congressional hubris could allow a group of elected citizens to substitute their personal medical, legal, and ethical judgments for those of the doctors, judges, and guardians who have been intimately involved with this heartbreakingly sad case for years.

Take a peek into any chat room (or this Fray in 15 minutes) and you will find hundreds of individuals who personally know that Terri Schiavo is—despite voluminous testimony by her doctors and her guardians ad litem and the findings of multiple judges—capable of laughter and responsiveness and a full recovery. How do they know these things? The same way their elected representatives do: They watched a video clip. And because anyone who disagrees with the video is a murderer and torturer, the state court judge in this case requires constant police protection: The standard-bearers of the "culture of life" keep threatening to kill him.

This is not a slippery-slope case, where it's a short hop from "executing" those in persistent vegetative conditions to killing anyone with a disability. This is a case in which an established right-to-refuse-treatment claim, litigated for years up and down through the appeals courts, is being thwarted by parents with no custodial claim to their child.

The rule of law has long provided that such domestic decisions are generally made by competent spouses,

I don't see any spouses here, let alone competent spouses here. If he's a spouse at all, then he's a bigamist, and therefore hardly competent to make any decisions regarding his ex-wife.

Carlos, the man went to nursing school to become a nurse in order to care for her better! It would seem that he did quite a lot, apparently all he thought he could do, until it became apparent that she wasn't going to wake up. It's not like he started knocking up other women the second she became brain damaged - it was years!

"This is a case in which an established right-to-refuse-treatment claim, litigated for years up and down through the appeals courts, is being thwarted by parents with no custodial claim to their child."

Yeah - well no doubt the term "spouse" once upon a time actually meant something very significant that might have made any of that legalese meaningful. Or does the definition of "spouse" now meaningfully entail the notion of living with another woman and having several children by her? No doubt this will all get even more interesting should we ever head down that "other slippery slope" towards polygamy.

PS - I would love, I mean Jesus my pants just got tight, I love the idea of courts, or the public, or Congress, or you deciding these issues, rather than a spouse. I especially love the idea of you deciding whether or not the spouse has been a good enough spouse to make these decisions.

I know, why doesn't Congress make all our choices for us? That would be super!

Carlos - I swear I wrote that before I saw your post. I think the time has probably come for me to officially declare myself a conservative - merely on the grounds of the company I appear to keep.:-)

"Seems to me a basic moral rule. Don't intentionally starve innocent fellow citizens to death."

Why limit it to citizens only? You have to be a member of the club? According to the Center for Disease Control approximately 45,000 die of starvation every day or malnutrition-related diseases world-wide. Most of them children. Are their lives of any less value? The US intentionally doesn't help many of these people.

Our society makes "callous" death decisions all the time. Thousands of people die every year in car wrecks. So let's say the US forces car makers to design cars that can only go 10 mph everywhere. Think of the lives that would be saved. But no, our society has decided that it is better to have 70 mph speed limits KNOWING that many more people will die on the roads. Is dying in a fiery car crash worse than starving to death? There are endless examples.

I'm not advocating Terri's death. But the issue at hand isn't what happens to Terri, it is who get's to decide? Due process occurred. The Florida courts sided with Michael (unfortunately, IMHO). The judicial system is far from perfect. Do we allow the Federal government to override the State's judiciary based on "moral" reasoning? What's next? That's what is at issue to me - sacrificing the judicial system in the name of morality. Allowing Congress to erode the State's jurisdiction and that of the individual's right to decide for their spouse is wrong in my book. This intervention means more movement toward the end for State jurisdiction. That's the slippery slope I see. Do we allow the Federal government to make all the State's and our family's decisions for us? Where do we draw the line?

The world is full of unimaginable grief, sorrow, and pain. If any one of us tries to take on the burdens of the world we would cry until we died of depression. Life isn't fair. Life is hard. But we can still choose to be happy, grateful, optimistic, and try to make the world a better place in spite of it all. I know I do.

The funniest, or most tragic (and, seriously, aren't those usually the same thing?) thing about this whole thing, aside from the brain dead woman and her family, is the fact that we have all become experts on just about everything we can in the matter of a few days. I think someone already said this - none of us have a clue what's really going on here. Everyone who wants to accuse Michael Schiavo of being a monster - well, the courts apparently heard a lot more information than any of us have, and they all decided that he was a competent and capable guardian. I dunno...I'm going to say that they, having seen all the evidence and knowing all the relevant laws, are in a better position to decide than any of us.

Except those damn librul activist judges, they so dumb.

Brian: "If any one of us tries to take on the burdens of the world we would cry until we died of depression."

Who is asking any of us to take on such burdens? Terry Schiavo's parents are merely asking for the courts not to prevent their voluntarily taking on the burden of their own child. Are they asking the rest of us to take on or pay for that burden? As soon as they do so, I will object. But until then, why would I?

Terry Schiavo's parents are merely asking for the courts not to prevent their voluntarily taking on the burden of their own child.

The courts already ruled in favor of Michael and due process was served. Congress is violating their power by overriding the State's ruling. Do we throw away due process in the name of morality? I would be arguing the same way if the roles were reversed, if the Florida judge ruled to retain the tube and Congress and the Feds ruled to remove the tube. Shouldn't we honor the judicial system instead of allowing it to be circumvented?

Don't know, proud; I kind of like it that we live in a culture where, if we care, we can become experts (or at least well-read) on a topic in a day.

Librul or otherwise, I'm just as happy we don't have an overclass deciding how we should think. (But maybe that's because I grew up in one kind of ghetto, and now live in another...)

And I felt that way before we had all these uppity internet folks fact-checking well-connected Manhattanite asses. Woo hoo!

Caroline,

Brian: "If any one of us tries to take on the burdens of the world we would cry until we died of depression." Who is asking any of us to take on such burdens?

I thought this was essentially the mission for the Culture of Life, to universally protect and nurture all life from conception to natural [what does 'natural' mean] death.

On another thread a while back you said something to the effect that we all die but it is very important in how we die. If we die in the fight for our family's freedom (which I believe in and I think you do to) is this in violation of the Culture of Life? I never heard of the Culture of Life until today - maybe I did but I didn't know what it really meant. It looks noble on the surface - if only the world was so simple.

Mark Poling

Joseph, I love your writing

Should have left it there! :)

In all seriousness first I will say I am no Right to Lifer, and am an Agnostic Jew. Without solid information to sway me I would be inclined to agree with some people that I have been expressing themselves in disappointing ways. It is my nature to reign in those I often agree with so when you say...

I have to concur with Michael that this whole story has turned into an ugly display of political gamesmanship, and that the Republican side (and Bush in particular) comes off looking really ghoulish.

"Coming off ghoulish", sounds dramatic but I'm sorry, it says nothing, in fact it is just another piece of negative riff to throw onto the fire, it is just another prejudicial description of... what? Mark I can read as you put it "Ugly display of political gamesmanship", from both sides in this very thread my friend. I guess what gamesmanship is tolerated is based on the personal prejudice of the beholder, I have tried to reserve final judgment until I get more information, obviously sometimes it is difficult to control ourselves, but I could definitely see how the other side sees ghoulishness as well.

Mark on the next statement...

The subtext to the whole debate is whether government has a role in defining the moral good for the country.

The subtext of the whole debate? I'm sorry Mark but the above is a slogan without a home. Questioning what role the government has in defining moral good is proper, but questioning whether government has any role in defining the moral good for the country is naive and silly. Mark a government of the people, by the people and for the people, is a government that will reflect and legislate the values of the people. I see many secularists saying that these morals can't come from religion, yet that is silly, morals are values that can be gleaned from wherever and whatever the people will. The government is set to reflect that will or be overthrown peacefully or not peacefully, but overthrown yes. If you are saying that Judges need to quit legislating from the bench then fine, but to blanket apply the above statement to all three branches of government is quite frankly silly.

To say... "I don't think a government can make a society more righteous, so this is where I part ways with the Right." inspires me to rhetorically ask, You have split with the right on this? I see both the right and left as equally guilty, Mark making such a statement is really just choosing a side, not stating a truth. You are correct that a government doesn't make a society more righteous, but neither does it preclude it from having a say in the matter because in truth it is the other way around. Does the government reflect the morals of society is the question, and what this whole issue is truly about. Mark I claim this is the true subtext of the debate. Without even getting into the Shaivo case let me tell you what is going on and ironically what you are dismissing as what should not be relevant is the true relevant point.

What I smell here is fear of the will of the people, I say fear in the sense of powerlessness, but I must say attacking the religious or Right to Lifers or a Congress elected by the people is no solution, I expect to see these kind of issues and rulings to not go my way, but I read many people here dissing those wanting to see Congress to get involved as being disrespectful of the political process, but I see people I probably agree with on this issue (I do not want congress to intervene) as being just as disrespectful of the political process because the exact reverse of your implication is the truth, I feel every person involved in light of the controversy being elected and having to answer for this to be a good thing, but I also understand that the will of the people is moving toward Right to Life and their is not a damn thing I and others can do about it other then try to convince them otherwise, cutting such people at the knees by judicial fiat is coming to an end and their is little we can do about it because it is slowly happening and it is increasing. What I am continue to say isn't a matter of opinion of right or left but a matter of practical reality.

----

What we are witnessing is not intolerance as much as the beginnings of a backlash. Why a backlash? What would cause this backlash? Mark, by placing a mirror on one of you statements we will see how and why. First I will say that I personally have found tolerance to be very high from religious people when their views are respected. I question whether society is respecting these views. Forget about what we may feel are attacks from such people, I am not talking about them, but neither do two wrongs make a right. I am not a believer, but unfortunately many non-believers are scornful, resentful and feel a need to attack what has been the main culture of this nation from it's inception. The main culture of this nation on whole has served us well, I am not one who believes Secular Humanists save us from Jim Crow, a hell of a lot of religious people, churches etc. had more to do with it, thoughtful religious people have been critical to our advancement as a nation. I feel it would take a very blind and prejudicial person to not see this, also to not see the disrespect of these values by the MSM. Religion and mainstream culture are under way more of an assault on all levels then secular based culture and institutions. This is especially true if one considers the numbers of people that this kind of culture attack really effects.

I'm Jewish and hear this all the time, intolerance from the religious, yet how many times have my own family members made such arguments after backlashes created by their own actions? I've asked time and time again what would Jews in Israel say if all influence of Judaism was tried to be stripped from Israeli culture by Atheists, Muslims and other religions? My own family has been part of the drive to strip Christmas, Easter, Manger scenes and all the accompanying music from schools, public squares in my own community, they also call the backlash a show of intolerance. Do religious have a right to feel picked on?

Terry Shaivo is symbolic to many what is wrong with society and their feelings are as sincere as those that disagree, of course it is political because that is the way we avoid worse conflict, remember politics is a way to fight without actually going to war. As I said earlier what we are witnessing in my opinion is the beginnings of a cultural backlash and not simple intolerance. Some of the worse shows of tolerance have been towards those you call ghoulish, it reminds me of the hockey fight people fail to acknowledge was started by others. You can decide that sending the political right to the penalty box to be in order but how does what team you are rooting for effect your mindset? I'm saying a proper replay says it is much more complicated then that.

I'm sure as this backlash brews over many issues and the gloves come off many will again resort to unproductive painting of those concerned and angry with what they feel is a disrespect for life as backward religious zealots, but to properly deal with this without it getting worse requires many sucker punches and unfair officiating to be addressed. The 10 commandments being banned from public squares, judges ignoring the legislative will of the people, forcing acceptance of gay marriage, all factor in people are fed up. Dubya, who you backhand, gets this more than most, certainly more than most writing here. He has said hearts need to be changed before certain things the right wants will be accepted, they will accept banning Partial Birth Abortion, but not banning Abortion. People who fight this or think he is wrong will get political tracks on their backs.

As I said a majority loathe what they view as the devaluing of life, this is an extension of a debate that is already politicized. Look I don't like Terry Shaivo becoming part of this cultural debate but Roe vs. Wade also had a Jane Doe did it not? She is even Pro-Life today. It is ugly but natural, their will always be people pushed into the political wake of such fights unfortunately this time it is Terry's family but this is the nature of life not some cynical ploy on Bush's part. Do you really think Bush would have come out on Gay marriage the way he did had the courts of Massachusetts and the Mayor of San Francisco behaved itself? No way! He responded to his core constituency and MJT, myself and other "Liberal Hawks" can get pissed all we want but do we really expect him to be with us, when we will be the first to abandon him when he no longer serves our political needs and biases? As a libertarian said to libertarians, "Face it, Social Conservatives are the ones who have delivered for the GOP, they rightfully own the main issues." I view this as where we are.

This is all part of a storm that has been brewing for a very long time. I know many here feel that society is getting pushed too far to the right socially, but if you think this and believe it then you live in that dreaded liberal cocoon on social issues. Society is getting pushed much too far to the left then she naturally is on such issues and it is coming home to roost, in fact if it were not for social and moral issues the Democrats would easily be in a majority. Those of us on the left culturally must understand this it is that plain and simple. People can blame Bush all they want he has been brave enough, he like Reagan has decided to spend most of his capital on foreign policy. He is not going to blow his political Capital on this, he rightfully does for his constituents what they want. People want low taxes, but they also want Medicare and Government services. People want to see the courts not take down the ten commandments from public squares all this will be claimed as politicized by Dubya but is truth he is following his biggest supporters of whom most here aren't part of, or are off the wagon am a key issue of his majority constituency, if he followed the collective will and advice of this group he never would have been re-elected. We can blame him all we want, but Dubya has pushed the will of the people as much as he can.

Mark let's review your statement...

The subtext to the whole debate is whether government has a role in defining the moral good for the country.

Mark you are smart think about it, when the government ceases to reflect the will of the majority what happens? Is the government a neutral arbiter in political battles when it is based upon morality? OF COURSE NOT! This is when the opposite rightfully holds true. The truth is only the Judiciary is presumed such a role, yet it has even ceased to behave as such. Again, If a majority of America feels that the Government has ceased to reflect their will what happens? 1992 was a great example of what happens. The public will turn their asses out if they don't like it, fortunately or unfortunately morality has everything to do with it! People like me have to understand that I am the quirk here, I am a non-religious moralist, wanting to see tyrants overthrown, I will never be part of a majority that wants such that has few religious people involved.

Ratatosk at least holds more of a consistent political position, anarchistic in my view, but legitimate and consistent. When one is less a political purist like myself, I must force understanding of the opposition because tomorrow the opposition may be my friend, questioning motives is counter-productive and for me in the case of Bush, I have many differences with him on policy, but cynicism is not how I view the man. His political moves are legitimate even if I don't agree with it, but also I am one that respects States rights.

But also it is important as a person with a strong past fighting for Civil Rights I see Federal level activism as sometimes necessary, so what is the problem? The problem is we don't see this issue as such an important issue, but to a very large portion of the population the Right to Life and the associated peripheral issues are akin to civil rights, on that principle alone I can't pick and chose based on my own biases whether it is legitimate without risking my own credibility when speaking to the principles of Federalism.

Some things do make me chuckle over the irony of it all. You know I have a very liberal past, but being a liberal mugged by reality does not necessarily make me a conservative, but it doesn't make me a libertarian either. Libertarians will continue in their frustration until we sort out the very moral issues they seem to want to ignore. This society will accept many libertarian ways only after we have our moral house in order. I feel instinctively a libertarian society absent a moral compass scares the shit out of people, I know it does me. :)

Carlos - I swear I wrote that before I saw your post. I think the time has probably come for me to officially declare myself a conservative - merely on the grounds of the company I appear to keep.:-)

No pressure Caroline. It'll just kinda happen naturally and all by itself when you're ready. ;-)

Carlos, the man went to nursing school to become a nurse in order to care for her better!

Proud,

I'll admit everything I've heard about this case has been from my side of the aisle, so I'm biased. And so is my view of Mr. Schiavo. But let's pretend for argument's sake he's an angel just like you say. It's still over. He's not her husband anymore, and Terri's parents will always be her parents.

Bravo, Samuel.

I am a lifetime athiest, and yet I feel myself becoming part of the backlash. I value the religious side of this country. I value its morals. I like and repect many religious people. Some bizarre PC code of behaviour is not a morality, it is merely a legal straightjacket. I would much rather live among the reasonable religious folks than the crazy enlightened folks. The heritage of this country is like the soil, and the educated elites are merely spring flowers. Why would they want to poison the soil in which they grow? The attempt to strip our heritage out of public life, if it succeeds, will leave us a much poorer country and a country headed for trouble.

Joseph, I think my political position is extremely consistent; I think that any body of self-selected elites is more likely than not to screw things up for those who are my proletariat roots, and whom I still hold dear. The Schiavo case is a perfect example; Culture Warriors of all denominations are falling all themselves to claim Terri for their very own. Everybody has a pet angle on this, and the facts are just fuzzy enough to fit any conclusion.

It is unseemly. And while I'm sure both sides of the woman's family have been ruthless in recruiting advocates, I'm also sure the advocates have been quite willing to be recruited.

And whatever else the starving lady might have wanted, I doubt that it would have included the kind of spotlight that's on her right now.

(For what it's worth, the whole "starving is painless and gentle" crap makes me gag. Again I go to my roots; I grew up on a farm, and worked summers in a vets office, and anything living suffers in hunger. To claim otherwise is an insult to common sense, no matter how many letters come after the speaker's name.)

I have never and would never say that government shouldn't respect the moral sensibilities of the people; quite the contrary. But I will say that government is not a vehicle for forcing a particular moral code on the masses. Once upon a time you were an activist for the Democrats, and your side had a point about the Republican grass-roots being thick with closet theocrats.

But I gotta tell you, between theocrats on one side and technocrats on the other, those of us who don't much like 'crats don't end up with much in the way of choices.

So my take, simply, is that using government to try to work good at the level of a targeted individual is at best like trying to pet a puppy with a forklift; it's just not the right tool.

To be blunt, Terri screwed up in not having a living will. Having screwed up, a lot of people who should care for her (whether they really do or not) are trying to make the right decisions based on what they believe to be good. That's pretty much the way humans work on a day-to-day basis, only in this case moreso.

And meanwhile all the 'crats are flogging the (living?) (corpse?) for agendas that have precious little to do with caring about anything.

So my bottom line is I'm grateful that Bush is in the White House right now, because I believe he's using the tool of government in the correct way in the war on Islamofascism. But Congress (and the White House) have also opted to score points over a family's very personal tragedy, and I'm sorry, I find the whole thing repulsive.

I frankly expect better from Bush.

I am a lifetime athiest, and yet I feel myself becoming part of the backlash.

Chuck,

I appreciate that post very much. I don't care if you're an atheist. You have my deepest respect and admiration.

I'll admit everything I've heard about this case has been from my side of the aisle, so I'm biased.

Yes, and they've been lying to you, and you've been wrong multiple times, and you've been called on it, and you continue to promulgate the lies, so guess what that makes you?

Because legality and morality are two entirely distinct things. He can hide behind the legality of it, but not the immorality of it.

There's no hiding here, Carlos. The man wants to go through the excruciating process of following his wife's wishes regarding a horrific set of events, and he is doing so legally, within the framework we have set up as a society to handle the issue. It is you who display your contempt for the rule of law -- not to mention the institution of marriage -- by not only advocating that we deny him his legally entitled decision but also by consistently libelling him in a public sphere. I genuinely do not understand people like you who live in a free country and seek to make it unfree.

I frankly expect better from Bush.

My view of Bush is entirely consistent with this set of actions.

Oh, come off it, Kimmet. Sacredness of marriage, pfui. I have seen folks honor the sacredness of marriage in these circumstances, the in sickness and in health part in its strict interpretation, and Michael ain't an example. Few are, in fact. I also note how easily you ascribe to him high sounding motives. I don't know his motives, and I am sure you don't either.

On another blog there was a definite gender split. The ladies were convinced Michael hated his wife.

First I will say that I personally have found tolerance to be very high from religious people when their views are respected.

I agree. It's just that one of those views, too often, is "since my particular sect is right, the State should sponsor it," followed by, "also, your kids should learn my doctrine as fact in the public schools."

I totally agree with chuck -- once a guy whose wife's been in a coma for a decade starts to try to move on, he forfeits all marital rights and resposiblities.

I genuinely do not understand people like you who live in a free country and seek to make it unfree.

Kimmit,

I know conservatives are the embodiment of evil. I mean EVIL, not just wrong. But in San Fracisco folks can't even smoke a cigarette in public anymore. So who's making this country unfree? Take a good look closer to home. You'll find that freedom is not the only value we hold dear in this country. Smoke-free lungs seems to be pretty high up there with freedom nowadays. Oh, but smoking isn't a basic right you say? Ok then, what about being alive, is that a basic right? You'll give up your freedom for smoke-free lungs but not for life. Got it.

Michael Schiavo has lost his freedom to kill Terri, and Terri gets to live. Where's the problem here? State's rights? Don't even try. Coming from a Lib that's laughable.

Kimmet,

He didn't wait nearly that long. He waited until he won his settlement. Do you think they would have given him $700K for the upkeep of his wife if they knew he would petition the court the very next year to let her die? What if they knew he had a girlfriend at that time?

Besides, what good are promises if they a merely a matter of convenience. As I say, I have known very few who were so loyal, but I have known some.

Here's another opinion on Terri's brain: codeblue.

chuck

What can I say but, Amen brother!

Mark Poling

Mark you are,

1) Partly missing the point and...

2) Displaying a cynicism I must challenge.

--

You know you make statements that characterize this as if it were a game being played at the expense of others, that is cynicism I don't share...

Culture Warriors of all denominations are falling all themselves to claim Terri for their very own. Everybody has a pet angle on this, and the facts are just fuzzy enough to fit any conclusion.

Well they are fuzzy for you, in this of course you are speaking for yourself. To those directly involved like Terry's parents I doubt it is all that fuzzy. Like me, are you pro-Choice or somewhat ambivalent towards Abortion? I have learned one thing, this is not just a matter of choice to those that are Pro-Life, to them it is about Civil Rights. It is not the issue of Activists so-called abuse of the system I am talking about, it is to understand what it really means to those that see this as murder and are strongly into that dreaded war for the "Culture of Life" as Bush calls it. I don't expect most who view this with cynicism to connect with that fact. I wish more would at least acknowledge and respect the driving force behind such perspective, discarding such I feel leads to shallow opposition. Mark what means would you go to save a loved one, especially a child? I know it is personal, but that is the point, everyone is PROJECTING. I am saying this is a fight between her parents and a husband that has supposedly moved on. They begged for elected officials to intervene, if you or I felt like them what would you do, read the constitution and decide to let her die while you took a principled libertarian stand? Please, I side on principle with NOT INTERVENING but the cavalier rejection as to the human elements involved I find unsettling. Culture Warriors? Pet angles? The pet angles are yours and mine and other sideliners, those fighting in the trenches deserve a better description.

It is unseemly. And while I'm sure both sides of the woman's family have been ruthless in recruiting advocates, I'm also sure the advocates have been quite willing to be recruited.

Mark, I'm sorry but if stop and think you again are projecting. The above is so prejudicial. Ruthless recruiting? You even say you are sure about this. Says who, personal suspicions? Are lawyers who work for free supporting causes they believe in "Ruthlessly recruited" or just cynical people? I just don't presume such cynicism on the part of all those fighting in the trenches, I do see the cynicism on the part of those with little invested other then personal biases from the sidelines. Also saying...

And whatever else the starving lady might have wanted, I doubt that it would have included the kind of spotlight that's on her right now.

But how do you know? What if she is conscience enough to want to live? Survival instincts do alter what we think we may do. I hear people talk about whether someone should be born into misery yet what percentage of people regardless of hardship wish they were never born? A very small minority let me tell you. Argue from your prejudices and comforts all you must but realize you are alive and breathing and Terry is not your daughter.

--

The next is puzzling...

I have never and would never say that government shouldn't respect the moral sensibilities of the people; quite the contrary. But I will say that government is not a vehicle for forcing a particular moral code on the masses. Once upon a time you were an activist for the Democrats, and your side had a point about the Republican grass-roots being thick with closet theocrats.

First Mark, I never was one to demean the religious, I never talk of "closet theocrats". I uniquely in my family always fought the Secular Humanists because I found their cause to be counter-productive and prejudicial, maybe that instinct within is why I was more open to change then others in my family. Now as far a morals, Mark laws define acceptable behavior, plain and simple. Moral code for the masses? What the hell does that say? All lines in the sand that our laws draw are moral codes. What are executive orders for? What "particular moral code on the masses" do you object to and on what principle do you determine such "moral code". This is a frustrating way to see this in my opinion. Is "In God We Trust" a moral code to do away with? When Daniel was thrown in the Lion's Den for simply praying is bad "moral code for the masses" in my book. Elected officials intervening in a controversial case of life and death is no where near that. I view this a sloganeering that leads nowhere. The Shaivo case is nowhere near this unless it is your political ox about to be gored.

Mark, here you show the true problem...

So my take, simply, is that using government to try to work good at the level of a targeted individual is at best like trying to pet a puppy with a forklift; it's just not the right tool.

First of all petting a puppy with a forklift is a very bad example, let us just say "lift an injured puppy". What if the forklift is all you have? The problem Mark is you see the injured dog and the forklift and personally don't think it is worth it, a very legitimate position. In fact I wouldn't call it a cynical position, you afforded no such dispensation to others. Others don't see it that way, that is the problem. Again my problem is I don't see it so damn cynical, people feel strong about picking up that puppy and trying to revive it and you don't. Agree or not their fight is a legitimate fight to wage, pick a side and duke it out my friend politics will never work the way you imply it should and rightfully so, which leads me to this...

...but Congress (and the White House) have also opted to score points over a family's very personal tragedy, and I'm sorry, I find the whole thing repulsive. I frankly expect better from Bush.

Mark, frankly I would have expected no less of Bush, in fact if he didn't I would have a lower opinion because I do understand one thing about the man. It is not cynicism on his part in this case because his own history testifies to this fact. Mark, anti-War people could use your whole argument replacing Terry with "the people of Iraq" and do well with it. It is your biases that are being revealed. Mark I believe that Bush feels in ways much stronger than even you and I about the WOT and for that I am grateful, I think he deserves a presumption that he feels just as strong about advancing the "Culture if Life" as he calls it, agree or not, he is being true to himself. I would feel less comfortable with him if he did otherwise. I accept you as being true to yourself but I do reject your presumption of cynicism on Bush's motives, why not question his motives in the WOT, it is done everyday. When cynicism becomes based on my own prejudices I know it is time for a gut check my friend. I am not taking a position on this and I am not questioning motives, I am just questioning the selective cynicism. You share a similar type of cynicism that those againts the WOT have with Bush, only the issue is different, it is not your positon as much as your cynicism I question. You say you are consitent on the issues, I say I am also consistent on the cynicism. Jon Stewart says that President Bush was perhaps right on Iraq after all, he just wishes he weren't so damn cynical in the political process, is that how you see it? If so then you may be consistent after all.

Third- Somewhere I read today that people with a terminal disease who have PURPOSEFULLY stopped eating in order to be able to die, have maintained before they died that such starvation has not been painful.

Posted by miriam at March 21, 2005 06:35 PM
**************************************************
Did they drink water? Because what is happening to this woman is NOT simple starvation.
The Dehydration coupled with withholding food makes for a very painful death.

"Did they drink water? Because what is happening to this woman is NOT simple starvation."

If you are terminally ill, your body rejects food and water. You aren't hungry or thirsty and eating is unpleasant. I saw this with several relatives. Terri isn't terminally ill. She is physically healthy, aside from her brain damage and whatever loss of motor control that has caused. Dying of hunger and thirst would be painful for her.

"Mark, anti-War people could use your whole argument replacing Terry with "the people of Iraq" and do well with it. It is your biases that are being revealed."

I had similar thoughts.

Brian: "I thought this was essentially the mission for the Culture of Life, to universally protect and nurture all life from conception to natural [what does 'natural' mean] death.

Brian - I don't belong to the "Culture of Life", whatever that means. As I stated, I am not of the view that every person has the right to live on in perpetuity on advanced life support at the taxpayer's expense. But this isn't advanced life support. This isn't the taxpayer's expense. The woman does not even appear to be in physical pain. There is no living will. Her parents are willing to assume her care. All we have is the husband's word that this is what she would have wanted. She will starve to death. Fast forward 5 or 10 years. A man's spouse has Alzheimer's disease. The woman is confused and needs a feeding tube. She has no living will. The husband wants to move on and marry someone else. He claims she wouldn't have wanted to live this way. He's allowed to starve her to death, even though the couple has children who are willing to assume their mother's care. You could claim that the difference lies in the definition of PVS. But see e.g. the link to Codeblue that Chuck provided. PVS hasn't been conclusively established because the husband refuses to permit the tests and evaluations that would adequately determine it. At this point, I see little difference between this woman and a case of advanced AD. If her feeding tube is allowed to be pulled on the basis of her husband's word, I don't see what is to prevent millions of people from simply yanking out the feeding tubes of millions of people in the advanced stages of AD who happen not to have a living will, just on the basis of claiming "they wouldn't want to live this way". I find that disturbing. As to the issue of "political grandstanding" - I'm not really very interested in that dimension of this and as to the "federalism" vs "states rights" issue - I leave that to others to debate.

Yes, Dan, they stop drinking water.

Yehudit, Terri cannot feel pain, because she has no brain. No. Brain.

Even if critics who claim that this is being done for political or ideological reasons are partially or even wholly correct, they still miss the point. It is the public's sense of concern -- in some cases, outrage -- that is reflected by their elected representatives.

What can Congress do -- and what effect will it have? We do not know and Congress does not know. Those who are pushing for legislation to save Terri Schiavo are obviously trying to avoid setting a precedent or upsetting the Constitutional balance.

It is an old truism that hard cases make bad law. No one wants all such cases to end up in either Congress or the federal courts. But neither do decent people want an innocent woman killed because she was inconvenient and a court refused to recognize the conflict of interests in her legal guardian.

The fervor of those who want to save Terri Schiavo's life is understandable and should be respected, even by those who disagree. What is harder to understand is the fervor and even venom of those liberals who have gone ballistic -- ostensibly over state's rights, over the Constitutional separation of powers, and even over the sanctity of family decisions.

These are not things that liberals have any track record of caring about. Is what really bothers them the idea of the sanctity of life and what that implies for their abortion issue? Or do they hate any challenge to the supremacy of judges -- on which the whole liberal agenda depends -- a supremacy that the Constitution never gave the judiciary?

If nothing else comes out of all this, there needs to be a national discussion of some humane way to end life in those cases when it has to be ended -- and this may not be one of those cases.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050322.shtml#

Or do they hate any challenge to the supremacy of judges -- on which the whole liberal agenda depends -- a supremacy that the Constitution never gave the judiciary?

That's the first time I've heard this mentioned. But it might help explain their over the top passion for seeing her die. I've never seen people this excited about having somone killed. Their response is way too visceral. You'd think Terri was a serial killer or something. So something else is definitely going on here.

Yehudit, Terri cannot feel pain, because she has no brain. No. Brain.

Dr. Kill-dare here has just claimed one can breathe and one's heart will beat independent of a brain.

That's the dumbest thing I've read in a while. Unsurprising, but dumb.

spc67,

LOL! He's the guy with all the "facts".

Thanks, that was funny.

LOL, a brain stem is not a cerebral cortex. Grow up.

Yehudit, quoting Joseph:

"Mark, anti-War people could use your whole argument replacing Terry with "the people of Iraq" and do well with it. It is your biases that are being revealed."

Well, this is where it all comes to a head, of course.

For any one individual chosen at random in Iraq, Gulf War II was a very good thing, a very bad thing, and every shade in between. Pick your individual and make your decisions based on that if you want. It may be cold as hell, but I prefer to look at a larger picture, and I think on balance history will see this as a Good War.

Terri Schiavo has become a Battleground of One, and I will try rephrasing my argument; decisions based on single data points generally don't come out well. My gut reaction is that history will record this as a minor skirmish, a Grenada at best, a Gallipoli at worst.

Which brings up another question; what's actually being decided here? Of course, whether one individual lives or dies, and that's wrenching. But do you really think we're going to get any closer to a national consensus on anything because of this circus? People can't even agree on what we're arguing about, but everyone is absolutely sure they have right on their side.

Pardon me a moment of weakness, but I'm proud of my cynicism. The worst atrocities mankind has ever perpetrated have always sprung from the purest of motivations. And of course the best that mankind can do springs from dedicated idealism as well.

And pardon me again if I think that sometimes it's us cynical bastards who in the end hold things together.

But back on topic, I don't blame Terri's family for doing anything necessary to promote what they see as being in her best interest. The news media is a noisy channel, and I can imagine the best of motives on the part of all primary parties. I personally don't have a need for either side to be evil, and I don't have a problem with both sides fighting hard for what they see as good. (Why do I think all parties have been active participants in turning this into the News Event that it is? Well, here's my cycnicism again, but somehow I don't think this ended up tying up Congress by accident.)

As humans I would also hope every politician feels passionately about this case. Anybody with an imagination should be horrified. In terms of personal stories, this one is damned gruesome all around.

But as leaders, Congress and the White House should do what is in the fundamental best interest of everyone, and right now what I'm seeing doesn't pass that test.

Why do I say that? I do believe in a "Culture of Life". I am personally revolted by the idea of abortion. I also believe it should be legal under a set of well-defined conditions. And I do believe we need a real debate about what those conditions should be. That the Left is willing to live with the Roe v. Wade fig leaf is a real indictment against them.

I do believe we should have a debate about who decides what in cases like Terri's. (You want an effective law covering this? Require that a notarized living will be filed with every marriage license application. Require it for every drivers license issued to persons 18 and older.) That the Right is willing to treat the Schiavo case as at the least sanctioned murder, and at the worst the first step on the road to death camps, is a real indictment against them.

Unlike Kimmit, I think Bush is a fundamentally good man who is also cynical enough to run an effective government. I also think he's made a mistake in how he's handled this (although again I'm dealing with a noisy channel biased to make Bush look bad, so I'm taking that with a grain of salt.) When things are most visceral is when a real leader has to be the most level-headed. Not cold, not heartless, but level-headed. Real leaders have real history to worry about as well as real lives.

Caroline,

If she's not aware, then why deny her parents the right to feel good by caring for her "dead" body?

WHAT?!

How about because that seems, to me, rather sick, twisted and ghoulish? Or maybe because it seems seriously unhealthy from a psychological perspective, doesn't it?

Are you seriously advocating that people should keep their loved ones from decay, just so they won't have to admit to themselves that the person is gone?

But apparently this all turns on the definition of "husband" - a guy who long ago moved on to a new life and for all practical purposes a new marriage. But, there's that piece of paper which says he's "married" to her. Fine - if we're ranting so much importance to pieces of paper

Ummm, what happened to that argument when we were talking about gay marriage? If a husbands rights end, as soon as society determines that they should, what real value is there in that "little piece of paper"? If that little piece of paper isn't "the God given right of a husband to care for his wife" (as some anonymous poster stated) then what is it, and why argue that gays and lesbians can't have it?

One can't have it both ways, can they? Either Marriage is a scared union and "What God has yoked together, let no man pull apart", or, its just a little piece of paper, wouldn't you agree?

spc67,

Dr. Kill-dare here has just claimed one can breathe and one's heart will beat independent of a brain.

Indeed, such a statement would be incorrect. However, I think that the poster was probably referring to "the Brain" when discussing what is called the "Higher Brain Functions". Heartbeat and lung capacity, based on our understanding of neuroscience, come from the most basic parts of the brain. Evolutionary scientists calls these areas the reptile brain, fish brain etc. Philosophers may talk about them being levels of consciousness, which are active in various parts of the brain.

At any rate, the CAT scan is very clear than there the central cortex is apparently missing. Statements that an MRI are necessary would seem uninformed opinions, based on my discussion with a neurologist that I know. To wit, an MRI would be necessary, if we were trying to find out how much damage there had been to the neural pathways and synapses inside the brain. MRI's seem good diagnostics to figure out non-obvious damage. A CAT scan, however, would apparently be sufficiet to determine if chunks of the brain are GONE. If you look at the CAT scans of Terri's brain you will hopefully notice that both 'ventricles' (usually very small cavities in the brain) have expanded (the two blue bubbles). Ventricles are by defination, empty of the grey matter which contains neural pathways and synapses since the word ventricle is defined as "a small cavity or chamber in the body or an organ". The two extremely large blue blobs on Terri's CAT Scan, are her ventricles, and the CAT scan show that the ventricles (these cavities/empty spaces) have expanded to encompass most of the brain cortex. This means, that Terri no longer has a central cortex, since the physical location of her cortex is now a "cavity or chamber".

Of course, there does appear, in the CAT scan, still some grey matter in her head. So let's say she survives without a central cortex and its subcortex, what possibly could she end up missing?

Eye movement, emotion, self-awareness, reasoning and behavioral programming has, by neurologists, been identified as all part of the Cortex and subcortex processes. Since Terri NO LONGER HAS a cortex, nor subcortex, there is NO possibility, based on our current understanding of science, that she can recover.

There is no question in the mind of the Neurologist I spoke with nor, (he assures me) in the minds of any person with a basic understanding of neuroscience. He thinks that an MRI should be done, simply to shut up the quacks who are holding out false hope for the family and stirring unnecessary political turmoil.

My personal view, is that I don't really care about Mrs. Schaivo. She's as dead as my grandpa, theres just some bits of her brain that don't know it yet.

What truly bothers me, is the fact that the federal government would DARE to interefere with a States decision. The federal government is not allowed to meddle in State affairs unless they affect interstate/international commerce or national denfese. Therefore, no matter what cloak you place on it, this is a Statist, and even somewhat socialist stance taken by our government. What makes it worse is that this Statist action is happening in a political system now completely in the hands of so-called 'conservatives'. Liberals, I would expect Statist crap from, but conservatives.

That's more scary than letting a dead woman die.

Rat: Grow a set then and advocate lethal injection. Dogs and cats are not humans, yet we put them to sleep in a painless, more dignified manner than this. Even if she is "dead" she was still once a human being. Starving her to death is an insult to Life itself.

Here's a timeline of the Schiavo tragedies and legal wrangling.

Michael Schiavo gained $300,000 from the malpractice settlement; the rest was put into a trust fund for Terri Schiavo's medical care. Three months later, Mr. Schiavo finally gave up (after extensive treatment attempts) and came to the conclusion that Ms. Schiavo would have preferred to have the tube removed.

This was back in 1992. If this were about money, that money is long since gone. Mr. Schiavo would have been far better off taking the $300k and running, rather than fighting with Ms. Schiavo's parents. This isn't about cash. It's about principle.

The Schindlers didn't allege that Mr. Schiavo abused Terry until 2002. It took them an awful long time to come to that conclusion.

Kimmitt: Michael Schiavo will gain her life insurance policy money. He might not be a murdering thief, but he is a scumbag pickpocket.

Mr. Schiavo claims that he will not receive any life insurance money. He has offered to donate any money he would receive to charity over the course of previous discussions in order to assuage this concern.

There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Schiavo has a life insurance policy on his wife -- it appears to be a malicious falsehood on the part of those who are opposed to him politically.

Michael Schiavo will donate the money as soon as OJ finds the real killer.

There is no money. Repeated, pernicious, revolting lie. When will the bans start coming?

With the volume of comments your blog posts generate, Mr. Totten, you should consider running for office. I am truly impressed.

There is no money.

There is money. From the original settlement, sitting in a trust fund, for her rehab. It hasn't been used. Michael gets it when she dies, and THAT'S why he hasn't divorced her.

Mr. Schiavo has repeatedly offered, in writing, to donate the money to charity in exchange for the opportunity to implement Ms. Schiavo's wishes.

You lying sack of shit.

Mr. Schiavo has repeatedly offered, in writing, to donate the money to charity in exchange for the opportunity to implement Ms. Schiavo's wishes.

Kimmit,

oh, so Michael Schiavo "repeatedly offered" to give it to charity, did he? Gee, now I feel SO MUCH BETTER. Did he put that offer in writing?

He also promised to use that money for Terri's rehab. HE NEVER DID.

My god Kimmit, there's no limit to how low you people will sink just to stick it to "the Far Right." You people disgust me.

Thanks Kimmit for yet another thing I can e-mail to my family memebers who still vote Democrat. Guys like you are the best recruiting tool I know of.

Great stuff.

He also promised to use that money for Terri's rehab.

Yet another lie:

July 19, 1991

Terri Schiavo is transferred to Sable Palms skilled care facility where she receives continuing neurological testing, and regular and aggressive speech/occupational therapy through 1994.

November 1992

The jury in the medical malpractice trial against another of Terri’s physicians awards more than one million dollars. In the end, after attorneys’ fees and other expenses, Michael Schiavo received about $300,000 and about $750,000 was put in a trust fund specifically for Terri Schiavo’s medical care.

Ms. Schiavo received aggressive therapy for two years after the settlement.

Look, seriously, you can't enjoy being credibly accused of lying. Look up this stuff for yourself.

Thanks Kimmit for yet another thing I can e-mail to my family memebers who still vote Democrat.

Make sure you include the timeline; right to reproduce given to you only in full, including hyperlinks.

Kimmit,

Wow, you know how much the settlement amount was. Thanks for stating the obvious, and then repeating the same Michael Schiavo talking points ad nauseaum. You couldn't care less about the truth of the matter.

Make sure you include the timeline; right to reproduce given to you only in full, including hyperlinks.

I was referring to your erudite namecalling. My Dem family memebers are going to look forward to having their names associated with yours...really...I mean it...you're good for the liberal cause...BWAHAHAHAHA

Make sure you include your taunting responses, so as to display the humility characteristic of your side's discussions.

Humilty? Me? Good one. But not as good as your enraged namecalling and swearing. It'll get ya votes every time!

Kimmit:

you're supporting a scoundrel just to stick it to Bush.

It's hard to argue Michael Schiavo was trying to rehab Terri when he posted a no resuscitation order on her chart, AND when he ordered them NOT to treat her infection in Aug. '93. He was trying to kill her the whole time, even as he was wringing his hands for that trust money.

THE LOWDOWN

1993

Feb - Michael Schiavo denies recommended rehabilitation treatment.

Feb - Schiavo and Terri's parents have falling out regarding lack of therapy for Terri.

Feb - Schiavo withholds medical information from Terri's parents.

Feb - Schiavo posts Do not Resuscitate order in Terri's medical chart.

Apr: The value of the trust fund for all of Terri's future care and rehabilitation stands at $776,254. State law guarantees that Michael would be granted any of what remains if Terri dies.

Jun - Schiavo threatens Schindler family with lawsuit.

Aug - Schiavo orders medical staff not to treat Terri for potentially fatal infection.

Sep - Bob and Mary Schindler petition courts to remove Schiavo as Terri's guardian.

Nov - Schiavo admits in deposition that he knew withholding treatment of infection could result in Terri's death.

1995

Sep - Schiavo orders Palm Gardens not to treat Terri for potentially fatal infection.

http://www.terrisfight.org/timeline.html

"Did Terri Schiavo's husband change his mind? According to the testimony that follows, he assured a judge and jury that Terri would be given proper therapy and care. However, after receiving the proceeds of the 1992 Medical Malpractice Trial, not a single day of therapy has been given to Terri."

"(Note: In January of 1993, a jury awarded Michael $350,000 for loss of consortium, and $750,000 went into a medical trust for all of Terri's future rehabilitative care, which was based on the testimony of Michael stating that he wanted to care for Terri for the rest of his life. If Terri should die, Michael would inherit the balance of the trust fund. Not only did Mr. Schiavo not provide Terri with rehabilitation, he has denied his wife any and all therapy, against Doctors' recommendations, since the 1993 malpractice award.)"

http://www.terrisfight.org/change.html

Just like you tried to protect Saddam in order to stick it to Bush. You're a pathetic excuse for a human being.

When will Michael Totten reign in and ban his offensive right-wing trolls?

Try as you may, you simply can't escape your totalitarian stalinist roots, can you.

It would be like asking conservatives to ditch their judeo-christian roots.

It can't happen.

By popular demand, and because of one personal attack too many, Carlos is banned.

Respectfully MT,

Carlos gets the boot and Kimmit who called someone a "lying sack of sh*t" gets to hang around?

Doesn't seem fair.

spc67,

I got too many complaint about Carlos. Anyway, I don't want to argue about it. I do not enjoy babysitting the comments.

Your blog, your rules. Thanks for your answer.

I second spc67. I don't get it. What did Carlos do?

Carlos at 10:33: You're a pathetic excuse for a human being.

This kind of talk is not okay. If you don't think I'm being fair because I only banned one person today, all I can do is ban even more people. And I'd really rather not because I feel like an asshole every time I do it. Besides, sometimes kicking out one person has a remarkable effect on the people I don't ban. Thanks for understanding, or at least trying.

My personal opinion is that Carlos was one of the most valuable contributors to this blog. I am a little shocked you did that. Is there any recourse to appeal?

(I am not happy with posters who continually call other people liars when they may be merely mistaken in their facts. But I wouldn't recommend banning them for that reason either.)

Caroline, it doesn't get much worse than You're a pathetic excuse for a human being. I don't need that kind of valuable contribution, nor do I need the email complaints that come with it.

I enjoy good discussions and intelligent arguments, but I do not enjoy babysitting and flame wars.

I often get compliments that my comments section is one of the best and most civil in the blogosphere. That's only because I show people the door when I have to. I could improve my comments even more if I banned more people, but I don't because it makes me feel bad.

Michael - it must be obvious to you that I love your comments section and no doubt you are right that is because you police it. I guess what happened on these last few threads just goes to show how strongly this case has tapped into people's emotions. Sometimes blog comments sections are also entertaining, however, and that attraction shouldn't be entirely discounted. (Just my humble opinion). Carlos was a great debater and he expressed his opinions strongly - which added to the general entertainment factor. A shame there can't be a 2 week suspension rule or or a stern warning first. Oh well - Bye Carlos. Whoever you were :-)

I would think that "lying sack of shit" is worse than "You're a pathetic excuse for a human being."

Convenience was the main reason you banned Carlos as you said as much saying you didn't care to be bothered by the emails of those that complained. This is not principle, if it were then Kimmit would be banned. Of course you can do whatever you want, but convenience being an over-riding factor in the application of principle is not very principled.

People on the left are more apt to complain and try to shut others up, it is what PC is all about, conservatives are used to it, most have been to college. You just caved into the game of shutting down someone because liberals complain. Not perhaps on purpose, but the result is the same, liberals can lower the discousre to levels conseratives aren't allowed. Whatever, it is your blog, but don't flatter yourself with the principled part convenience is not a principle, you are unwittingly PC because you accept one level of discouse on the left above that from the right due to simple e-mail picketing.

I suggest you sleep on it and think about it and reconsider.

Thanks for the support guys.

Don't worry Michael, I won't be back unless invited.

OK - Carlos - but FWIW - I'm still chuckling over this one:

"Carlos - I swear I wrote that before I saw your post. I think the time has probably come for me to officially declare myself a conservative - merely on the grounds of the company I appear to keep.:-)

No pressure Caroline. It'll just kinda happen naturally and all by itself when you're ready. ;-)"

The Guy: You just caved into the game of shutting down someone because liberals complain.

The only liberal who complained did so in public. I got complaints from conservatives by email, so don't give that line.

Besides, I don't care about a person's party identification when they lodge a complaint, nor do I care about a person's party identification when I have to police them. It is absolutely irrelevant. If I show a conservative the door, other conservatives object. If I show a liberal the door, other liberals object. It's always the same. I will continue policing my comments regardless because no one else can.

First policing your site is to be expected, but I'm talking about the supposed principle in banning one person and not another for similar comments. The only reason you gave was you were more personaly hassled by others over one of the comments. You never anwswered that question but instead gave me the backhand for using my own reasoning to cover a hole in the logic of your explanation.

As far as addressing me with "don't use that line", I stand corrected but in the face of the comparisons you still didn't clarify the orininal point. Get ornery with me if you must but I really was just scrathing my head, when I read Kimmit's and Carlos's comment, the appearence of not adding up does leave one to speculate. Rather then attack my speculation as if it were an answer and then assert your right to police your site, which I would never question, can't you at least give more logic to clarify that which doesn't add up?

WARNING

I've spent WAY more time than I want to on babysitting duty today, and the very next person to complain about my comments policy will be banned withtout further notice.

So are people "Being Banned Because Bullshit Banter is Bad"?

Tosk

I was afraid to post this earlier but I see that Tosk got away with his post, and now I realize that what I was going to say doesn't meet the definition of "complaint". So I'll say it:

MJT: "WARNING"

Yup - that works! Good policy!

test

Hello nice page and it downloads very fast, enjoyed it very much, take care. The internet is a great place to showcase art and increase awareness in the variety of excellent work available.
U-booty Katalog stron Website Directory

Very Nice site. Juliejszyn
WebVerzeichnis

Zapraszam Pralki , Telewizory Plazmowe , która Nooxe
Lodówki, ale nie podniesie Aparaty cyfrowe

free uk adult chat roomfreeserve adult chatgay adult chatgay adult chat roomsgerneal adult chat roomsgoogle directory adult video chathot adult chatindian adult chatirc adult chatjava adult chatjava adult chat roomlive adult chatlive adult chat roomslive adult video chatlive free adult chatlocal adult chatlondon adult chatmature adult chatsenior adult personalssex adult personalssexy adult personalsswinger adult personalsswinger personalsswinger personals adsswingers adult personalsswingers adult personals adstampa adult personalstennessee adult personalstexas adult personalstexas swinger personalstoronto adult personalstotally free adult personalsuk adult personalsuk adult photo personalsuk photo personals adultutah adult personalsvancouver adult personalsvirginia adult personalswashington dc adult personalswisconsin adult personalsxxx adult personals100 dating free lesbian site100 dating free line100 dating free local online100 dating free online100 dating free online service100 dating free online services100 dating free online site100 dating free percent site100 dating free personals100 dating free russian100 dating free service100 dating free single100 dating free site100 dating free site totally100 dating free site web100 dating free uk100 dating free webman married personals seeking womanman mature personals woman youngman older personals seeking woman youngerman personals seeking womanmarried personals womanmarried woman personalsmature personals womanmexican personals womanolder personals womanolder woman personalsaustralia dating onlineaustralia dating personalsadult australia datingaustralia dating gayaustralia dating internetaustralia christian datingaustralia dating freeaustralia dating sitexxx sucking moviesxxx tits moviesxxx woman moviesbig xxx moviesdaily porn moviesdownloadable porn moviesfull length porn movieshot porn moviesporn hardcore moviesporn lesbian moviesporn amateur moviesdownloadable porn moviesfull length porn movieshot porn moviesinterracial porn moviesdownloadable porn moviesfull length porn movieshot porn moviesreal porn moviessecret porn moviessexy porn moviesxxx model moviesxxx movies samplesxxx movies sexxxx orgy moviesxxx porn moviesxxx pussy moviesxxx sample moviesxxx slut moviesadult xxx moviesxxx action moviesxxx adult moviesxxx ass fuck moviesinterracial porn movieslong porn moviesnude porn moviesonline porn movies

Pozdroweinia z Polski, Aga.

Very interesting article. Thx.

69 | afrodyzjak | afrodyzjaki | agencja towarzyska | agencje modelek | agencje towarzyskie | akcesoria erotyczne | aktorki | akty | alfons | amatorki | amatorski | amatorskie filmy | amatorskie filmy porno | amatorskie filmy porno sex filmy | amerykanki | anal | analny anlanie | analny seks | analny sex | artykuly erotyczne | azjatki | bara-bara | bdsm | bielizna | bielizna latex lack skora | bisty | biura matrymonialne | biuro matrymonialne | biust | biustonosz | biustonosze | biusty | blogi erotyczne | blona dziewicza | blond dziewczyny | blondynki | boys | britney spears | brodawka | brodawki | brunetki | burdel | burdele | chlopcy | chuj | chuje | cipcie | cipeczki | cipki | cipy | cnota | cnotka | cnotki | cyce | cycki | cycuszki | czarnulki | czasopisma erotyczne | czekoladki | czlonek | czlonek naturalny z wibratorem | czlonki | darmowe akty | darmowe filmy porno | darmowe galerie porno | darmowe zdjecia | darmowy seks | darmowy sex | dewiacje | dewiant | dojrzale | domowy seks grupowy | dupczenie | dupeczki | dupy | duze biusty | duze penisy | duze piersi | dymane | dymanie | dyze cyce | dziewczeta | dziewczyny | dziewice | dziurkowanie | dziwka | dziwki | erekcja | erotyczne | erotyczne filmy rysunkowe | erotyczne inicjacje | erotyczne sex zabawy | erotyczny | erotyka | exstaza | exstazy | feromony | fetysz | fetysze | figi | filmy | filmy erotyczne | filmy porno | filmy porno gay | filmy porno na cd | filmy porno na dvd | filmy porno na vcd | filmy porno na vhs | filmy pornograficzne na dvd vcd cd vhs | filmy prywatne | filmy z nastolatkami | fiut | fiutki | fiuty | foczki | foki | fotki | fuck | galeria erotyczna | galerie erotyczne | gawlt | gay | gazety porno pornograficzne erotyczne | gej | geje | giga mega wielki penis | girls | gry erotyczne | guma ogumienie prezerwatywa prezerwatywy kondom | gwalcenie | gwalt | gwalty | gwiazdy porno | hardcore | hardcore seks | hardcore sex | hentai | homoseksualisci | homoseksualistki | homoseksualny | huj | huje | jak powiakszyc penisa | jebac | jebanie | kamasutra sex pozycje pozycje milosne | kobiety | kociaki | kurewski | kurewskie | kurwa | kurwy | kutas | kutasy | lachociagi | lale | lalunie | laseczki | laski | lastwe panienki | lateks | latex | latwe laski | lechtaczka | lechtaczki | lesbian sex lesbijki filmy porno | lesbijki | lesby | lezbijki | licealistki | lolitki | magazyny porno pornograficzne erotyczne | majteczki | male biusty | male penisy | malolaty | maly biust | marszczenie freda | masturbacja | mlode | mlode laski | mniejszosci seksualne | mocna erotyka | modelki | molestowanie seksualne | murzynki | nagie polki | nagie znane kobiety | nasadka na penis | nasienie | nastolatki | nastoletnie | naturyzm | niemki | niewinne | night cluby | nimfomanka | nimfomanki | obciaganie | obciagary | obciagnij mi | odjazd | ogloszenia matrymonialne | ogloszenia towarzyskie | onanizm | onanizowanie | opowiadania erotyczne | opowiesci erotyczne | orgazm | orgia | orgie | palcowanie | palcowka | pamela anderson | panie z nadwaga | panienki | panny | pedaly | penis | penisy | perwersja | pieprzenie | pierdolenie | pierdolic | piersi | pindy | pissing | pizda | pizdeczka | pizdy | platne filmy erotyczne | playboy | playboy modelki | podniecajace | podnieta | poezja milosna erotyki | polki | polki nago | ponczochy rajstopy | porno | pornografia | powieksz swojego penisa | powiekszanie penisa | pozycje milosne | prezerwatywy | prostytucja | prostytutka | prostytutki | prywatne ogloszenia towarzyskie | randka | randki | ranking i katalog stron | ranking i katalog stron erotycznych | robienie laski | robienie load | robienie loda | rosjanki | rozdziewiczanie | rozrywka | ruchane | ruchanie | ruchawice | rude | rypanie | rzniecie | samice | seks | seks anime | seks chat | seks czat | seks grupowy | seks hentai | seks-kamery | seksowna bielizna | seks-porady | serwisy erotyczne | sex | sex amatorski po polsku | sex anal | sex analny | sex analny sex oralny oral anal | sex anime | sex anonse towarzyskie | sex chat | sex czat | sex czat erotyczny | sex grupowy | sex manga | sex opowiadania erotyczne | sex oral | sex oralny oral | sex tapety | sex video vhs dvd cd | sexowna bielizna | sexplaneta | sex-shop sex filmy porno akcesoria erotyczne | sms | sperma | sperma erekcja orgazm wytrysk | striptease taniec erotyczny | strony erotyczne | studentki | suczki | sutek | sutki | szarpanie dzidy | szatynki | szmata | szmaty | szparka | szparki | tanie prezerwatywy | tapety erotyczne | tapety na pulpit | tapety porno | tirowka | tirowki | towarzyskie | tranwestyci | tranzwestyci | ukrainki | uzaleznienie od seksu | uzaleznienie od sexu | vagina | walenie kapucyna | walenie konia | walenie nastolatek | wargi sromowe | wenera | wibrator | wibrator fajna zabaweczka | wibrator wibratory wibra | wibratory | wielkie cyce | wielkie piersi | wszystko o sexie | wydluz penisa | wydluz swojego penisa | wydymane | wygolone | wyruchane | wytrysk | wyuzdane | wzmacnianie penisa | wzmocnij swojego penisa | xxx | zarosniete | zboczeni | zboczenia | zboczenie | zboczona | zboczone | zboczony | zdjecia | zdjecia erotyczne | zdjecia porno | zdjecia z nastolatkami | znane nago | zrob mi laske | zrob mi loda | zruchane

Hello nice page and it downloads very fast, enjoyed it very much, take care. The internet is a great place to showcase art and increase awareness in the variety of excellent work available.

Lodówki
Kuchnie
Zmywarki
Kamery Cyfrowe
Aparaty Cyfrowe
Telewizory Plazmowe
Telewizory Lcd

Hi,your homepage looks really good and gives great information!
Thank you very much!
Greetings from me!!
Sony
Creative
Panasonic
Philips
Siemens
Samsung
Jvc
lg

klimatyzacja
projektowanie wnętrz
jiddu
3d
reklama
projektowanie stron
nieruchomości
forum ludzkie
poezja
swietlica
zdrowa żywność
psycholog
agroturystyka
opony

Katalog Stron WWW
Camcoo
Website directory
WebVerzeichnis
Website directory
CANADIAN WEBSITE DIRECTORY
ANNUAIRE DE WEBSITE
EEEBY
AUSTRALIAN WEBSITE DIRECTORY
INDICE ITALIANO DI WEBSITE
DIRECTORIO ESPAÑOL DE WEBSITE
EEEBY
EEEBY
EEEBY.pl
EYOUBAY
WebVerzeichnis
foto
cocoo

Telewizory Plazmowe Kamery Cyfrowe Kino Domowe Telewizory Plazmowe Telewizory Lcd Kuchnie Piekarniki Lodówki Pralki Zmywarki Okapy Kuchenne Odtwarzacze mp3 Aparaty Cyfrowe DMC FZ5

Telewizory Plazmowe Kamery Cyfrowe Kino Domowe Telewizory Plazmowe Telewizory Lcd Kuchnie Piekarniki Lodówki Pralki Zmywarki Okapy Kuchenne Odtwarzacze mp3 Aparaty Cyfrowe DMC FZ5

piekne biusty @ piekne cipki @ piekne dupcie @ piekne dupy @ piekne dziewczyny @ piekne dziwki @ piekne i starsze @ piekne kobiety @ piekne laski @ piekne lezbijki @ piekne modelki @ piekne murzynki @ piekne nastolatki @ piekne nogi @ piekne panienki @ piekne polki @ piekne posladki @ piekne sex @ pieknosc licealistka @ pieknosci @ piele @ pieleg @ pielegbiarka @ pielegn @ pielegnia @ pielegniaqrka @ pielegniar @ pielegniareczka @ pielegniarek @ pielegniark @ pielegniarka doktor @ pielegniarka film @ pielegniarka sekretarka @ pielegniarkaa @ pielegniarke @ pielegniarki sekretarki @ pielegniarki sex @ pielegnirka @ pieleng @ pielengnia @ pielengniarka @ pielengniarki @ pieleniarka @ pielgniarka @ pieluszki @ pieniadze @ pieprzeenie @ pieprzenie @ pieprzenie 2pary @ pieprzenie brutalnie

good day from india !

Levitra @ Cialis @ Phentermine @ Viagra @ Online Levitra

greetings from NY !

Order Viagra Online

good day

good day guys

great blog guys !

hello guys - cool blog

Great job! I like it!

intercasino 1 million Jackpot Winner !

Check out How to Gamble in America :: Poker Index :: Poker Room Review :: Sports Index :: Sports Book Review :: Casino Index :: Casino Review :: Craps :: Blackjack Strategies :: Roulette :: Let It Ride :: Three Card Poker :: Video Poker :: Gambling Quotes :: Online Gambling :: Online Poker :: Draw Poker :: Poker Hand Rankings :: Texas Hold’em :: Seven Card Stud :: Seven Card High/Low :: Omaha :: Omaha High/Low :: Guide To Sports Betting :: The Basics to Wagering on Sports :: Parlays :: Teasers :: Half Point :: Sports Betting Tips & Tricks :: Money Management :: Sports Betting Terminology :: Horse Racing Tips :: Free NFL Pick :: How to Gamble in America :: Sports Betting Strategies :: Pacific Poker:: Online Gambling Forum

Also check out 100 Best Poker Rooms for all the best up to date online gambling sites.

BLOG

EEEBY Shopping Top Angebote im Preisvergleich
eeby.co.uk

heart @ heather @ hebanowa pieknosc @ hedonism @ heels @ heidi @ heidi klum @ heigl @ hekate @ helbin @ helen @ helen divall @ helen du val @ helen duval @ helena hemanova @ helena vondrackowa @ helly berry @ henati manga @ henger @ heni @ henna @ hentai @ hentai 69 @ hentai aktorki @ hentai amatorki @ hentai analny @ hentai anonse @ hentai azjatki @ hentai bdsm @ hentai bielizna @ hentai bikini @ hentai biseks @ hentai bisex @ hentai blondynki @ hentai brunetki @ hentai bufory @ hentai chinki @ hentai chlopcy @ hentai chude @ hentai ciasne @ hentai cipa @ hentai comics @ hentai cyce @ hentai cycki @ hentai czarne @ hentai darmowe @ hentai doktor @ hentai dziewice @ hentai dziureczki @ hentai dziwka

Hi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online slots
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker

Take your time to check out some information dedicated to tamiflu purchase tamiflu purchase





http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami1
tamiflu without prescription





http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami2
tamiflu in canada





http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami3
tamiflu price





http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami4
tamiflu price





http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami5
real tamiflu price





http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami6
buy tamiflu





http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami7
order tamiflu





http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami8
tamiflu online





http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami9
tamiflu





http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami10
tamiflu and no prescription





Tami Flu
online casino
casino
viagra
viagra
poker

kosmetyki naturalne
kosmetyki
ogłoszenia nieruchomości
mieszkania w Warszawie
tworzenie stron
strony internetowe
agencja reklamowa
domy opieki
ifkj
jk
psychesfr

new online poker site ! http://poker.trinitytc.com

Poker

http://www.casino-los-angeles.com/poker

Poker

http://www.casino-los-angeles.com/bingo

Bingo

http://www.casino-los-angeles.com/netellercasinos/

Neteller Casinos

http://www.archipenko.co.il/freecasinos/

Free Casino

http://www.archipenko.co.il/cybercasino/

Cyber Casino

http://www.casino-los-angeles.com/bettercasinos/

Online Casino

http://www.casino-los-angeles.com/casinobonus/

Online Casino

Casino Bonus

kosmetyki
kosmetyki naturalne
soczewki kontaktowe
szkła kontaktowe
nauka angielskiego
kurs angielskiego
nauka angielskiego Warszawa
domy opieki
dom opieki
freetimes
jidds
fabrykapoe
sfworks
popoe
ores
atfries
malarstwo
jp
pz
il
apteka
apteka Warszawa
apteki Warszawa
dentysta
dentysta Warszawa
dentyści Warszawa
agencja reklamowa

shpoem gos

great site pls visit my online casino site: http://casinos.dolev-yomel.com
http://casino.dolev-yomel.com

liming 07年08月30日

wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow power level
wow power level

rolex replica
rolex replica
beijing hotels
beijing hotels
shanghai hotels
shanghai hotels
rolex replica
rolex replica
china tour
china tour
hong kong hotel
hong kong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
great wall
beijing travel
beijing
beijing
china tour
china tour
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
猎头
猎头
货架
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
搬家
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
搬家公司
北京律师
营养师
营养师培训
喷码机
铸造模拟软件
激光快速成型机

搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
google排名
google排名
监控
监控
激光打标机
软件工程硕士
集团电话
集团电话
激光打标机
激光打标机
打包机
打包机
拓展训练
塑钢门窗
网站设计
机票
机票
网站建设
数据采集卡
美国国家大学
在职研究生
呼叫中心
交换机
激光打标机
激光打标机

磁控溅射台
磁控溅射台
淀积台
淀积台
镀膜机
镀膜机
匀胶机
匀胶机
溅射仪
溅射仪
刻蚀机
刻蚀机
pecvd
pecvd
去胶机
去胶机
康王
康王
康王
康王
康王
喜来健
喜来健
喜来健
喜来健
喜来健

做个友情连接
wow gold
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
rolex replica
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
warcraft gold
warcraft gold
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow power level
香港六合彩
搬家公司
在职研究生
北京律师
营养师
营养师培训
喷码机
铸造模拟软件
激光快速成型机
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
飘零月
飘零月
rolex replica
布衣学子
飘零月
灵水之刀
巡海之神
沧天一笑
清日无痕
无水之河
秋去冬来
大海
飘零月
水无痕

澳大利亚
澳大利亚移民
澳洲移民

压力开关
压力变送器
压力传感器
流量开关
流量计
液位计
液位开关
温湿度记录仪
风速仪
差压开关
可燃气体检测仪

过滤器
强磁水处理器
自清洗过滤器
自动反冲洗过滤器

澳大利亚
澳大利亚移民
澳洲移民

网站优化
Printer parts

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
runescape power leveling
runescape powerleveling
runescape power level
runescape money
runescape gold
buy runescape gold
buy runescape money
runescape items
runescape accounts
buy runescape accounts
buy runescape items
cheap runescape money
cheap runescape gold
runescape gp
dofus kamas
dofus kamas
Achat DOFUS Kamas
Guild Wars Gold
buy Guild Wars Gold
GW Gold
陈楚生

http://www.himorim.co.il
bid links