Congress called a special session and passed a law to save a person’s life. They literally rushed back to argue about this and force it through. President Bush then burnt the midnight oil to make sure he signed it. All of this to save a woman’s life who over a hundred doctors have said is in a “Persistant Vegatative State”. Meaning that according to all these doctors this woman has no distinctive brain activity.
Now there is no secret that while Georgy W. had no problem letting several people fry in the Texas electric chair while he was the governor. As a matter of fact I seem to remember a couple times when he talked about how he was proud of it. We also know that he has caused wars that have killed several people on both “our” side and the “other” side. There are conspiracy groups out there that are purposing that he allowed/planned for people to die on 9/11. There really isn’t any doubt about it that he has no problem with people dying.
So what is it about this specific person that he would sign a law stating that they cannot remove this person’s feeding tube. This is just one step below using the consitution to try to stop people from getting married. I seriously doubt that these are the things that the “Founding Fathers” planned for the Federal laws to be used for. I don’t think they planned for the goverment to use laws and amendments to enforce their catholic beliefs on the people of the United States. Seperation of Church and State…. What? Anyone heard of that?
Why is this George’s business? Aren’t these the things that the judges in the state are supposed to decide? These case has apparently even been before the Supreme Court of the United States and they decided in favor of allowing the tube removed.
Perhaps if her husband would like for George to allow for her to die, he should just come out and say that he was with her one time when she shoplifted something. Then George would probably have her put in the chair and fried.
Actually, part of your statement is FUD – not that it changes the logic your argument in any significant manner. The Supreme Court has consistently REFUSED to hear the case. And at least for that, I’ll give those guys some credit. They basically said what I believe ANY lower court should have said – “this is not an issue for us to debate”. It’ll be interesting to see what happens now, because with the 11’th circuit court refusing to reverse the decision, the supreme court is the last place left for the parents to go.
But after writing my article – http://maxx.zweix.com/blog/index.php?p=466 – and reading your conspiracy theory comment, I had another interesting thought – what if this was all planned all along?
In other words, what if the Bush Bros already knew that the odds of the parents winning were slim to none. What a golden opportunity to put on a song and dance for the religious conservatives about the sanctity of life! With all that they have done, there can be no doubt whatsoever in the minds of the religious voters that the Bush Bros are “on the side of life” and they have truly lived up to their “compassionate conservative” ideals. And what an additional golden opportunity for the Bush Bros to say (after the woman is dead) “its all the fault of those seditious un-american atheistic liberals!”
Definitely believable.
Another reason why I think the Supreme Court is doing the right thing-
The [Florida] Legislature stepped in before, in 2003, and Schiavo’s feeding tube was reinserted. But “Terri’s Law” was later struck down by the state Supreme Court as an unconstitutional attempt to interfere in the courts.
To start off, when did a feeding tube become life support? Thousands of people are on feeding tubes each day. I don’t consider it a life support piece of equipment. It is more a piece of equipment to help a handicapped/disabled person survive. This denial of use of a feeding tube could be considered as prejudice against the disabled.
Having stated that opinion, then the point becomes would the governments involved let anyone else committ suicide by starvation? I don’t believe so, they put Jack Kevorkian in jail for helping people committ that act.
Then there is the question of choice. Did Terri actually make a decision to die if in those circumstances? I think there should have to be some ‘official’ documents on this issue. Just ‘hearsay’ is not enough in these cases where there are discrepancies about the motives of the parties involved.
Should congress and the President be involved, no way.
But there does needs to be some work done on the the requirements of papers filed for a right to die. You can’t have people making these type judgements in the heat of the moment. Feeling are usually too emotionally charged for rational decisions to be made during times of near death of a loved one.
Also, there is the issue that people might not understand the difference in the diagnosis of PVS and brain dead.
Even though she reacts to stimulae, her ‘thinking’ part of the brain no longer functions. I believe people see her ‘instictive reations’ as her ability to think. The portion of the brain that controls reflex actions is different from the reasoning portion.
I think it would be best for the family and her husband to let Terri die. It just becomes hard to do it legally, IMO.
I think in this case it is considered life support since without it she cannot survive. Thus it is “supporting” her life.
As far as “in the heat of the moment” I don’t think that really counts here. I mean this happened to her like 15 years ago. I think the cases have been in court for several years. I mean it has came up to the Supreme Court of the US. That doesn’t happen all in one year.
Her reaction I think is the key. Her parents are wishful about her recovery and are thinking that her reactions are some kinda sign. The Bushs (also famous for their baked beans) see it as a chance to push their morality issues IMO. The fact that the various judges are standing up to both of them is impressive to me. I seriously doubt that either one of them has actually been there to see her and instead are basing all their opinions on the same 2 minutes of video that they KEEP running on the news.
There are a couple other things that piss me off about this too.
One Terri’s mom, I think, since she has been having to get on television has gotten herself a new pair of glasses and her hair done different. That makes me feel like she is really worried about her daughter and not about how she looks on TV.
The second one is that they are wanting the feeding tube put back in, because “It is a slow torturous death”. Well I bet that if you put the tube back in they wouldn’t start saying it was ok to have her killed via lethal injection or anything. They are playing up the fact that this is supposedly so inhumane, but that really isn’t the point of what they are saying.