Did Congress really subpoena a brain dead person? (Terri Schiavo)

[Whack-a-Mole]

I am not sure GQ is the right place for this. I am not debating the issue of Terri's case but rather asking if I am reading the following correctly and if so what is the point behind it all?

A House committee subpoenaed the brain-damaged woman to appear before Congress next week, and Schiavo's family was "hopeful" the brain-damaged woman would make that appearance in Washington, an attorney for her parents said Friday.

SOURCE: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/schiavo.brain-damaged/index.html)


Regardless of which side of the right-to-die fence you sit on I cannot imagine what the possible purpose is behind the House asking a person who is brain dead to appear before them. Seems like a sad attempt at a photo-op but maybe I am missing something other Doper's can enlighten me on.

[mittu]

I don't know anything about this case other than what you just posted but one thing stands out. You refer to the person as being "brain-dead" whereas the quote you posted refers to the woman as being "brain-damaged". The extent of the brain damage would be the deciding factor in just how pointless the whole task was.

[Revtim]

I'm kind of confused about this too. Is there some legal reason why a feeding tube cannot be removed from a person who has been subpoenad?

[dlack]

From that article it looks like the subpoena is to ensure that they don't let her die before Congress has decided the case.

[1010011010]

Apparently the woman goes in and out of vegetative states. The last couple of times she's lapsed into one her husband has tried to pull the plug (and succeeded on a couple of occassions), but her biological family have in the past successfully fought and had her put back on life support.

Hopefully, the good that will come out of this is an acknowledgement that removing someone's feeding tube so they can starve to death over the course of a week or two isn't the most humane way to do it... and the opening of better alternatives.

[shelbo]

It is a ridiculous stalling ploy. There's some law that says it is illegal to harrass or injure anyone that has been subpoenaed by Congress -- they're trying to insert their authority to "save Terri's life". Despite the fact that this case has been litigated for over ten years, in and out of court, up to the Florida supreme court, the Florida legislature, Jeb Bush, and on and on. It's pretty sickening, actually.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I don't know anything about this case other than what you just posted but one thing stands out. You refer to the person as being "brain-dead" whereas the quote you posted refers to the woman as being "brain-damaged". The extent of the brain damage would be the deciding factor in just how pointless the whole task was.

From further in the article I linked above they say this...

Lower courts have ruled that she is in a "persistent vegetative" state.

In this case it would seem this is a helluva lot mroe than semantics so you were right to question it. I do not personally know what her actual status is.

[asterion]

Well, they did have Bud Selig testifiying last night....

Seems like a clear abuse of the law to me.

[Valgard]

It is a ridiculous stalling ploy. There's some law that says it is illegal to harrass or injure anyone that has been subpoenaed by Congress -- they're trying to insert their authority to "save Terri's life". Despite the fact that this case has been litigated for over ten years, in and out of court, up to the Florida supreme court, the Florida legislature, Jeb Bush, and on and on. It's pretty sickening, actually.

Bingo on the procedural part of that statement. They were just discussing this on NPR a few minutes ago and said that those members who issued the subpoena do not actually intend for Terry Schiavo to show up, but to use the fact that it is against the law to interfere with a Congressional subpoena to prevent removal of her feeding tube.

[ouryL]

I don't know anything about this case other than what you just posted but one thing stands out. You refer to the person as being "brain-dead" whereas the quote you posted refers to the woman as being "brain-damaged". The extent of the brain damage would be the deciding factor in just how pointless the whole task was.


I dunno. After ten years, what is left of Terry's damaged brain has liquified. :(

[Ike Witt]

those members who issued the subpoena do not actually intend for Terry Schiavo to show up, but to use the fact that it is against the law to interfere with a Congressional subpoena to prevent removal of her feeding tube.

Isn't the failure to appear a contempt of congress?

[asterion]

Isn't the failure to appear a contempt of congress?

Oooh, that'd be fun to see if came back to bite them. They could transfer her to a prison hospital. And it could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on (well, you get the picture).

[Whack-a-Mole]

Despite the fact that this case has been litigated for over ten years, in and out of court, up to the Florida supreme court, the Florida legislature, Jeb Bush, and on and on. It's pretty sickening, actually.

Add in the United States Supreme Court as well. They refused to here the case (with no comment). cite (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/17/schiavo.brain-damaged/index.html)

Valgard's points on what they are up to makes sense.

adam yax:
I kinda wondered about this too. If she doesn't show up for her subpoena then congress can throw her in jail for contempt of congress thereby saving her life (gotta keep her alive to serve out her jail sentence).

Ok...that is my cynical side talking but these days who knows?

[CurtC]

Apparently the woman goes in and out of vegetative states. The last couple of times she's lapsed into one her husband has tried to pull the plugYou got a cite for that "goes in and out" part? My take on his case is that she is in a persistent vegetative state, and "persistent" is incompatible with "in and out."

I have an opinion on this case, but hey, this is GQ.

[BrotherCadfael]

It is a ridiculous stalling ploy. Yeah, not unlike suing to halt an execution on the grounds that the medications used for lethal injection have not been tested for saftey and efficacy for the intended use. A ploy.

[Voyager]

Oooh, that'd be fun to see if came back to bite them. They could transfer her to a prison hospital. And it could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on (well, you get the picture).
I don't see how she can be tried. She is unable to defend herself in any way, or to take part in her defense, so I would guess that putting her on trial would be unconstitutional. Someone else who removed her tube might be accused of preventing her from showing up, but since there is now a court order to remove it, it would be a juristictional issue.

[samclem]

I've moved this one from GQ to Great Debates. I think there will be many threads about this. Hopefully this one will stay civil and in GD.

samclem GQ moderator

[lawoot]

"The Republican Party. Bringing Smaller Government to you since... since.. " ummm....







"The Republican Party. Bringing Smaller Government to Large Corporations, but NOT to Individuals."







:rolleyes:

[Duckster]

As of this posting, the feeding tube has been removed (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/schiavo.brain-damaged/index.html).

[Apos]

It seems her status has been upgraded from "brain dead, with the ceb cortex destroyed and replaced with fluid" to "disabled":

"The case of Terri Schiavo raises complex issues. Yet in instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern. It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected - and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050317-7.html

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Apparently the woman goes in and out of vegetative states. The last couple of times she's lapsed into one her husband has tried to pull the plug (and succeeded on a couple of occassions), but her biological family have in the past successfully fought and had her put back on life support.
This is incorrect. She does not go "out" of vegetative states. She has no cerebral cortex. She is permamnently brain dead.
[quoet]Hopefully, the good that will come out of this is an acknowledgement that removing someone's feeding tube so they can starve to death over the course of a week or two isn't the most humane way to do it... and the opening of better alternatives.[/QUOTE]
In this case, it is completely humane. She has no ability to suffer.

[CurtC]

Now that we're in GD, I can offer a little more about how I feel. There is something dreadfully inhumane going on here - it's what the state of Florida has been doing to Mr. Schiavo. His wife has been dead for years, but he isn't allowed to move on because technology can keep her corpse fresh.

[Fear Itself]

This is a terrible precedent, and deserves to be struck down by the appropriate court. If Congress is allowed to get away with this, what is to prevent them from sending subpoenas to unborn fetuses, in an attempt to prevent abortions? I see very little difference between Terri and a fetus; both are dependent, their rights are in the care of others, and they cannot speak for themselves. That a fetus is not legally a person seems to have little effect of those in Congress who are determined to ban abortions; they have already succeeded in passing laws that make killing a fetus (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/02/unborn.law/index.html) in the commission of a crime equivalent to murder.

[bizzwire]

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. I just faxed Tom Davis to remind him that his loyalty to the Constitution of the United States trumps his loyalty to either his party or his church. I also reminded him of the separation of church and state,; soomething I learned in elementary school.

[gratuitous slam]I thought that conservatives believed that the government shouldn't meddle in peoples personal affairs. [/gratuitous slam]

[Marley23]

I'm pretty sure I have all this right: she is not in a coma. She IS very severely brain-damaged and in a persistent vegetative state. I'm pretty sure she's not brain dead. The difference is that she is not unconscious has some brain activity. Most of her brain, including the parts that make her 'her,' are long gone.

I actually heard on ESPN, regarding baseball, that it's been something like 20 years since anyone was held in contempt of Congress.

The last couple of times she's lapsed into one her husband has tried to pull the plug (and succeeded on a couple of occassions), but her biological family have in the past successfully fought and had her put back on life support.
You're incorrect about 'lapsing,' she's a vegetable for good. What the parents has done successfully is have the removal of the tube delayed a few times while they brought motion after motion, all ultimately turned down by Judge Greer or higher courts. In 2003 the tube was actually removed for a few days before Florida stepped in with a law that was ruled unconstitutional.

[CurtC]

bizzwire, I'm trying to follow you. Is there something in the Constitution that would prevent the US Congress from making law based on this case? And if it is, isn't it the job of the courts to toss out any law which conflicts with the Constitution?

And what does this have to do with the separation of church and state? I mean, I strongly disagree with them, but I can see that it's possible to view her as still alive, and deserving of protections the law gives us all. In that view, saving someone from murder isn't "meddling in peoples personal affairs."

I think you'd be much more effective in convincing Mr. Davis that since Ms. Schiavo's cerebral cortex is dead, the person that she was is dead, and letting her body die is the kindest thing to all. Your rant doesn't make much sense.

[Apos]

I had a vision of that dancing Six Flags old guy taking the tube out, putting it back in, taking it out again, and so on, all to the tune of his stupid dancing song. It's bizarre the lengths we'll go to flog the dead or dying.

[Fear Itself]

You might want to tell the Schindler's lawayer; he was just on the TV news speaking to the press. Her claimed he had visited Terri several times today, and described her as animated, chatty and very responsive.

It's a Festivus miracle!

[lawoot]

It's not that Congress did it, it's the WAY tha they did it.

We are going to subpoena you - and since you are in a vegetative state, you have to do this in YOUR 'home'. We are coming to you, you have no right to stop us. You'd better still be alive when we get there, or we are going to punish your caregivers.

Aren't you just PROUD to be livingin the United States, where the people are free?

[1010011010]

You got a cite for that "goes in and out" part? My take on his case is that she is in a persistent vegetative state, and "persistent" is incompatible with "in and out."

I'm going to wager my memory of a CNN broadcast isn't good enough? They were showing pictures of her in a wheelchair (presumably post whatever caused her current ills) but apparently more alert and "with it" than in the video clip they show over and over.

Also, her current state being ruled as "persistent" is in no way incompatible with her having previously gone "in and out" of a vegetative state.

Note: this was a claim made by the family... grain of salt and all that. It could just be that THEIR doctors say she's not in a PVS... and then HIS doctors say she is in a PVS... and then THEIR doctors... etc.

[bizzwire]

bizzwire, I'm trying to follow you. Is there something in the Constitution that would prevent the US Congress from making law based on this case? And if it is, isn't it the job of the courts to toss out any law which conflicts with the Constitution?

And what does this have to do with the separation of church and state? I mean, I strongly disagree with them, but I can see that it's possible to view her as still alive, and deserving of protections the law gives us all. In that view, saving someone from murder isn't "meddling in peoples personal affairs."

I think you'd be much more effective in convincing Mr. Davis that since Ms. Schiavo's cerebral cortex is dead, the person that she was is dead, and letting her body die is the kindest thing to all. Your rant doesn't make much sense.

Guilty on all counts. I was painting with a very broad brush; it just seems that all of the opposition, all the intrusion into this intensely private affair, seems to be coming from the evangelical right. I can't for the life of me understand on what grounds the house of representatives chose to butt into this particular affair, and view this as further evidence of the blurring distinction between Church and State (eg, 10 commandments displays, proposals for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, "creation science" to be part of school curricula).

I see smoke, I think fire.

[Apos]

Over the past decade or so, her brain has been slowly decaying into goo. Even if there is some lizard brain there that can twitch muscles in a way that the deluded can coo over, there is clearly no sensible way that any semblance of a consciously responding human being is in there. Those parts of her brain are, quite litterally, gone. They place they were is now filled with CSF. For the uninitiated: that's goo. Not brain.

[Marley23]

Note: this was a claim made by the family... grain of salt and all that. It could just be that THEIR doctors say she's not in a PVS... and then HIS doctors say she is in a PVS... and then THEIR doctors... etc.
It's not. Independent, court-appointed doctors all say it's a PVS. Doctors hired by the family are the only ones who say otherwis.

[kung fu lola]

It's not. Independent, court-appointed doctors all say it's a PVS. Doctors hired by the family are the only ones who say otherwis.

Also, there have been allegations that the family-appointed docs are not permitted to examine Terri the way that the court-appointed docs have, and that they may be basing some of their conclusions on heavily-edited videotapes of Terri.

[ouryL]

Say I have an idea!
Let's subpoena God and ask him personally! :D

[Whack-a-Mole]

Note: this was a claim made by the family... grain of salt and all that. It could just be that THEIR doctors say she's not in a PVS... and then HIS doctors say she is in a PVS... and then THEIR doctors... etc.


Not sure how reliable the following quotes are but the person writing this Blog seems to be straightforward in what he does and does not know. (I know the quote below seems longish but I think it falls within Board rules regarding the percentage allowable form the source material)

The Second District's first opinion in this case explained:

Since 1990, Theresa has lived in nursing homes with constant care. She is fed and hydrated by tubes. The staff changes her diapers regularly. She has had numerous health problems, but none have been life threatening.

Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs.

In a later opinion in the same case, the Second District further explained:

Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.

<snip>


What about the Schindlers' claims that Terri is conscious and responds to stimulation?

When the Second District first reviewed the trial court's decision that Terri would chose not to live under her present circumstances, the appellate court expressed no reservations when it explained that Terri was and "will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others…" In October, 2002, as a result of Terri's parents' claims that treatment options offered promise to restore some of Terri's cognitive functioning, the Second District ordered the trial court to hold a trial on that issue. The trial court did so, and in the course of that trial the parties litigated whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state.

The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:

At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.

The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature."

Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri's brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court.

SOURCE: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#qanda

[aruvqan]

I see very little difference between Terri and a fetus; both are dependent, their rights are in the care of others, and they cannot speak for themselves

I see a *big* difference...a fetus will *probably* eventually turn into a person with consciousness and volition. Terri Schiavo will *not*. her brain has a brainstem and goop. Nothing will ever bring her back unless you can transplant some sort of miracle fetus brain cells and force them to integrate in some SciFi-ish manner...and at that point who is to say that there is anything of her left in there to fill the brain?

Note, I am NOT going to consider that any given foetus may accidently suffer some sort of brain damage in the pregnancy/birth process, or has some genetic problem....I mean HEALTHY normal fetus with no genetic problems and no pregnancy/birth problems.

[Valgard]

The subpoena was evidently for Terry Schiavo and her husband to appear before Congress as "expert witnesses".

Since we are now in GD I have all the sympathy in the world for her parents and siblings and also for her husband but good God, she has been in a coma for 15 years, her brain is literally disintegrating and according to her husband, who is her court-appointed guardian, she said that she wouldn't want to be kept alive this way.

I'm coming down on the "death with dignity" side of this one.

The machinations by some FL legislators, Governor Bush and some members of the Senate are just creepy and intrusive. How about a subpoena to my dead grandfather to come testify about care of stroke victims?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I'm going to wager my memory of a CNN broadcast isn't good enough? They were showing pictures of her in a wheelchair (presumably post whatever caused her current ills) but apparently more alert and "with it" than in the video clip they show over and over.
You must have dreamed it or be confusing her with somebody else. There is no such video.
[qiote]Also, her current state being ruled as "persistent" is in no way incompatible with her having previously gone "in and out" of a vegetative state.[/quote]
There has never been a single moment when she has ever "come out of it."
Note: this was a claim made by the family... grain of salt and all that. It could just be that THEIR doctors say she's not in a PVS... and then HIS doctors say she is in a PVS... and then THEIR doctors... etc.
Independent doctors appointed by the courts have diagnosed the PVS. The only docs who have ever tried to argue that Terri is not permanently brain dead are the prostitutes paid for by the parents. The matter is not especially subjective. The woman's brain has liquified in her skull. There is nothing there to rehabilitate. There is nothing that can think, feel or remember.

[Cat Fight]

Oh man, did anyone catch which politician announced on CNN that human life overrode the "sanctity of marriage"? I wonder, would she be allowed to die if her lesbian lover were trying to keep her alive?

[jeffh3000]

I don't see how she can be tried. She is unable to defend herself in any way, or to take part in her defense, so I would guess that putting her on trial would be unconstitutional. Someone else who removed her tube might be accused of preventing her from showing up, but since there is now a court order to remove it, it would be a juristictional issue.

keep in mind that there need not be an appearance at trial for contempt charges.

[jeffh3000]

Bingo on the procedural part of that statement. They were just discussing this on NPR a few minutes ago and said that those members who issued the subpoena do not actually intend for Terry Schiavo to show up, but to use the fact that it is against the law to interfere with a Congressional subpoena to prevent removal of her feeding tube.

How real is this though. They SHOULD be required to have a good faith belief that the person has the ability to actually appear. She clearly does not have the ability to do so.

[Guinastasia]

Oh man, did anyone catch which politician announced on CNN that human life overrode the "sanctity of marriage"? I wonder, would she be allowed to die if her lesbian lover were trying to keep her alive?


Lemme guess-Rick Santorum?

[Voyager]

keep in mind that there need not be an appearance at trial for contempt charges.
IANAL, but appearance is not the issue here - it is her inability to participate in her own defense, not by choice, but by capability. Contempt charges against others I can see, but not against her.

[Marley23]

How real is this though. They SHOULD be required to have a good faith belief that the person has the ability to actually appear. She clearly does not have the ability to do so.
I'm not a legal expert, but it's clear that this is a huge stretch of the boundaries of what a subpoena is supposed to be. It's supposed to be for information gathering, not interference in a case or a stalling tactic. You can see NYTimes articles to this effect. Probably they're just trying whatever they can think of.

[asterion]

Oh man, did anyone catch which politician announced on CNN that human life overrode the "sanctity of marriage"? I wonder, would she be allowed to die if her lesbian lover were trying to keep her alive?

I think the politicans care so much is because their brains start getting replaced by goo as soon as they get into office. How else do you get politicians claiming things (and I actually heard this last night as I was channel surfing) that the Constitution protects "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?


Oh, and a word to Delay. If you're gonna be outraged, at least pronounce the name right on the first try.

[GIGObuster]

Posted this on the pit, had to sanitize it a little here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050319/ap_on_go_co/brain_damaged_woman_congress_6
Congress Announces Deal in Schiavo Case

WASHINGTON - Congressional leaders
Gee.. They become "congressional leaders" in decisions like this one? Partisanship? What partisanship? Notice how the fact that Republicans initiated and control this is left out here.
hoped a deal reached Saturday would clear the way for a brain-damaged woman to resume being fed while a federal court reviews the right-to-die battle between her parents and her husband.

"We think we have found a solution" to the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said at a Capitol Hill news conference.
What solution, oh wise one?
"We are confident this compromise addresses everyone's concerns
Yeah, I see what the concern of doctors, judges and all the final decisions of the state of Florida are toilet paper to you.
we are confident it will provide Mrs. Schiavo a clear and appropriate avenue for appeal in federal court
After reading the more reliable information on this case, this is one of the most idiotic things ever said in the floor of congress! It is official, Tom DeLay is a supporter of ignorance and I am getting tired of republicans of conscience and intelligence that with their inaction are condoning this clown.
and most importantly, we are confident this compromise will restore nutrition and hydration to Mrs. Schiavo as long as that appeal endures," he said.
My brain hurts, are you still saying she can appeal?
Final approval was hoped for Sunday when the House planned to meet in a special session, he said. The Senate intended to meet Saturday evening on the matter.
I will be not surprised that some Democrats will go for this but it is the party in power that is responsible for making this a priority: It is pathetic that the cuts and deficit that are coming to support the fearless leader tax cuts in time of war, are not going to be in the news next week, but I am beginning to thing this distraction is generated just so the sheep (I am going to say it, there is no other way to describe behavior like this) will be happy. The whole thing is political football.
President Bush (news - web sites) was expected to sign the bill as soon as it gets to him.
I am proud to say I did not vote for him.

[Mr. Excellent]

The point, as I understand it, was not really to compel Ms. Schiavo to appear before Congress. This was done purely because it's illegal to do anything that might interfere with someone's Congressional testimony - like, say, pulling out their feeding tube. It was just another way to add a legal barrier to pulling the plug.

[Mr. Excellent]

The point, as I understand it, was not really to compel Ms. Schiavo to appear before Congress. This was done purely because it's illegal to do anything that might interfere with someone's Congressional testimony - like, say, pulling out their feeding tube. It was just another way to add a legal barrier to pulling the plug.


Yeah...guess I shoulda read the thread. :)

[1010011010]

You must have dreamed it or be confusing her with somebody else. There is no such video.

My dreams aren't that repetitive. CNN showed the clip every couple of minutes during all of the recap coverage I've seen. I seriously doubt you could have watched any of the CNN coverage and not seen the clip. Some guy playing with her hair and then getting in her face while she stares open mouthed into the void.

It's available on their website, too (recognizable from the captured still), but it's buried under javascript and is unlinkable. Also appears to be paid content, or at least requires you to sell your soul to RealNetworks.

As for the "in and out" comment. It seems we're all in agreement that any such characterisation is wishful thinking on the part of her parents, bolstered by doctors willing to tell people whatever they want to hear, so long as the money is good.

[lawoot]

Also from a yahoo story: (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050320/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman)


Congressional leaders announced a compromise between Senate and House Republicans that would allow the brain-damaged woman's case to be reviewed by federal courts that could restore her feeding tube.

They aren't even pretending to be partisan on this - they're just using their status as a majority to push through whatever they want (with wimps as opposition - get off your asses and FIGHT THIS, Democrats!).

[GIGObuster]

Fox News poll:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101826,00.html
Three times as many Americans think Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should be removed as think it should remain and — if in her place — most Americans say they would prefer the tube be removed.
I think Bush and Co. are truly in Lalaland when even usually sympathetic media is reporting that the people are at odds with them.

[DoctorJ]

This is amazing to me. According to that article, 74% of people polled would want the tube pulled if they were in Terri's state. It was 87% in another story I read today. This is in spite of the outright lies being spread by the family, their nutjob supporters, and now Congress about how conscious she is and about how likely she is to recover.

Can we finally agree (not "we" on this board, but the general "we") that discontinuing life support is a reasonable option in this case? I really didn't think this was a controversial point, but it shows you what I know.

[Apos]

Check out this accounting of where the insane amount of "keep her alive for ever and ever" money is coming from:
http://blog.bioethics.net/2005/03/have-conservatives-bought-bioethics.html

And more myth debunking:
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise%5F/2005/03/debunking%5Flies%5F.html

This case is just looking more and more disasterously evil. It's no longer enough to just shake ones head at the poor parents. They are caught up in a huge political firestorm almost entirely manufactured by the right to subvert clear due process in Florida despite being handed clear legal defeat after clear legal defeat, and having been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest possible level of appeal (and not even clearly an appropriate jurisdiction anyway).

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Is it possible that the Right Wing is just using Terri and her parents as part of a larger plan to criminalize abortion?

[Apos]

More on the snowjob: the bogus "17 experts" who supposedly claim that Terri can recover:

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/09/17%2Dmedical%2Daffidavits%2Dabout%2Dterri%2Dschiavo/

[Apos]

Still more on the calvacade of quacks lined up to test out ridiculous cures on her:
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/03/red_herrings_17.html

[Walker in Eternity]

This is incorrect. She does not go "out" of vegetative states. She has no cerebral cortex. She is permamnently brain dead.
[quoet]Hopefully, the good that will come out of this is an acknowledgement that removing someone's feeding tube so they can starve to death over the course of a week or two isn't the most humane way to do it... and the opening of better alternatives.
In this case, it is completely humane. She has no ability to suffer.[/QUOTE]

I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with the Bush Clan hereCite (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1532266,00.html) and disagreeing with Diogenes. I am not rabidly pro life and agree that this woman has no quality of life, but I still think that starving another human being to death, regardless of whether he or she is in a perisitent vegitative state or not is inhumane at best.

How do we know with absolute certainty that she has no ability to suffer?

If we are going to allow Doctors and family members control over the life or death of individuals, we must find a humane ethical framework within the law. Slowly starving to death is not a option in my view.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

In this case, it is completely humane. She has no ability to suffer.

I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with the Bush Clan hereCite (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1532266,00.html) and disagreeing with Diogenes. I am not rabidly pro life and agree that this woman has no quality of life, but I still think that starving another human being to death, regardless of whether he or she is in a perisitent vegitative state or not is inhumane at best.[/quote]
How is it inhumane if she can't suffer?
How do we know with absolute certainty that she has no ability to suffer?[/quote]
Because she doesn't have a cerbral cortex.
If we are going to allow Doctors and family members control over the life or death of individuals, we must find a humane ethical framework within the law. Slowly starving to death is not a option in my view.
We don't allow doctors and family members to control those decisions. We allow individuals to decide for themselves and sometimes have to trust family members as to what those wishes would be. Doctors make no decisions at all.

Disconnection from the tubes is not a method of "killing," but simply a cessation of heroic efforts to keep her body artifically alive. Doctors may ethically refrain from offering treatment if the patient doesn't want it or if they reasonably believe the patient doesn't want it (in this case, the courts have found repeatedly and emphatically that Terri would not want to be hooked up to these tubes). They may not ethically take a patient's life directly.

Do you understand the difference between not giving treatment to a person who doesn't want it and actively killing them?

[Walker in Eternity]

Disconnection from the tubes is not a method of "killing," but simply a cessation of heroic efforts to keep her body artifically alive. Doctors may ethically refrain from offering treatment if the patient doesn't want it or if they reasonably believe the patient doesn't want it (in this case, the courts have found repeatedly and emphatically that Terri would not want to be hooked up to these tubes). They may not ethically take a patient's life directly.

Do you understand the difference between not giving treatment to a person who doesn't want it and actively killing them?

Firstly, not keeping somebody alive is the same as killing them, it's just a politcally correct term for starving someone to death. If it is physically impossible for a person to survive without mechanical aid and death would follow quickly without this, then that is a different matter, but to allow someone to slowly die over a couple of week period is hardly humane.

Secondly, where did Mrs Schiavo state that she wanted treatment withdrawn? Has she made a living will (or whatever you call in in the USA)? I agree that someone who has the concious ability to request that treatment is withdrawn is exercising their rights, but if this woman has the mental capacity of a one year old (as has been reported) or is "brain dead", then how can she make that decision?

If not, who gets to decide if she lives or dies. In another thread it was stated that she can physically eat, but is not allowed to by a court ruling, I'll look for the cite for this, so starving someone who can eat is barbaric, if this is true.

I'm not saying that there are no circumstances where withdrawing treatment is inappropriate, but we have to be 100% certain that this is in accordance with the wishes of the individual as once treatment as been withdrawn they are effectively granted a death sentence.

[artemis]

Firstly, not keeping somebody alive is the same as killing them, it's just a politcally correct term for starving someone to death. If it is physically impossible for a person to survive without mechanical aid and death would follow quickly without this, then that is a different matter, but to allow someone to slowly die over a couple of week period is hardly humane.

A feeding tube IS "mechanical aid". Terri Schiavo cannot survive without it. If she's fed by mouth, she'll either choke to death on the food or aspirate it into her lungs and die of pneumonia. Why is removing the feeding tube any different from disconnecting a ventilator or discontinuing an IV?

(As for the inhumanity of the action: Terri Schiavo has no consciousness, and no ability to feel anything. How can ANYTHING we do to her be inhumane?)

Secondly, where did Mrs Schiavo state that she wanted treatment withdrawn? Has she made a living will (or whatever you call in in the USA)?

Like nearly all 20-somethings, Terri Schiavo did not have a living will. She apparently did make some general statements about not wanting "extreme measures" to both her husband and her friends, but the statements were both general and brief; it's uncertain whether she ever had an extended discussion on this topic with anyone (given her age, I'd think not).

but if this woman has the mental capacity of a one year old (as has been reported) or is "brain dead", then how can she make that decision?

She does not have the mental capacity of a one year old; she has no mental capacity whatsoever. As she is incapable of deciding anything for herself, decisions regarding her care of necessity devolve onto her legal next-of-kin: her husband.

If not, who gets to decide if she lives or dies.

The law is very clear on that point. Her legal next of kin, her husband, is the one who gets to make medical decisions on Terri's behalf. When her parents challenged his decision in court, Michael Schiavo allowed the court to determine what ought to be done - and after hearing all the evidence, the court decided that the available evidence did indeed support Michael's claim that continuing the feeding tube was not in accordance with his wife's espressed wishes (such as they were), and upheld the decision to remove the feeding tube.

I'm not saying that there are no circumstances where withdrawing treatment is inappropriate, but we have to be 100% certain that this is in accordance with the wishes of the individual as once treatment as been withdrawn they are effectively granted a death sentence.

We can never be 100% certain. Even if Terri had signed a very detailed living will, how could we be sure her wishes hadn't changed during the interval between her signing the living will and her heart attack?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Firstly, not keeping somebody alive is the same as killing them, it's just a politcally correct term for starving someone to death.
No, it's following the person's wishes by not giving them treatment they don't want.
If it is physically impossible for a person to survive without mechanical aid and death would follow quickly without this, then that is a different matter, but to allow someone to slowly die over a couple of week period is hardly humane.
It's not inhumane if the person has no ability to suffer.
Secondly, where did Mrs Schiavo state that she wanted treatment withdrawn? Has she made a living will (or whatever you call in in the USA)? I agree that someone who has the concious ability to request that treatment is withdrawn is exercising their rights, but if this woman has the mental capacity of a one year old (as has been reported) or is "brain dead", then how can she make that decision?
Before her injury, she made several statements to her husband and to others that she would not wish to be kept alive artificially in these circumstances. Everyone she told has testified under oath and multiple courts have ruled that the evidence is convincing that Terri Schiavo would not want to be kept on a feeding tube.
If not, who gets to decide if she lives or dies.
The court made that determination after listening to testimony and evidence from all sides. It should probably be said again that the decision was made by the court and not by Michael Schiavo. Michael simply asked the court to decide what Terri would have wanted. he did not directly ask the court to remove the tubes. The propaganda which pits the parents against Michael Schiavo is misleading. It's the parents against the courts.
In another thread it was stated that she can physically eat, but is not allowed to by a court ruling, I'll look for the cite for this, so starving someone who can eat is barbaric, if this is true.
It's not true. Terri Schiavo cannot physically eat. She can't even swallow her own saliva, much less chew and swallow food.
I'm not saying that there are no circumstances where withdrawing treatment is inappropriate, but we have to be 100% certain that this is in accordance with the wishes of the individual as once treatment as been withdrawn they are effectively granted a death sentence.
We already are 100% sure, as the courts have ruled over and over again.

[Marley23]

Secondly, where did Mrs Schiavo state that she wanted treatment withdrawn?
Her husband and brother- and sister-in-law all pointed to conversations she had where she stated she would not like to be kept alive artificially, as their grandmother was. What her parents have offered as contradictory evidence is 1) a conversation when she was 11 or 12, and 2) dubious recollections of conversations related to Karen Quinlan. The comments about the grandmother was made when she was an adult, so it's both more relevant and more convincing.
Has she made a living will (or whatever you call in in the USA)?
If she had, she wouldn't be in this mess.
how can she make that decision?
She can't, and that's why her husband is authorized to make that decision. Courts have ruled that he's the one to decide and that she would have wanted to die.

[jeffh3000]

I'm not a legal expert, but it's clear that this is a huge stretch of the boundaries of what a subpoena is supposed to be. It's supposed to be for information gathering, not interference in a case or a stalling tactic. You can see NYTimes articles to this effect. Probably they're just trying whatever they can think of.

Exactly right, which brings the legitimacy of the subponena in question. If it is not found not to be, then any action taken against someone resulting from this suponena is questionable.

[Apos]

"Courts have ruled that he's the one to decide and that she would have wanted to die."

Wrong. Courts have ruled that THEY are the ones to decide, and that she would have wanted to refuse medical life support. Michael hasn't had any choice in the matter since 2000, when the court appointed an impartial guardian.

[lawoot]

So now the House has "passed" the Bill to allow the parents to sue in Federal Court to have the tube put back in. I say "passed", as the winning side didn't get a true majority on this. (203 - 58) . 174 Members of the House chose not to vote on this issue (I say due to cowardice).

[Marley23]

There's been some cowardice on display here, but again, Congress is out of session. These people didn't abstain; they're actually not in Washington. Maybe some could have made it back and didn't, I don't know, but it's Easter break. What we saw here (Congress meeting on a weekend, late at night, after it's recessed) is very unusual.