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

[jeffh3000]

@Voyager

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]

@Valgard

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]

@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?

Lemme guess-Rick Santorum?

[Voyager]

@jeffh3000

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]

@jeffh3000

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]

@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?

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]

@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]

@Diogenes the Cynic

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:

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_/2005/03/debunking_lies_.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-medical-affidavits-about-terri-schiavo/

[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]

@Diogenes the Cynic

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 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]

@Stryfe

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 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]

@Diogenes the Cynic

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.