Let the poor woman die already!

[Marley23]

It’s been almost exactly three days, and the news estimates mostly say “one to two weeks.” I think your guess about dehydration is right, but since she hardly moves around or does anything, that may affect the standard ‘three days’ figure.

[Good_Egg]

I heard one week to ten days. Wouldn’t the lack of water cause urinary problems?

[Marley23]

She’s definitely not being hydrated. All of the rulings I’ve read specifically discuss feeding and hydration, and the new New York Times article on the subject mentions hydration as well.

[Frank]

The length of time it takes to die of thirst can vary wildly, depending on environment and how hydrated one is to begin with. She’s in a climate controlled room and has been well taken care of. A week doesn’t seem out of line to me.

[Steve_MB]

@Marley23

That’s actually just about their entire case, so I shouldn’t put it like that. But he did reject that argument, as well as the idea that her religious beliefs were being infringed. Jeez, when you bring a case to court and tell the judge you can’t even cite the law to back up your argument…

I’m sure they went to court with the notion that Congress told you to rule for us, so we don’t have to present any real argument. Oops… :smack:

[Apos]

Here come’s the activist judges!

Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe

U.S. District Court Judge James Whittemore has defied Congress by not staying Terri Schiavo's starvation execution for the time it takes him to hold a full hearing on her case, a leading Republican senator said Tuesday.

"You have judicial tyranny here," Santorum told WABC Radio in New York. "Congress passed a law that said that you had to look at this case. He simply thumbed his nose at Congress."

"What the statute that [Whittemore] was dealing with said was that he shall hold a trial de novo," the Pennsylvania Republican explained. "That means he has to hold a new trial. That's what the statute said."
"What he's saying is, 'I don't have to hold a new trial because I've already determined that her rights have been protected,'" Santorum said.

"That's nice for him to say that But that's not what Congress told him to do," he added. "Judges should obey the law. And this judge - in my mind - simply ignored the law."

I defy anyone to read Whittenmore’s decision, however, and explain where he goes wrong.

fedctorder032205.pdf

Here’s the law (I believe this is the final language or close to it) that Santorum believes “requires” federal judges to hold a new trial de novo
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109UWZoEI::

Am I missing something?

[Guinastasia]

@Good Egg

I heard one week to ten days. Wouldn’t the lack of water cause urinary problems?

I don’t know, didn’t eleanorigby mention she can’t even pee on her own-that a catheter is required? I don’t know if that would play a factor or not.

[catsix]

According to what I found by Googling, death from dehydration causes a lot of things to happen, and can take anywhere from five days to three weeks.

Some of the things that happen are that the lips and tongue will become dry and cracked, the nose dries out and may bleed, the stomach lining dries out and causes dry heaves or vomitting, and thickened mucus in the lungs may cause the person to die from the blockage.

I found this information here along with other symptoms of severe dehydration.

[Apos]

I should clarify: the bill asks that the court consider the violation of her RIGHTS de novo… which is exactly what Whittenmore’s decision does: it considers the claims that her rights were violated, and preliminarily finds them without merit.

Santorum, on the other hand, seems to think, if I’m reading him right, that the judge was supposed to replay the entire original trial process. I can’t understand what else Santoru could be refferring to otherwise.

[Marley23]

@Apos

Am I missing something?

You are missing one thing: the man is a complete fucking ass. The man is a complete fucking ass, and he has been told to try and turn this activist Congress thing into some bullshit about “activist judges.” The two things you are missing are that he’s an ass and “activist judges.” And that he’s pandering to the religious right. The THREE things you’re missing are that Santorum is a cretinous pukeswilling jackass, “activist judges bad,” and his sucking up to religious fanatics. And an almost fanatical devotion to George W. Bush. The FOUR things you’re missing are- no, AMONGST the things you are missing are such elements as asshattery, activist judges… I’ll come in again.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Apos

I should clarify: the bill asks that the court consider the violation of her RIGHTS de novo… which is exactly what Whittenmore’s decision does: it considers the claims that her rights were violated, and preliminarily finds them without merit.

Santorum, on the other hand, seems to think, if I’m reading him right, that the judge was supposed to replay the entire original trial process. I can’t understand what else Santoru could be refferring to otherwise.

1. Santorum probably never even read the fucking bill.
2. We already know Santorum is a fucking idiot. Remember this AP interview?

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold – Griswold was the contraceptive case – and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you – this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to talk about “man on dog” with a United States senator, it’s sort of freaking me out.

The very epitome of a raving, fanatical asswipe.

[Fear_Itself]

It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to talk about “man on dog” with a United States senator, it’s sort of freaking me out.

Oh man, this would be hilarious if the danger this asshole presents to our liberty was not starkly real and imminent.

[jayjay]

I’d just like to, as a nearly life-long resident of Pennsylvania, tender an apology to the nation for our electorate voting this cumrag into office. I’m sorry. I’m SO sorry…

[fessie]

I’d just like to know, for all of you who think this question is a slam-dunk no-brainer ('scuse the pun) —
How many of you have children?

[Greathouse]

@fessie

I’d just like to know, for all of you who think this question is a slam-dunk no-brainer ('scuse the pun) —
How many of you have children?

I do.

[plnnr]

I have a 5 year old daughter who I love more than anything else in the world. It is because of the love that I have for her that I would give the OK for the doctors to stop providing nourishment and fluids if she was ever in the extremely poor state that Terry Shiavo is in - I could never subject my own child to that.

[Elza_B]

@fessie

I’d just like to know, for all of you who think this question is a slam-dunk no-brainer ('scuse the pun) —
How many of you have children?

I’m sick of hearing this used as an excuse.

You don’t need to have children to care about people. I’d like to think my parents would care more for my wishes than they would for their own desires and wants.

E.

[fessie]

It’s not an excuse; I just know that my own views about things change over time and with additional experiences.

Arguing about law in the abstract is one thing; applying it to specific people is quite another. We all have our biases. I’ve noticed that Dopers tend to put an extremely high premium on their intellects. And that’s fine, but it’s not the only way to look at things.

If I were looking into my child’s eyes and saw some glimmer of recognition, no matter how faint, I could not turn away from it. OTOH, if they were in pain that could never be assuaged, I’d put them out of their misery myself.

I keep wondering how long Terry knew Michael before they were married, and how long they’d been married when this happened to her.

[holmes]

@fessie

It’s not an excuse; I just know that my own views about things change over time and with additional experiences.

You may not mean it as an excuse, but it comes across as some sort of litmus test.

If I were looking into my child’s eyes and saw some glimmer of recognition, no matter how faint, I could not turn away from it. OTOH, if they were in pain that could never be assuaged, I’d put them out of their misery myself.

Fine, but you need to be intellectual enough to realize that with most of her cerebral cortex turned to liquid, what you’re seeing is your own wishful thinking. You do her no favors by allowing her to exist like an animal, less than an animal.

This isn’t a matter of pain, that would be easy. It’s a matter of whether or not just existing is enough. There has to be more to life, than lying in a bed for another 20 or 40 years… breathing, eating and shiting…shouldn’t there?

I keep wondering how long Terry knew Michael before they were married, and how long they’d been married when this happened to her.

Why?

[Misery_Loves_Co]

@Marley23

You are missing one thing: the man is a complete fucking ass. The man is a complete fucking ass, and he has been told to try and turn this activist Congress thing into some bullshit about “activist judges.” The two things you are missing are that he’s an ass and “activist judges.” <snipped: continuation of a brilliant adaptation>.

First off - I just have to applaud this post - Nicely done!

@fessie

How many of you have children?

The impression I’ve gotten from the threads on this board is that everyone has some sympathy for what the Schindlers are going through, but absolutely no sympathy for the pathological fervor with which they’re clinging to their delusions.

Any parent would be seriously hurting if this happened to their child, and denial IS one of the stages of grief so some measure of “keep her alive” is understandable.

But the Schindlers would have been done a tremendous service if someone somewhere had turned to them and said “no, I will not pander to your fantasy that your daughter can recover and that this is better than death for her. Let her go.”

In regard to your most recent post, fessie, one thing that I’ve learned from the SDMB is just how capable we all are of deluding ourselves when caught in a subjective situation. The “glimmer of recognition, no matter how faint” is all in the Schindlers’ mind. It’s not real. Ergo, they are deluding themselves and in serious, destructive denial.

We can have sympathy for the Schindlers, yet still condemn their actions as based on a pure fantasy.