Why is Terri Schiavo news?

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 3:20 am

This question has been gnawing me for a while, and I can't seem to provide an answer, so at the risk of appearing heartless I have to ask - why is this woman's condition news? Why does her death (or life) matter to so many people? Why all the protests? Why would anyone, apart from Terri herself, providing she is capable of cognitive thought which she probably isn't, and a small group of people closely related to her, give the slightest thought regarding her condition? While it is certainly tragic, it's a drop in the ocean while being compared to all the other suffering we consider to be the norm in today's world (whatever happened to news from Sudan?). If it's a matter of the precedent being set on the issue of 'the right to die' by the involvement of government (here is a related question: why on earth are congress and GWBush involved? Does deciding-who-does-and-doesn't-have-the-right-to-die-on-a-case-by-case-basis fall within their duties?) I would have a slightly bigger understanding, but it certainly doesn't seem to be portrayed that way. Instead it's being portrayed as some sort of drama. It has all the elements of a cheesy made-for-TV movie. The clock is ticking, a whole lot of legislative and judicial bodies are involved, there is a family feud, rising tensions and a moral dilemma. All the elements for a soap opera, and none of the elements of news. What's going on here?

For the record, while this probably doesn't come as a surprise to anyone, I personally believe Terri Schiavo should be euthanized along with everyone who staged 'Live Terri! Live!" protests and thus forced every major news network to saturate the media with this pointlessness.

edit: No spam, thanks.

CM · Post by CM » Sat Mar 26, 2005 8:24 am

Simple is a conservative vs. liberal battle in the US.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 8:28 am

I guess it regards politics. Bush was elected over the family values, and that means people who voted for him will ask for his help.

Eutanasia is a difficult thing. I'm pro. I wont want to keep living stuck on a bed, and economically thinking eutanasia is a good thing - it avoid placing usable resources on someone who has no chance of ever contributing with society again.

Robnark · Post by **Robnark** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 8:35 am

[QUOTE=Vicsun](here is a related question: why on earth are congress and GWBush involved? Does deciding-who-does-and-doesn't-have-the-right-to-die-on-a-case-by-case-basis fall within their duties?)[/QUOTE]
Bush owes the religious right big time. there was a massive effort to get them out to vote for him, and this case looks a lot like a relatively 'soft' way to show them that he's on their side.

maybe I'm just a cynic, but this looks a lot like posturing to appeal to a demonstrably powerful constituency and congress are understandably going to go along with it.

CM · Post by CM » Sat Mar 26, 2005 8:55 am

[QUOTE=Robnark]maybe I'm just a cynic, but this looks a lot like posturing to appeal to a demonstrably powerful constituency and congress are understandably going to go along with it.[/QUOTE]

Nah you are smart. I personally agree with the conservative point of view but this situation is very common. Shavio is just being made into a political tool.

Thomas77 · Post by **Thomas77** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:23 am

The premise for most arguments in this thread is actually incorrect. Most every response in here so far is based on Terri's so called "Right to die". The problem with that premise is there is no legal proof that Terri actually requested to have all life support removed if she was ever in a situation such as this. There are no Living Wills or any other forms of legal documentation regarding this. The courts decision was solely based on her estranged husbands request. He stated that Terri had told him to "pull the plug" if she was ever in a situation like this. However, Mr. Shiavo never mentioned that until about 7 years after the tragic incident that led up to this whole fiasco. Her parents are saying that she requested to not "pull the plug". So basically, the real discussion shouldn't be about Terri's "Right to Die", it's really about whether Terri requested to die. Ultimately it's Terri's Parents word against her estranged husbands word. The court came down on her husband's side and said that Terri's feeding tube must be removed. The Congress and President Bush decided to intervene stating that since there isn't enough evidence to prove that Terri actually requested to have the plug pulled and that there is so much room for error here, it's best to err on the side of life and allow Terri to live. After all, her parent's stated that they will take full care of her and cover any monetary costs involved, completely absolving Mr. Shiavo of any and all responsibility.
And as far at the, "well, I would want the plug pulled" argument, that's pure Projection. You're projecting what you would want onto Terri. Just because you would decide to die doesn't mean that Terri would want that.
And to answer the question about why the media is all over it. Well, that's just the way the media is, they make and break topics. Honestly, if the media hadn't given it as much attention, I truly don't believe it would be such a huge issue right now in the states. The Presidential election is over, the Iraqi elections are over and as a result fewer American lives are being lost, the Laci Peterson Trial is over and everybody is bored of the Michael Jackson case so the media highlights Terri Schiavo. It's for the ratings my friend. Honestly, I'm tired of the whole thing myself....

PS. I am not pointing any fingers or anything, just responding with my opinion. No offence is intended....

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:30 am

[QUOTE=Robnark]Bush owes the religious right big time. there was a massive effort to get them out to vote for him, and this case looks a lot like a relatively 'soft' way to show them that he's on their side.

maybe I'm just a cynic, but this looks a lot like posturing to appeal to a demonstrably powerful constituency and congress are understandably going to go along with it.[/QUOTE]

That's all it is, especially for Bush, who supported and signed into existence the Texas Futile Care Law, while governor. It permits the right to remove life support from a patient that cannot pay for continued support, and for whom there is no hope of revival--even against the wishes of the patient's family. A few weeks back, a baby was removed from life support under provisions of this law, despite the protests of its mother, so the the law is functioning, and in use.

As Bush has never claimed to have "seen the light" since becoming President, but assures us all that he has been a very moral Christian long before entering his current job, I can only assume that the contrast between his position on the TFCL and the Schiavo case is a result of blatant hypocrisy and political expediency.

Thomas77 · Post by **Thomas77** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:43 am

[QUOTE=fable]That's all it is, especially for Bush, who supported and signed into existence the Texas Futile Care Law, while governor. It permits the right to remove life support from a patient that cannot pay for continued support, and for whom there is no hope of revival--even against the wishes of the patient's family. A few weeks back, a baby was removed from life support under provisions of this law, despite the protests of its mother, so the the law is functioning, and in use.

As Bush has never claimed to have "seen the light" since becoming President, but assures us all that he has been a very moral Christian long before entering his current job, I can only assume that the contrast between his position on the TFCL and the Schiavo case is a result of blatant hypocrisy and political expediency.[/QUOTE]

However Fable, Terri's parents have agreed to foot all costs involved with her continued care. Also, there are legitimate disputes over whether Terri is actually capable of recovering somewhat. And also, a feeding tube is not the same as life support. Terri can breathe, move and do just about everything without support from a machine. However, she just cannot eat normal food at this time due to an inability to swallow. That is very different and should not be considered life support in my opinion.

werebeargoddess · Post by **werebeargoddess** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:45 am

(I know I'll probably get into a load of trouble for saying this) I personally don't think that the Supreme Court (or the president) should have intervened. I don't think it was really their place to say anything on the subject. It was a state court issue, not a federal issue. They, I think, had no place to intervene or anything. Isn't it against state rights or something for the Supreme Court to get involved with state matters (or whatever it is called)?

As for the whole euthinizing thing, I'm for it. II personally wouldn't ant to live my life out like a vegetable, unable to communicate or socialize with anyone.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:56 am

[QUOTE=Thomas77]However Fable, Terri's parents have agreed to foot all costs involved with her continued care. Also, there are legitimate disputes over whether Terri is actually capable of recovering somewhat. And also, a feeding tube is not the same as life support. Terri can breathe, move and do just about everything without support from a machine. However, she just cannot eat normal food at this time due to an inability to swallow. That is very different and should not be considered life support in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Consider this remark Bush made upon signing the Congressional Schiavo bill: "“Where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life.”

Should have a presumption in favor of life. This is where the hypocrisy and political opportunism is most apparent, because presumption of life is precisely the opposite of the case in the Texas Futile Care Law. Bush isn't qualifying matters: it's life that makes the difference. Yet that runs completely contrary to the bill he strongly supported and signed into law in Texas. There, life wasn't the central theme, but rather, lack of expectation for recovery, coupled with an inability for a family to pay.

There can be no question of sincerity, here. Bush has simply reversed his pragmatic position while governor, because the majority of Texans are rather more pragmatic than the religious far-right, whose votes Bush wants to hold onto for his party. He can claim to have done what is politically appropriate, but for a president who is untiring in claiming "family values," he shows a lamentable lack of follow-through in the realworld. Unless one believes family values consist of ethical hypocrisy every time one opens one's mouth in public.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:02 am

Thomas77 wrote:Ultimately it's Terri's Parents word against her estranged husbands word. The court came down on her husband's side and said that Terri's feeding tube must be removed. The Congress and President Bush decided to intervene stating that since there isn't enough evidence to prove that Terri actually requested to have the plug pulled and that there is so much room for error here, it's best to err on the side of life and allow Terri to live.

So the Congress and President decided the courts were wrong and overruled their decision, in what may or may not be a purely political move? I was not aware they had the authority to do that.

Also, there are legitimate disputes over whether Terri is actually capable of recovering somewhat.

Are there? Since when can we regrow brain tissue? As far as I understand, her cerebral cortex has basically melted and is replaced by spinal fluid. She is not only incapable of higher cognitive functions, she is also incapable of lower functions such as swallowing which are involuntary.

Robnark · Post by **Robnark** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:12 am

[QUOTE=Thomas77]Also, there are legitimate disputes over whether Terri is actually capable of recovering somewhat. And also, a feeding tube is not the same as life support. Terri can breathe, move and do just about everything without support from a machine. However, she just cannot eat normal food at this time due to an inability to swallow. That is very different and should not be considered life support in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

actually, throughout the proceedings, there has been little question of a possible recovery. the appeal (outlined here) on the grounds of possible medical evidence was turned down, as the medical treatments that were mooted to offer hope of improvement offered little realistic hope.

[quote="Thomas77]The courts decision was solely based on her estranged husbands request. He stated that Terri had told him to "]

extract from the first court order, regarding testimony to Terri's intention to be allowed to die:

"The court specifically finds that these statements are Terri Schiavo's oral declarations concerning her intention as to what she would want done under present circumstances and the testimony regarding such oral declarations is reliable, is creditable and rises to the level of convincing evidence in this court."

(incidentally, lots of documents and details can be found at this site)

Thomas77 · Post by **Thomas77** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:27 am

[QUOTE=fable]Consider this remark Bush made upon signing the Congressional Schiavo bill: "“Where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life.”

Should have a presumption in favor of life. This is where the hypocrisy and political opportunism is most apparent, because presumption of life is precisely the opposite of the case in the Texas Futile Care Law. Bush isn't qualifying matters: it's life that makes the difference. Yet that runs completely contrary to the bill he strongly supported and signed into law in Texas. There, life wasn't the central theme, but rather, lack of expectation for recovery, coupled with an inability for a family to pay.

There can be no question of sincerity, here. Bush has simply reversed his pragmatic position while governor, because the majority of Texans are rather more pragmatic than the religious far-right, whose votes Bush wants to hold onto for his party. He can claim to have done what is politically appropriate, but for a president who is untiring in claiming "family values," he shows a lamentable lack of follow-through in the realworld. Unless one believes family values consist of ethical hypocrisy every time one opens one's mouth in public.[/QUOTE]

Before the "Texas Futile Care Law" was signed into Law there were Hospitals that were withdholding life-prolonging treatments (including nutrition and hydration) from patients and were giving them only 72 hours to find another facility that would care for them. This was done largely due to monetary issues. The Hospitals were paying large bills for people that didn't stand much of a chance of survival or recovery. After several attempts to curb this, the best compromise that Governor Bush and the other legislators could come up with was the now "Texas Futile Care Law". Which prevents Hospitals from refusing the proper treatments to those patients and gives the family members 10 days (as opposed to only 72 hours) to find another facility that would care for them. If no other facility were found, the Hospital was then granted the right to remove any life support.
However again, this is different from the Schiavo incident, in that the family is fully willing/capable of covering all the required costs. Also, as quoted above, Bush started his remarks by saying "Where there are serious questions and substantial doubts...". This is regarding the questions behind the possibility of Terri's recovery and the doubts as to whether she ever really requested to be allowed to die if ever an instance such as this one came about.

Thomas77 · Post by **Thomas77** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:38 am

[QUOTE=Vicsun]So the Congress and President decided the courts were wrong and overruled their decision, in what may or may not be a purely political move? I was not aware they had the authority to do that.[/QUOTE]

Actually, they don't have the authority to. Which is why the tube has not been reinserted. I believe The Congress and President Bush were merely doing what they could do within their power.

[QUOTE=Vicsun] Are there? Since when can we regrow brain tissue? As far as I understand, her cerebral cortex has basically melted and is replaced by spinal fluid. She is not only incapable of higher cognitive functions, she is also incapable of lower functions such as swallowing which are involuntary.[/QUOTE]
The debate isn't about whether Terri can fully recover. The debate is whether there is a possibility of any recovery, even if partially. Adult Stem cell research has showing promising results for quite a few afflictions. Terri's parents are merely holding out hope. I see no wrong in that.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:10 am

[QUOTE=Thomas77]After several attempts to curb this, the best compromise that Governor Bush and the other legislators could come up with was the now "Texas Futile Care Law". Which prevents Hospitals from refusing the proper treatments to those patients and gives the family members 10 days (as opposed to only 72 hours) to find another facility that would care for them. If no other facility were found, the Hospital was then granted the right to remove any life support.[/quote]

This only confirms the accuracy of the observation I've made about Bush's character. We still have two Bushes: one who recognizes pragmatically the importance of reducing soaring hospital costs by ending terminal care to patients in a vegatative state, identical to the Schiavo one, and a Bush who simply says it's a matter of presumption of life. The fact that the "newer" Bush admits his moral perspective hasn't changed, and that his party owes a portion of its most zealous support to the far-right, shows the overwhelming hypocrisy in his stance.

However again, this is different from the Schiavo incident, in that the family is fully willing/capable of covering all the required costs.

Which isn't the point I've made, is it? I'm discussing Bush's hypocrisy. He made it a moral issue, so as to secure political support.

Also, as quoted above, Bush started his remarks by saying "Where there are serious questions and substantial doubts...". This is regarding the questions behind the possibility of Terri's recovery and the doubts as to whether she ever really requested to be allowed to die if ever an instance such as this one came about.

There's absolutely no doubt in the minds of the doctors regarding an inability of recovery. And the issue of the patients' wishes, again, never entered into the matter of the Texas Futile Care Law. Medically speaking, there are no serious questions involved. Schiavo isn't going to recover.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:47 am

My question is: What the hell is everybody doing meddling with?
This is a family issue and everybody interferes with it.

All those people standing in front of the hospital protesting; Mind your own damn business! This does not concern you. The same goes for Bush. Plus, has he ever heard of Trias Politica? This simply means that:
1- law creation (government etc.)
2- judgement (judges)
3- law upholding (police)

These three have been seperated to prevent power centralisation. What Bush is doing (as law creation) is bypassing the judgement (judges) when he doesn't like what they do: power centralisation.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:11 pm

Oh Boy.. This opens a whole big can of worms for me. I happen to live in Florida where this is taking place and have strong opinions on the matter.

In order to effectively reply I'm going to have to go post by post from the beginning. Hope I don't annoy anyone with the my long post.

@Vicsun,
This question has been gnawing me for a while, and I can't seem to provide an answer, so at the risk of appearing heartless I have to ask - why is this woman's condition news? Why does her death (or life) matter to so many people? Why all the protests? Why would anyone, apart from Terri herself, providing she is capable of cognitive thought which she probably isn't, and a small group of people closely related to her, give the slightest thought regarding her condition?

Her condition isn't news. Very few people care about her at all. Only a very small and noisy minority within the group known as Evangelical Christians gives a crap. She's also not capable of thought IIRC, proven by MRIs and whatnot.

If it's a matter of the precedent being set on the issue of 'the right to die' by the involvement of government (here is a related question: why on earth are congress and GWBush involved? Does deciding-who-does-and-doesn't-have-the-right-to-die-on-a-case-by-case-basis fall within their duties?) I would have a slightly bigger understanding, but it certainly doesn't seem to be portrayed that way.

It's a matter of Jeb Bush(gov. of FL and GWB's younger brother), Dubya, and the congress losing their minds and breaking every rule in the book in the hopes of pleasing the right. They have no constitutional reason to do any of this and in fact have violated the constitution in doing so. I don't care if the family takes it to every court they can get their paws on, but nobody in the executive or legislative branches of anything has a right to say squat about it. It's an absolute disgrace to the separation of powers and system of checks and balances that this country and conservatism in general are based on, and I hope they are all horribly ashamed for openly betraying their alleged ideology. ( sorry, got a little fired up and carried away.

)

Instead it's being portrayed as some sort of drama. It has all the elements of a cheesy made-for-TV movie. The clock is ticking, a whole lot of legislative and judicial bodies are involved, there is a family feud, rising tensions and a moral dilemma. All the elements for a soap opera, and none of the elements of news. What's going on here?

You're right. It is drama, the only news is that the US government is falling apart at the seems. Incidentally, a recent poll I heard about today on public radio states that 80% of voters (including the evangelical far right) disapproves of the congress and president getting involved and 60% of the population agrees with all the court decisions, IIRC. Plus the pres and congress both lost about 6% off approval ratings in the past week despite little else that would cause such a drop. It seems they miscalculated what people would thing of their move.

For the record, while this probably doesn't come as a surprise to anyone, I personally believe Terri Schiavo should be euthanized along with everyone who staged 'Live Terri! Live!" protests and thus forced every major news network to saturate the media with this pointlessness.

I don't believe in euthanizing patients but not for the reasons that the fundie christians do, I won't get into that here though. Perhaps offing the sob squad would be nice though.

@Thomas77
The premise for most arguments in this thread is actually incorrect. Most every response in here so far is based on Terri's so called "Right to die". The problem with that premise is there is no legal proof that Terri actually requested to have all life support removed if she was ever in a situation such as this. There are no Living Wills or any other forms of legal documentation regarding this. The courts decision was solely based on her estranged husbands request.

There doesn't need to be any proof that she wanted to die. SHe doesn't even need to want to die. The facts are as follows:
1> There's no living will so she relinquishes her rights to decide for herself to her next of kin.
2> Her next of kin is her husband.
3> Regardless of reason he gets to choose what happens to her.
Therefore it doesn't matter if he wants her dead because he hates her guts, she put him in command of that so tough. Also, I don't think he was ever estranged, but even if he was it makes no difference.

After all, her parent's stated that they will take full care of her and cover any monetary costs involved, completely absolving Mr. Shiavo of any and all responsibility.

They don't have the ability to take care of her and IIRC no one has stepped up saying they will help, they're just trying to buy time.

@fable,
As Bush has never claimed to have "seen the light" since becoming President, but assures us all that he has been a very moral Christian long before entering his current job, I can only assume that the contrast between his position on the TFCL and the Schiavo case is a result of blatant hypocrisy and political expediency.

Agreed. I personally, despite being a republican and having unfortunately voted for him, can't stand him now. I didn't like him earler this year, but I despise him now.

@WBG
(I know I'll probably get into a load of trouble for saying this) I personally don't think that the Supreme Court (or the president) should have intervened. I don't think it was really their place to say anything on the subject. It was a state court issue, not a federal issue. They, I think, had no place to intervene or anything. Isn't it against state rights or something for the Supreme Court to get involved with state matters (or whatever it is called)?

You won't get any flack from me. On the contrary, I completely agree with you and respect you for having such mature views on government at your age.

@Vic,
So the Congress and President decided the courts were wrong and overruled their decision, in what may or may not be a purely political move? I was not aware they had the authority to do that.

They don't. They actually didn't overturn anything, they only ruled that federal courts could hear the case as far as I know. Which the fed courts all agreed with FL anyway so NaNa NaNa Boo Boo to them!

Are there? Since when can we regrow brain tissue? As far as I understand, her cerebral cortex has basically melted and is replaced by spinal fluid. She is not only incapable of higher cognitive functions, she is also incapable of lower functions such as swallowing which are involuntary.

She won't recover, they may as well chop off her head as it's doing her no good.

@Rob,
In the US, the legislature makes the law, the judiciary interprets the law, and the executive enforces the law. It's called seperation of powers and it's the most fundamental part of our law. I'm furious about this, can ya tell?

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:15 pm

[QUOTE=jopperm2]
It's a matter of Jeb Bush(gov. of FL and GWB's younger brother), Dubya, and the congress losing their minds and breaking every rule in the book in the hopes of pleasing the right. They have no constitutional reason to do any of this and in fact have violated the constitution in doing so. I don't care if the family takes it to every court they can get their paws on, but nobody in the executive or legislative branches of anything has a right to say squat about it. It's an absolute disgrace to the separation of powers and system of checks and balances that this country and conservatism in general are based on, and I hope they are all horribly ashamed for openly betraying their alleged ideology. ( sorry, got a little fired up and carried away.

)
[/QUOTE]

I hate populism. They are only trying to portrait a life lover government. What are they doing to stop the killings on Iraq?

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:43 pm

What are they doing to stop the killings on Iraq?

Shoot all the insurgents.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:48 pm

That's right. What you do to retrieve general atention from one thing? You create other thing to debate. She's, unfortunately, only a plot to release the popular pressure over iraq issues.

Bush is a smart boy. He is giving the americans circus, and even has Michael Jacksons support. What do he needs after that? To find Osama.