[AP] Man Turns Down $1M in Sciavo Case

cohen-
I largely agree with you, but I still think more info is needed.

Both sides seem solid (meaning I believe both sides when I hear their side of the story), but to me it comes down to can she get better.

At some point a team of doctors (not picked by her family and not picked by her husband) need to evaluate her and come to a conclusion. If they say she can improve then I think you plug in the tube, if they say she can't then let nature take it's course. If they are inconclusive then I think you have to say plug in the tube and re-evaluate her periodically until there is an agreement.

 

well he is obviously one of those "liberal activist judges".

 

I was right.

In 1999, then-Gov. Bush signed the Advance Directives Act, which lets a patient's surrogate make life-ending decisions on his or her behalf. The measure also allows Texas hospitals to disconnect patients from life-sustaining systems if a physician, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, concludes that the patient's condition is hopeless.

Bioethicists familiar with the Texas law said Monday that if the Schiavo case had occurred in Texas, her husband would be the legal decision-maker and, because he and her doctors agreed that she had no hope of recovery, her feeding tube would be disconnected.

"The Texas law signed in 1999 allowed next of kin to decide what the patient wanted, if competent," said John Robertson, a University of Texas bioethicist.

While Congress and the White House were considering legislation recently in the Schiavo case, Bush's Texas law faced its first high-profile test. With the permission of a judge, a Houston hospital disconnected a critically ill infant from his breathing tube last week against his mother's wishes after doctors determined that continuing life support would be futile.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._krwashbureau/_bc_braindamagedwoman_bush_wa_1

 

Cohen, the job of the multiple courts that have heard this was to consider all of the counter-evidence you have cited (who knows how much is legit and how much is a PR blitz). They have done so, weighed it, and come to a decision. It wasn't an easy decision but it was a fair one, and I don't have any reason to suspect otherwise.

 

I would still want more details.

If there is evidence that Terri may have been injured by someone, maybe even her husband, but it is insufficient to withstand the rigors of a criminal trial ... 'beyond a reasonable doubt' ... then the courts may be hamstrung. Right? They may have no option but to accept what the husband says, regardless of whether there are questionnable circumstances.

Are you trying to argue that our laws always result in what's good and 'right' for all parties? Have you listened to any of the interviews of her family?

 

In this particular case, it was the right thing to do to disconnect the llife support.

The baby's name was Sun Hudson and he was born with an irreversible defect that would disable his lungs from growing. Essentially, the longer they kept him on life support, he would have started to suffocate (i.e suffer). It was documented that this was a 100% terminal condition and thats why life support was removed.

The mother couldn't find anyone to say that his condition could be fixed, but rather, said her baby had the "power of the sun" (or something like that) and thats why they shouldn't disconnect life support.

I found this issue to be 100% completely different from the Shiavo case.

 

Pretty sure that pollution stuff doesn't help promote life either

 

I'm pretty confident that there's an exhaustive legal record on this of affidavits, testimony, and expert reports on this.

None of this is decided on a "reasonable doubt" standard either, by the way - it wasn't a criminal trial. It was pre-trial motions, the standards for which vary.

I'm not arguing that the law is always right, I'm just saying that your presumption that "well, the family didn't get its chance, and 444 doctors out 1000 say this, and etc" --- all of that has been heard and considered.

 

So codell it sounds like what you are saying is that you are willing to take the decision of family members out of their hands and let the state dictate life and death? Shouldn't it be a family decision and not the government?

 

Cohen;

All of the points you've raised have been investigated and debunked by the FLA Courts and even by the doctor who was appointed to investigate, and essentially to support the FLA Governor's and Legislature's position that the feeding tube shouldn't be removed.

Here's a link to the report he submitted.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

This doctor, DR. Jay Wolfson, has said that even though he spent an inordinate amount of time researching her case and even with her to see for himself if the claims of consciousness or chance of recovery might be possible he concluded that there was no chance. Further he even lauded Michael Schiavo for holding out hope for the first 4 years even to the point of having doctors try a very radical and experimental cure.

 

No wonder DeLay loves her so much! God gave him a vegetative Terri Schiavo to further his political causes!

what a ****ing *******

 

Bush Role in Schiavo Case Bothers Right

Tue Mar 22, 6:21 PM ET White House - AP
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Not all conservatives are happy with the decision by Congress and President Bush (news - web sites) to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. Some leaders said Tuesday the new law allowing a federal court review of the case is an example of the big government they have always opposed.

"To simply say that the 'culture of life,' or whatever you call it means that we don't have to pay attention to the principles of federalism or separation of powers is certainly not a conservative viewpoint," said former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga.

Allan Lichtman, who chairs the history department at American University in Washington, said the intervention of Congress and Bush to try to overturn the decision by Schiavo's husband not to prolong her life is the antithesis of several conservative principles.

"It contradicts a lot of what those behind it say they believe: the sanctity of the family, the sacred bond between husband and wife, the ability of all of us to make private decisions without the hand of government intervening, deference to states and localities as opposed to the centralized government," said Lichtman.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...20050322/ap_on_go_pr_wh/schiavo_conservatives

 

I know this isn't addressed to me but herein lies the problem I have with your statement "Shouldn't it be a family decision and not the government?".

Yes I agree completely that first and foremost it should be Terri Schiavo's decision and if her will is not clear then it must be left up to her family. But the problem is that the family has NOT reached a consensus on the decision. Her husband wants her life ended but her blood family is unanimous in wanting her life to continue. It is the blood family that wants to be able to have a say in the decision and wants the govt involved so that can happen. It is not the govt imposing itself against the wishes of the family.

Now I understand that "legally" only her husband is considered "family" and not her actual blood family. And this is pretty much the stance that the courts have all taken. Her husband has sole decision rights and her blood family has none.

However, in the absense of clear instructions from Terri, I find this a bit troubling in many respects. There are of course all the allegations that Michael was abusive to her and that their marriage was troubled. It is also alleged that he may have contributed to her being in this state. It was also suspected that he may have wanted to hasten her death to more quickly inherit her money.Of course they could be untrue and thus far not proven. But what is undeniable is that Michael himself is already with another woman and has children by her so really has effectively remarried but has decided not to do so in order to continue to exercise power over Terri.

I completely agree that it should be a "family decision" and not a "govt decision". However, although legally this may be the case, I find it troubling that Michael is considered "family" but her blood family is not "family" especially if these allegations are actually true in some respects. And long after Terri is dead, Michael will formally remarry his mistress and move on with his new family and will have nothing to do with Terri anymore. But Terri will stil be the daughter and sister of her blood family even after death.

 

So, Patricia Heaton was on ET giving her opinion on this (I'm curious to see how the "celebs should shut up" crowd will react to her, a republican celeb). Anyways, she alleged that Terri could swallow and speak early on and that her husband "abused" her somehow and made her worse. She also said that he's prevented a Nobel prize winning Doctor who said he can help her condition from seeing her.

I'm pretty sure Heaton called him a winner, but the Doctor refers to himself as a "nominee" and so do people like Hannitty. He was nominated by a US. Rep in the congress, who can't actually nominate anybody for a Nobel prize and of course he's definately not a winner.

Heaton called her disabled and acted like Terri is conscious. She also didn't mention or cry for anybody else in similar positions, particularly the baby in Texas who was taken off life support because of a law that allows hospitals to take patients off life support if they can't pay for it and they are, like Terri, deemed beyond hope. Guess who signed that puppy into law.

 

Didn't all of these allegations of abuse start up after he tried to have her tube removed? Wouldn't there have been clear signs of abuse when she first went to the emergency room? As for money, keeping her alive is expensive and there is only 50 thousand left of the malpractice settlement they won. All of the "fortune" he supposedly wants has been used on Terri.

 

Political Fallout Over Schiavo Law
March 23, 2005


Congressional leaders have insisted their only motivation in getting involved in the Terri Schiavo case was saving a life. But Americans aren’t buying that argument, a CBS News poll finds.

An overwhelming 82 percent of the public believes the Congress and President should stay out of the matter.

Just 13 percent of those polled think Congress intervened in the case out of concern for Schiavo, while 74 percent think it was all about politics. Of those polled, 66 percent said the tube should not be inserted compared to 27 percent who want it restored. The issue has generated strong feelings, with 78 percent of those polled -- wheter for either side of the issue -- saying they have strong feelings.

Public approval of Congress has suffered as a result; at 34 percent, it is the lowest it has been since 1997, dropping from 41 percent last month. Now at 43 percent, President Bush’s approval rating is also lower than it was a month ago.

Over the weekend, Republicans in Congress pushed through unprecedented emergency legislation aimed at prolonging the brain-damaged woman's life by allowing the case to be reviewed by federal courts.

Since then, a federal judge and a federal appeals panel have turned down a request by Schiavo's parents to order doctors to reconnect the feeding tube that's kept their daughter alive for the past 15 years.

Wednesday afternoon, the case was rejected by the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. It could still be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Late Wednesday, leaders of the U.S. House filed papers with the Supreme Court supporting the parents' wishes to have the feeding tube restored -- even though the parents have not yet appealed to the high court. The House leaders, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., argues that federal courts so far have misinterpreted the special Schindler legislation, and that the federal courts are required to keep Schiavo alive until a new review of her case.

President Bush, who rushed back from his Texas ranch to sign the bill early Monday, defended the actions he and Congress have taken on Schiavo's behalf, but said the White House has no further legal options.

"We felt like the actions taken with Congress was the best course of action," Mr. Bush said Wednesday.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan later said, "There really are not other legal options available to us."

CBS News Correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports there is evidence some Republicans saw a political opening in the Schiavo case, by framing her plight in the context of pro-life or anti-abortion politics.

One memo circulating in the Senate last week touted how the "pro-life base will be excited by the issue."

Republican leaders strongly disavowed that, but on Friday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told the Family Research Council, a leading Christian group, that the Schiavo case was sent by heaven to focus attention on the helpless.

"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what's going on in America," said DeLay, R-Texas.

He also described the stakes behind the Schiavo showdown as personal.

"This is exactly the issue that's going on in America, the attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others."

However, not all conservatives are happy with the decision by Congress and President Bush to intervene in the Schiavo case.

Former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., said the new law was an example of the big government conservatives have always opposed.

"To simply say that the 'culture of life,' or whatever you call it means that we don't have to pay attention to the principles of federalism or separation of powers is certainly not a conservative viewpoint," said Barr.

Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia voted against the legislation, saying it goes against the conservative principles of federalism.

"That the misfortunes of life vested upon Theresa Marie Schiavo are a human tragedy, no one can deny. I said my prayers, as did many Americans, as we attended religious services this Palm Sunday," he said. "I believe it unwise for the Congress to take from the state of Florida its constitutional responsibility to resolve the issues in this case."

Democrats tried to block the legislation from coming to a vote on the floor of Congress, and some accused the Republicans of acting out of political motives.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said "Congressional leaders have no business substituting their judgment for that of multiple state courts that have extensively considered the issues in this intensely personal family matter."

"This rush to exploit a personal tragedy is not fair to those involved and will not create good policy," she said.

And Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said, "If you don't want a decision to be made politically, why in the world do you ask 535 politicians to make it?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/politics/main682619.shtml

 

Untrue.

He inherit's Terri's million when she dies (according to her brother).