who had behaved in a manner incompatible with marriage

Please define the terms of this manner.

I would say getting engaged to another woman, living with her, and having children with her is generally incompatible with being married to another.

Wouldn't you Bill?

Or do you swing a little harder than I would have guessed?

I find it pretty fucking strange that you're asking this question.

Why is this case turning seemingly rational bloggers into trolls? Sorry Bill but thats what that comment was and you know it. Same with that asshat (Attn unnamed commenter: I'm trying not to go ad hominem but its hard!) on the other thread wanting to know if we believe in evolution. And Windrider prefacing his comment that everybody who thinks differently must be stoopid and the unwitting dupe of a [unnamed] conspiracy. I just don't get it.

Given Bill's track record of posts and comments on this issue, I find his comment, while indeed pretty fucking strange, entirely consistant with his history of reasoning on this issue.

Nothing personal, Bill. I'm just making an observation, is all.

Sorry. That last comment was by me. I forgot to sign it.

Some statements from a nurse who used to work at Schiavo's facility. If true, these are a sad indictment of Terri's husband - and most of the LLL.

Terri's Former Nurse Accuses Michael Schiavo

Why is it that everytime a dolphin/whale/whatever beaches itself; you can count on hordes of LLL rushing to the scene. They would perform mouth-to-mouth and breast feed the poor animal till they could release it in the wild - or adopt it.

Yet this poor woman, can't even get released to her own loving parents. It just doesn't make sense. So, I am going to partake of some of the LLL favorite sport: conspiracy theories.

Could it be that all parties invovled (except Terri's parents) have incriminated themselves and therefore have much to protect. Michael, it seems, simply wants her dead. The Florida judge and her nursing facility seem to have been willing participants in this effort to simply discard this inconvenient woman. Perhaps this behavior is simply de rigueur nowadays. Perhaps this 'disposal' of a person who is no longer wanted happens much more often than we care to admit. It is all done with knowing glances, a wink and a nod and the requisite expression of mourning. Perhaps, this was just another instance of disposal - like so many others. Except, Terri's parents would not let her go quietly into that night. Michael, the courts, and the facility - acting out of habit - had already overlooked many promising signs and alternate treatments. And now, they can afford for no one to take another look, try a different tack. If real progress were made, after years of trying to quietly shepard this woman to her death ...

I would say getting engaged to another woman, living with her, and having children with her is generally incompatible with being married to another.

Smells like common law marriage, doesn't it?

Actually, Allah, it smells like bigamy (unless that's legal in Florida).

Lamont (may I call you that or would you prefer Mr. Cranston? :) ) - Don't you know that the nurse was an evil right wing christian right-to-lifer! /channeling cedarford

Sorry to have gotten snippy, Bill. No need for me to take my anger about this case out on you.

But your question struck me as odd. Obviously, judges are making all sorts of difficult determinations in this case; I do not think it is unreasonable to ask them to make another judgment-- to wit, whether a "husband" is a husband in fact or a husband merely on paper.

If you're saying that "paper" is enough, and that there's no reason to scrutinize beyond that-- well, then, why do we scrutinize whether Terri "wants to" die? She left no paper Living Will; shouldn't that then be dispositive, if you're just looking for paper?

This case is about substituted judgment. And yes, this happens ALL THE TIME in situations like this. Except that generally the people allowed to substitute their judgment for the stricken and uncommunicative patient are actually family.

Michael Schiavo isn't family anymore. I don't know what more he does to make that clear. I don't know that someone who lives with another woman and has children with her and plans to get married to that woman as soon as his other wife is successfully euthanized would be considered actual "family" by anyone... except some judges, and except a lot of otherwise reasonable people who have decided that killing Terri is "the right thing," and they aren't very concerned about how that goal is accomplished.

I've said a dozen times: her parents remain family, Michael is no longer family.

Congress couldn't specifically authorize a de novo review of his guardianship claims; that would be plainly unconstitutional. (What they did is merely *arguably* unconstitutional, but not plainly so.)

Still, as to what SHOULD HAVE been done: somewhere along the line a judge, making the most speculative decisions about what Terri would have wanted and basing that on hearsay testimony as well as the claims of a virtual stranger, really should have directed some of that inquiry into who really remains Terri's family, not on paper but in fact.

He's supposed to stay faithful to a vegetable? Sorry, people, but that's what she is.

De novo review of the facts doesn't make a whole lot of difference when the standards being applied are the same.

As you yourself say, "Any law leaving any discretion in a judge's hands would result in her death." Why do you think that is? Because that's the state of the law.

This case reminds me that while I may now vote Republican, I'm sure as hell not one. I think it reminds a lot of other people of that too. 9/11 Republicans aren't buying this one.

Seems a lot of people want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they defend Michael Schiavo's right to "move on" with his life. On the other hand, they point out that as Terri's "husband," he is her closest living relative, and her fate should rest solely with him.

Well if he's her husband, then he's certainly guilty of adultery, as well as de facto bigamy. Sounds like open-and-shut grounds for divorce to me. Too bad she's in no condition to serve papers on him, huh?

Look, no one can blame him for wanting to move on with his life, but in so doing, he should cede his role as her legal guardian.

Thank you, Cynical Nation. Well spoken.

Brett, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

This is going to cause a whole lot of backlash against judges, especially in red states.

Its ironic that the people who would have you thrown injail for life for starving a dog to death are the ones advocating starving a human being to death.

I too find it very odd that they are so eager for this woman to die. What harm is there in providing her food and water? No one was trying to pull the plug on Christopher Reeve, and look at the tremendous effort it took to keep him alive. All Terri Schiavo needs is the same sustenance every other human needs. And there are people who would be exstatic to provide it.

So whose intrests are being served with Terri Schiavo's death? Terri's? Her Husband's? The Euthanasia movement's?

Why must we be bound by the rule of judge who is manifestly wrong? We answer to a higher power (Of course I mean You O Moonbeamness) liberals don't let the law stand in their way when they want something for themselves, do we have a duty to stand against this ruling?

What SHOULD have been done, years ago, would be for the FL Legislature to impeach Judge Greer over this. But the concept of standing up to the holy judiciary has long since left our society.

BrewFan: My friends call me Lamont, you can call me Mr. Cranston :-)

brett: I doubt most people would deny Michael Schiavo the opportunity to move on. Although, whilst suing for damages, her stated that he loved her and wanted to care for her for the rest of her life. He promptly shoved her in a facility after getting his settlement.

What we protest is: killing Terri. Terri's parents are willing to let Michael keep the money, divorce Terri and have absolutely no responsibility for her welfare. They simply want the opportunity to rehabilitate Terri and to care for her in a way they see fit. Michael's response has been to demand her death.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on tv. But from the brief bit of business law and one pre-law course I took, I seem to remember something called "the clean hands" doctrine.

THIS whole case comes down to whether or not Terri Schiavo, HERSELF, expressed the desire to be allowed to die rather than live indefinitely on life support (Fla law considers feeding tube to be life support). The only testimony we have to this effect comes from Michael Schiavo, who has "gone on with his life" with the permission and even encouragement of Terri's parents (see document from Wolfson, the last 'Guardian Ad Litem' for Terri, avail through National Review).

I don't begrudge him his new family, but I can't help but wonder if allowing Terri to die is part of his "moving on", his desire to put the past and Terri behind him regardless of Terri's actual wishes which are unknown and unknowable.

I also tend to think that having "moved on", one thing that should also have been "moved on" from, is his legal right to have her starved to death.

The issue Ace wants adjudicated again was adjudicated once. Sadly, the creepfuck husband won. The people of Massachusetts have to live with the right of Texans to put down capital murderers, despite moral objection.

So too do we have to live with the right of the husband to put his wife down, despite moral objection.

It's been a banner two weeks for Congress, what with grandstanding on steroids and leaping to the defense of Schiavo while never missing a "hardball" appearance.

And enough of the nifty "Schwinn bicycles have more rights than Teri." It sounds a lot like Justice Kennedy's reasoning on the death penalty for minors.

Abhor it, but eat it.

The people of Massachusetts have to live with the right of Texans to put down capital murderers, despite moral objection.

So too do we have to live with the right of the husband to put his wife down, despite moral objection.

Depends on what you mean.

I didn't realize that you believed that once a decision was made, it could never be subject to further legislation or another court review. Or by argument from those who disagree.

That's not your position on Roe v. Wade, is it?

Here's the Florida statutes webpage. Sec. 61.052 permits divorce when the marriage is "irretrievably broken" -- which, one would think, applies to situations where the husband considers his wife as having died 15 years ago. What I'm wondering is why the parents didn't petition to have a guardian ad litem appointed for the purpose of filing for divorce on Terri's behalf.

OCBill -- Click the link I provided and check out 765.401. Paragraph (2) says that even if we don't know what Terri wants, it's Michael Schiavo's call as her guardian.

I'm still trying to figure out how anyone can speak with absolute confidence that Michael Schiavo is simply "Carrying out Terri's wishes."

According to Michael (when he appeared on Larry King 9/04):

SCHIAVO: It was a comment from watching certain programs. She said -- we were watching some programs, and she said, I don't want to -- I don't want anything artificial like that. I don't want any tubes. Don't let me live like that. I don't want to be a burden to anybody. She's also made comments to other people about different stories.

The "other people" he's referring to are his brother and his brother's wife. Terri's family and friends testified that Terri would never say something to that effect (being a devout Catholic - I don't know the rules there, maybe someone can fill us in), and that she was very upset when Karen Ann Quinlan was taken off of a respirator years earlier. Quinlan was in a coma with no apparent hope of recovery.

Judge Greer did not find their testimony credible.

Add to that the fact that Michael didn't mention this conversation to anyone until 8 years after Terri collapsed -- immediately after Florida made it legal for hearsay by a guardian or next of kin in to be accepted in place of a living will or AD -- and this foundation for establishing as fact Terri's wish to have food and water withheld is at the very least shaky as hell.

There are limits to review. You certainly don't mean to suggest that Schiavo's case has been lightly litigated.

Congress, in my view, improperly started the process again. And the district court has spoken. I expect the 11th Circuit to affirm the getting of the coonskin.

Then what? Another subpoena to a person in a PVS? What else can we do? I'm sure there's more tricks in the bag. But what else should we do?

As for Roe, I'm not sure it is applicable. Unless you're talking about a Congressional action to stop a legal abortion in Florida, after the Florida courts have already determined that the abortion is legal.

And that would be one hell of a gestation period.

"Peaceful Exit by Starvation" could even be extended de facto to those convicted to 'Life without possibility of parole' after they had exhausted their appeals. It wouldn't actually be killing them, though, so it really wouldn't be capital punishment, i.e. killing. It would just be allowing them to die, the same natural way that so many do around the world. It would be quite peaceful, really, a beautiful thing.

I think you should ban Bill, Ace. I know he didnt actually do anything to deserve it, but it would be sweet poetic justice to do to Mr. INDC what he has done to so many others.

I would also like to give you a big "Way to Go" for fighting the good fight on this one Ace. there seem to be a lot of big name bloggers who are willing to take a stand on this one.
Can anyone tell me how instapundit cannot have an opinion on this one? He can write 900 reviews about cameras and Kyrgyzstan(sp?) but cant offer an opinion about a woman starving to death? Glenn is a law prof. right?
Red lights with cameras are apparently much more interesting, legally speaking, than legally sanctioned starvation.

Hoke,

All I mean is that I hear this "the courts have spoken" argument a lot, and it is used selectively, by both conservatives and liberals.

Liberals say "the courts have spoken" on RvW but apparently don't care they've also spoken on, say, Bush v. Gore.

Who cares if a court has spoken, ultimately? I don't think any of us really do, not when we think they've gotten it wrong.

So I just don't find the MoveOn (TM) argument very persuasive. We all sometimes say "Let's just MoveOn (TM)," but, curiously enough, only with issues where the courts have ruled in our favor or we just don't care very strongly about their ruling one way or another.

Allah - thanks for the link. I don't dispute that it's within Michael Schiavo's rights to attempt to do what he's doing. I think I'm just saying, "There ought to be a law!", but there isn't. Of course, with the courts the way they are, I'm not sure a new law would make a big difference, though I'd like to think it would.

Ace,

I understand your point, but I think there is a distinction between a legal principle which may be overturned (Roe, executing minors) after time passes and through the legal process, and interjecting federal jurisdiction where it doesn't really exist into a specific case where the facst have been tested and adjudicated, again and again.

Regardless, the feds are reviewing and it don't look good.

All I mean is that I hear this "the courts have spoken" argument a lot, and it is used selectively, by both conservatives and liberals.

Liberals say "the courts have spoken" on RvW but apparently don't care they've also spoken on, say, Bush v. Gore.

Who cares if a court has spoken, ultimately? I don't think any of us really do, not when we think they've gotten it wrong.

So I just don't find the MoveOn (TM) argument very persuasive. We all sometimes say "Let's just MoveOn (TM)," but, curiously enough, only with issues where the courts have ruled in our favor or we just don't care very strongly about their ruling one way or another.

Ignore where I pasted your words in the last post

Hey the left(in this country and others) keeps having elections and lawsuits until they get what they want. Why can't we? Turnabout's fair play.

Serious, non-rhetorical question here: Is the right to die the only civil right proxies are entitled to exercise on behalf of incapacitated persons? For instance, can Michael Schiavo cast an absentee ballot on Terri's behalf? If she were pregnant when she became incapacitated, could he elect for her to have an abortion?

I think his rights would fall under the rubric of personal (he could comb her hair, choose TV channels), medical and financial.

I don't, however, think he can be a complete life proxy.

Damn. Ignore posted by "Allah" on the life proxy.

I think I'm in a PVS.

I'm just wondering why we don't allow for substituted judgment when it comes to, say, voting for state assemblyman, but we do allow it when it comes to terminal starvation. Just one of the quirks of an enlightened legal system, I guess.

The fact that the federal courts are able to review this via the law signed Monday morning is getting blown out of proportion. The people screaming about this say nothing of the fact that a state death penalty case automatically has to be reviewed by a federal court. Cases, I would remind Hoke, that have been fully litigated by the state.

Here's the Florida statutes webpage. Sec. 61.052 permits divorce when the marriage is "irretrievably broken" -- which, one would think, applies to situations where the husband considers his wife as having died 15 years ago. What I'm wondering is why the parents didn't petition to have a guardian ad litem appointed for the purpose of filing for divorce on Terri's behalf.

I'm no lawyer either but it seems that the presiding judge should have appointed a guardian ad litem without the necessity of petition the moment Mr. Schiavo petitioned to have Mrs. Schiavo's (shuddering while typing that) nutrition removed based on his hearsay testimony. The judge ignored a massive monetary conflict of interest on Mr. Schiavo's part (I know there is a better legal term for the conflict in this case but it doesn't come to mind). A more mundane example of this principle: a guardian ad litem is automatically appointed for children going through the domestic adoption process (and some internationl adoptions where the home state requires re-adoption) in many states to avoid or, in some rare instances, expose monetary conflicts of interest among the parties.

So, never mind Guantanamo. Let's just stop feeding the terrorists.

And no one has taken me up on my tv show idea. Life is so unfair.

I would say getting engaged to another woman, living with her, and having children with her is generally incompatible with being married to another.

Wouldn't you Bill?

Or do you swing a little harder than I would have guessed?

I find it pretty fucking strange that you're asking this question.

And I find it pretty strange how emotional and inviolably altruistic you are on this particular issue, while at the same time admitting that you were once enthusiastic about carpet bombing afghani women and children into baking powder. But "strange" is a subjective determination.

This is passing judgment - in a rather, "this is an objective standard of morality" way - on a guy ( and all theoretical and future spouses in similar situations ) that moved on with his life after his wife "died," by his judgment and the judgment of other people. There is a continuum between "body with no brain" and "mentally disabled loved one," and one's individual determination of whether their loved one is "alive" is strictly dependent on this determination. This determination is in flux and very confusing in this case, as I'd imagine that it would be in other cases that would employ your desired standard for custody.

He had legal status as her husband at the time of her accident. By most standards he at least minimally "behaved in a manner compatible with marriage," when he was required to have status to make the initial decision about her fate. That fate was not carried out due to the time allotted for due process.

If I read your post correctly, along with your previous judgments about him having children with another woman, the behavior that would have fulfilled your standard of "compatibility with marriage" would have been for him to remain faithful and married to Terry Schiavo through 15 years of appeals, unable to ever have children or even sex (and even with men there is an average window for these events) until the point where the process was exhausted and she was dead.

Now, I might have done that in his place, and I might not have done that in his place - but odds are, if his wife really did express that she would not want to live that way (something none of us know for a fact, yet several courts have determined), and he really has come to the conclusion that her consciousness has been liquefied, I would find a standard that required a man to not have a life during 15 years of due process to be unreasonable.

So, that is why I asked you to "please define the terms of this manner."

Because theoretically, whatever one's specific opinion of Michael Schiavo, one might have a wife or husband request to not live under the circumstances of PVS, and for the spouse to be required to not have sex or kids for a 10-20 years of due process during their prime adulthood - in order to fulfill those wishes - seems like an excessive standard.

Sorry to have gotten snippy, Bill. No need for me to take my anger about this case out on you.

No problem.

But your question struck me as odd. Obviously, judges are making all sorts of difficult determinations in this case; I do not think it is unreasonable to ask them to make another judgment-- to wit, whether a "husband" is a husband in fact or a husband merely on paper.

And I merely asked you to define the terms ...

Here's a serious question...

[POST DELETED.

Not a serious question, asshole.

I don't give a shit how emotional these questions may be -- I don't want to see another goddamned post advocating violence to vindicate any fucking internal political dispute in this country.

Now that IS something I will ban people over.]

I don't know how to Google this question: Hypothetically, does anyone other than the judges currently hearing the case have the relatively instant ability to have the feeding tube re-inserted? Specifically, could President Bush do it by
Executive Order? Could the Chief Justice of SCOTUS do it?

I'm not asking if it would be the smart/prudent/correct thing to do, just whether or not it would stick. Thanks in advance for your opinion.

Allah - As the court documents in the Schiavo case define Florida's powers of guardianship, they are a proxy for the wishes of the incapacitated as best they understand them. Certain things cannot be done that society says involve free will in their commission - like voting, or letting a husband go in and screw his comatose wife (lack of free will and implicit consent - husband would be locked up for that). But if a vegetative was raped by an orderly or even the abovementioned husband....the guardian can and typically does order an abortion in those cases where pregnancy results. There was a conviction of an orderly at one nursing home solely based on the DNA of the aborted fetus.

ACE - I'm not sure if your idea that a husband/wife designated by law or by the vegetative or long-term comatose patient as guardian must be celibate, seek no emotional companionship or forfeit guardianship - is what society wants outside the moral "Right". Lots of books out there, including the Bible, mention husbands or wives remarrying but still managing the earthly affairs of the long-missing spouse. Think of Odyesseus. This question has been around a long time. Think of the wives of many of the Vietnam MIAs who went on with their lives and raised a wonderful family with another man while still being in charge of the lost soldiers estate, authorized to handle all legal matters arising, and raise the missing man's children.

By your reasoning, the wives of all those MIAs - as soon as they forged another relationship - two years, 10 years, 15 years , after becoming aware that their mate was missing and presumed dead - should lose guardianship over the man's estate and children to the man's parents on "unfaithfulness" grounds. In practice, this was not how it played out with the MIA families.

The courts examined M Schiavos relationship with a new woman, noted that even the Schindlers had repeatedly urged him to date in the early years before they turned on M Schiavo - even approved of his companion - who they frequently worked with in Terri Schiavo's care. In recent years, of course, the Schindlers have reversed and said that M Schiavos relationship, new family make him morally unfit to handle T Schiavo's care and give him a conflict of interest between T Schiavo and his new family.

The Courts have repeatedly evaluated T Schiavos care, managed by M Schiavo, as top quality, and note his constant care, and relentless advocacy of T Schiavo's needs - particularly in the early years when the Schindler parents were infrequent visitors -had much to do with T Schiavo beating the odds and surviving this long without the aspiration pneumonia and infected bedsores that do in so many vegetatives. They found M Schiavo was not conflicted and though they removed him from guardianship in one round of court challenge until the Schindler parents charges were adjudicated, they restored him to guardian status when the Schindler charges were shown to be groundless.

The "is he a husband?" question is the last gasp, a lame canard.

What about the parents? Are they really the parents? What indicia might we investigate?

And her accident was, after all, after she turned 18?

What parental authority did the parents have after she was 18 until the date of her accident?

You see how silly this becomes.

I think you should ban Bill, Ace. I know he didnt actually do anything to deserve it, but it would be sweet poetic justice to do to Mr. INDC what he has done to so many others.

Courageous and wise words, anon.

Under Muslim sharia law, a wife is expected to be subservient to her husband in almost all matters upon pain of punishment. The use of the death penalty in sharia law cases is relatively uncommon, which is why our reaction is utter incredulity when those cases come to our attention.

Sharia law appears superior to current Florida law is two respects:

1) However ridiculous and petty an offense might actually be, sharia law at least attempts to cover its nakedness by requiring that there actually be some "offense" before a punishment can be meted out. Mrs. Schiavo appears to have committed no "offense" that would require a judgment under sharia law, much less Florida law.

2) The sharia court pronounces and metes out the death penalty when it is deemed appropriate. The husband is not generally given sanction to enforce the penalty at a time and place of his choosing (though this may vary by jurisdiction so I may not be correct for 100% of jurisdictions). In Mrs. Schiavo's case, Florida law gives Mr. Schiavo the option to impose the punishment or not, as he so chooses, and may stipulate when the punishment is carried out.

Florida may want to investigate the beneficial aspects of sharia law so that it may hopefully avoid another Schiavo controversy in the future.

Rumor has it that Bill (from INDC) banned his alarm clock when it asked him to wake up one morning. Go figure.

Ace-
Good to see you have taken the side of life. My head hurts from the anger I feel- regarding this Schiavo- adulterer. If that were my daughter- I'd forcibly make my way into that God forsaken hospice and give my daughter water.

No damn judge or ex- husband is going to play God with my baby.

What gets me- is the comments made by so called right wingers who callously dismiss this woman's family as a bunch of nobody's.

After this concludes, which will be a sad ending, I am cleaning out my blog roll of the insensitive pro-death, right wing fu*knuts.

BrewFan said:
"Why is this case turning seemingly rational bloggers into trolls? Sorry Bill but thats what that comment was and you know it. Same with that asshat (Attn unnamed commenter: I'm trying not to go ad hominem but its hard!) on the other thread wanting to know if we believe in evolution. And Windrider prefacing his comment that everybody who thinks differently must be stoopid and the unwitting dupe of a [unnamed] conspiracy. I just don't get it."

WindRider didn't say any such thing. In fact, while I've read the comments on various related threads with great interest, I haven't commented at all on this issue.

That's some loose shit, dude.

A sad 38 page file by Jeb Bush's independent guardian, who did a thorough investigation on behalf of the legislature and executive branches in Florida.

His idependent review, 30 days analyzing claims and interviewing all parties - and putting in over 2,000 hours of review with Staff - revealed the Schindlers were not credible in their claims about Terri or Michael Schindler. That Dad Schindler was the one who initiated the court challenges at the beginning - he started trying to remove M Schiavo as soon as the 700K award was disclosed, and make himself the guardian of those funds. The "feud" started not over "killing Terri", but who would have Terri's part of the money from the malpractice lawsuit M Schiavo had won and disburse it on her care.

The Bush appointee found the Schindler parents deeply disturbing - they wanted her life go on at any cost, and said repeatedly that they would cut off any part of Terri's body to preserve their pleasure of having her as an object of love. Both said even if her wishes were discovered to be to not want to live as a vegetable, they would disregard her wishes because they believed that life must be preserved at all costs and they would never allow her to die because they "loved her too much". The man also noted that the Schindlers appeared to make preposterous claims on Terri's past and present behaviors and evidence of cognition - claims not verified by anyone save for a nurse active in the Right to Life movement, peripherally assigned to Schiavo's care back in 1995-96 who said Terri talked all the time....and said M Schiavo walked around at that time yelling loudly to Staff about "killing the bitch". He was unable to locate anyone to support the Schindler or that one nurses claims, but found plenty who rebutted them.

The Wolfson Report:

http://www.nationalreview.com/ pd...FinalReport.pdf

Go ahead and read. Unless you believe everything Randall Terry, the other Right to Lifers, and the Schindler parents say - and want to keep it that way.

He's supposed to stay faithful to a vegetable? Sorry, people, but that's what she is.

Sorry to be an absolutist here, but yes. He's supposed to stay faithful, or divorce her. Terri's condition does not invalidate his responsibility to honor the boundaries of his marriage. Don't get me wrong - having a wife in that condition could not have been easy, but vows should not only be kept when it's easy to do so.

Old Coot -

Good to see that you're still beating that dead horse on other blogs. I banned you for being an insulting and colossal prick, as I recall.

But if you wouldn't mind, please forward me your home address; I'll come visit you, pull my pants down and take a shit on your living room carpet.

Given your infinitely more tolerant nature, afterwards we can have tea. And perhaps you'll let me bang your wife, as well. In the back door.

Cedarford -- Perfect example. Marital privacy is a well established civil right but if Michael Schiavo tried climibing on top of Terri because, in his opinion, she'd want to go out with a bang, he'd be arrested. So, again: if we don't allow other civil rights to be exercised by proxy, why make an exception for the right to die? If you want to get scrupulous about intent, rights pertaining to fucking death would be a good place to start.

Hoke,

It disappoints me to read such unmitigated jackassery from your keyboard.

The "is he a husband?" question is the last gasp, a lame canard.

Actually, it's the first gasp-- it's the question that should have been investigated more thoroughly from the get go.

What about the parents? Are they really the parents? What indicia might we investigate?

I don't know, Hoke. Have they adopted other children and more or less abandoned Terri as child, given their current desire to be with their new non-brain-damaged children rather than care for Terri?

Sorry Bill but thats what that comment was and you know it.

If asking Ace to explain his logic with a provocative yet straightforward question is "trolling" then ... well ...

... no it isn't.

Neverfuckingmind. You're irrational.

"Lots of books out there, including the Bible, mention husbands or wives remarrying but still managing the earthly affairs of the long-missing spouse. Think of Odyesseus"

WTF? Cedarford, have you taken your meds today?

Bill,

To be fair -- I'm not calling you a troll, mind you -- but what caused my snippiness is that I didn't really think my post was all that provacative.

If we are going to permit substituted judgment -- and yes, I think we ought to; even if we don't allow it officially, families are going to have off-the-record talks with doctors and encourage them to "let this one pass" -- I don't think it's provacative at all to suggest the person substituting his judgment for the patient remain family of some sort.

Michael Schiavo is not family. He is pretty much the common-law husband of another woman. Why in god's good name should he continue to exercise his "right" as a husband to see to his wife's quick and convenient death when he no longer observes ANY of the obligations of being a husband?

The fact that he is with another person does NOT make him a bad person, as has time and time been pointed out, by myself and others. What makes him a fucking shitheel is that he is all-but-divorced from Terri and yet INSISTS on pretending he's her "husband" when it's in his interests to do so.

provocative

Loose shit.

Iblis - "This is going to cause a whole lot of backlash against judges, especially in red states."

Perhaps, but I live in what most people think is a very red state (I sure did before I moved here from a blue state) and the young conservatives here have given up on changing how Liberals still rule on social issues. We now have an entire generation who have never seen:

White people and men not discriminated against by government affirmative action policies, a media and academic institutions that did not consistently attack all things conservative, a world without a torrent of hatred of all things religious, or where there was not a shrieking insanity demanding "gay rights" and same sex "marriage" while patiently constructing an edifice of terror based upon the Orwellian concept of "hate crime," "hate speech" codes on campus, a world in which known murderers are set free because of legal "technicalities," or where litigation has not created such a climate of fear between people, a world where the Liberal Supreme Court rules by its own fiat. To them this is simply "the way life is." So don't count on anyone else to change things.

Nothing is going to change unitl we change it! We must do it for ourselves. If we want change, then we must change it. And the very best place to start is the Ward Churchill case because there exists such good grounds to fire him. He is very vulnerable, as is the the Board of Regents who get outside contributions from private companies who would withdraw their support if faced with a successful and determined boycott by the right. And all we have to do is to stop buying their products and buy their competitors products and they'll fold like an outhouse in a Tsumani Tidal Wave!

NOW, after threatening to fire a Christian prof for quoting Thomas Sowell, and after the pres of the university has resighed, Ward Churchill still remains at UC poisoning young minds and collecting checks from the taxpayers of Colorado! The UC is hoping this will all blow over because: (1) they sympathize with him, and (2) because they fear lawsuits if they fire him and (3) they fear the trouble and bad PR reviving this will bring them. If he's not fired soon, we need to boycott the UC and their outside contributors.

So, in summation and for the hundreth Goddamn time:

THE RIGHT MUST BOYCOTT!!!

Ace

I dunno. But is an investigation of their parental status warranted? Aren't they, after all, potential financial beneficiaries? Would keeping Terri alive enhance the value of the story and therefore, jack up any book deal that they, the parents, might make? Isn't it at least worthy of inquiry? Did her father hit her? We ask the same of the husband.

Would a pre-PVS statement from Terri to a friend that her father was a "bad" father to her be relevant in the analysis?

Obviously, if you endorse these mini-trials within mini-trials for the mere clarification of definitions, then it goes both ways.

Now, do you believe this matter should be litigated ad nauseum until all definitions are satisfied?

Or, as with Congress, will any gambit - such a subpoena to a person in a PVS - do, given the worthy goal?

If, essentially, all precedent and procedure is to bow to keeping her alive, just say so.

But "is he really her husband?" begets "are they really her parents?" which springs from "does he want money?" and "is she in a PVS?" and a kabillion other questions to which the state courts - and now the federal court - provided answers, though they were answers I didn't like.

he is all-but-divorced from Terri and yet INSISTS on pretending he's her "husband" when it's in his interests to do so.

How exactly is it in his interest to see Terri die? More so than a divorce would be, I mean. Is there life insurance? My ignorance of the facts of the case is showing here.

Now Cedarfuck cites the Wolfson Report as fact.

Why? Are conservatives supposed to tremble bedfore the unvarnished truth because the guy was appointed by Jeb Bush?

Go ahead and read it, paying close attention to the Historic Facts like:

During the previous four years, he had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care.

He held to the premise? No way he could fake that under the watchful eyes of a BUSH APPOINTEE. The evidence is incontrovertible? Wow.

It had taken Michael more than three years to accommodate this reality and he was beginning to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally rather than remain in the non-cognitive, vegetative state.

How can you even comment on that statement? Once again, this is from the Historical Facts section of Cedarfuck's reference document.

Sorry, but pointing out repeatedly that Wolfson was a BUSH APPOINTEE doesn't make the guy's allegations factual.

But good to know you trust Jeb Bush so deeply.

One last chance to enlist the feminists: Consider that by marrying a man you give him the power of life and death over you, even after he ceases being a family member in fact.

Do feminists concede this power of life-and-death over women to men -- estranged men, virtual-stranger men-- by simple virtue of a piece of paper titled "Certificate of Marriage"?

Any person, man or woman, in their right mind would set up a living will asap to ensure their wishes are both known and respected. Also I would want to make sure that something that is personal remained between me and my maker and not a fucking story of the week or blog drama.

windrider95,

Did you bother to check or are you just in a flaming mood? Notice I didn't say windrider95 in my comment? Loose shit there windrider95!

Allah--

It sounds like common law marriage, but there's no such thing in Florida.

I thought this was interesting from the link you gave: "Note that the courts may be reluctant to find a valid marriage when the parties have entered into a relationship knowing it to be polygamous, even after the impediment to marriage has been terminated."

If you don't enter a marriage with "clean hands", as OC Bill said, the marriage might not be valid at all.

Allah,

There is some confusion as to how much money, if any, Michael will receive/inherit when Terri dies, but one of the House members (can't remember who) said during the debate Sunday night that his staff was unable to find answers to similar questions because the records to Terri's trust have been selaed at the request of Michael's lawyers.

But if you wouldn't mind, please forward me your home address; I'll come visit you, pull my pants down and take a shit on your living room carpet.

Given your infinitely more tolerant nature, afterwards we can have tea. And perhaps you'll let me bang your wife, as well. In the back door.

Bill has the sense of humor of a drunken- shit shoveler in Mississippi.

What a farking mess.

Ace -

No offense, but you're having shades of Willisian reading comprehension problems today (it happens to me in these long heated blog exchanges too).

I never said that YOUR post was "provocative," someone else said that I was being "provocative" and I mildly agreed while defending myself.

Anyway, your belief is that a person should maintain standing as a husband in all respects until the end of due process, no matter how long. You've defined it.

My belief is that that standard is unreasonable. What if - and I'm not saying this is the case with the Schiavo's, it's a hypothetical - Terry Schiavo is trapped in a living Hell, and had very clearly stated to her husband that she wanted out of such a situation. And he could prove it in court. But had to go through appeals because of her family.

Are you going to force him to live up to this standard - choose between destroying his own life and fulfilling his wife's wishes, leaving her trapped?

This may be a hypothetical, but it points to why there is no easy answer to this question.

Ace

One other point. Of the parents, you ask: Have they adopted other children and more or less abandoned Terri as child, given their current desire to be with their new non-brain-damaged children rather than care for Terri?

Do you actually believe these are relevant? Should the state court have inquired as to these matters initially, and, as you suggest with the husband, at regular intervals?

Jackassery, you say?

Erogenous, inexplicable, mollycoddling, tomfoolery is more like it.

Now back to Old Coots question over who can reinsert the tube...
My "Civics 101" understanding, which has little relation to the actual functioning of the federal government, much less Florida state, is that the Judiciary has NO enforcement powers. Judges rule, Executives enforce if they feel like it, and the Legislatures control the purse and can choose not to pay either of the the above if they don't like the results.
What happened to this simple seperation fo powers?

Allah,

I'm not exactly sure how, right now, it's in his best interest to let Terri starve to death as opposed to giving her to her parents' care. Does anyone know if she's eligible for alimony if they divorce?

Brett asked how he is supposed to stay faithful to a vegetable? He doesn't have to. He can divorce her and leave her to her parents' care, like he's been asked to do.

Terri's brother was on the Glenn beck program earlier telling us how at the initial malpractice case, he practically recited his wedding vows and said how he wanted to care for her, at home, for the rest of her life, and he needed the money to do that. Then his tune changed. 3 months after the money came in, he all of the sudden remembers her wish not wanting to live like that in a casual conversation they had while watching TV.

He also mentioned that this is not Michael's first attempt to kill Terri. Soon after the money came in, she got and infection, and Michael had tried to order doctors not to treat it. Terri's brother also mildly implied that they were not able to rule out Michael being responsible for her current condition. Now, I've never met a conspiracy theory I dind't like to make fun of, but does anyone know how exactly she got in the condition she's in?

Murdering the disabled is a dangerous road to go down. Let's not forget the last time a society deemed that as an acceptable practice.

Hundred Percenter -

Bill has the sense of humor of a drunken- shit shoveler in Mississippi.

Two questions:

1. What does that mean? Are drunken shit shovelers inherently funny? I suppose they are, what with the drinking and shit flinging and all ...

2. On the off chance that it's an insult, have I done something to offend you? Aside from not agreeing with your position?

Uh, whatever happened to "for better or for worse?"
He's got to suck it up or get out.

BrewFan:

I did check. Several comment threads.

I missed it.

My bad.

I hate it when the loose shit is mine.

Lo siento mucho.

Drunken Shit Shovelers from Mississippi is actually a new show on Comedy Central.

Yeah, it's produced by Jeff Foxworthy.

They just roasted him. Who the fuck is next, Charles Nelson Reilly?

True, Iblis. Newt Gingrich served his wife with divorce papers while she was in a cancer ward. Which was not exactly gutsy or pleasant, but he knew he wasn't willing to stay in the marriage until the end. Had Michael Schiavo taken that step a while back we would all be discussing the revolution in Kyrgyzstan right now.

WindRider95,

de nada, amigo(a) :)

The question should not be, "Is he her husband at this time?", but rather, "Was he her husband when he obtained the original court order allowing the removal of life support?" The state of his marriage vows given the intervening seven year judicial marathon is not relevant.

1. What does that mean? Are drunken shit shovelers inherently funny? I suppose they are, what with the drinking and shit flinging and all ...

2. On the off chance that it's an insult, have I done something to offend you? Aside from not agreeing with your position?

In my experience, drunken shit shovelers are quite amusing. However, their moral ethics come into question from time to time.

No- you have not insulted me personally. I just strongly disagree with your position on the Schiavo matter.

I just cannot understand how any conservative can take the position of Michael Schiavo.

See Dubya - I don't want to blow your cover so I'm just going to say thanks and hope you know what I mean.

I think the rational feeling that Mr. Schiavo is a massive dick is influencing rational thought.

I'm not exactly sure how, right now, it's in his best interest to let Terri starve to death as opposed to giving her to her parents' care. Does anyone know if she's eligible for alimony if they divorce?

Stavro,

Terri's parents have stated publicly that they have offers from people willing to pay for any and all care Terri might require. They've said they want no money from Michael, and will take her off of Medicare (which Michael placed on in 2002).

Bill from INDC: the argument you're making about Michael Schiavo needing to stay faithful for 15 years leaves something very big out - He didn't "remember" Terri's wish until 7 years after the fact. After the malpractice settlement. At that point, he began the fight to have her put down.

Now come on. Really. 7 years later he remembers that its her wish to be starved to death? I don't see how anyone could find that remotely convincing. That doesn't raise your suspicions in the slightest? Enough at least to say, "Now maybe this needs another look?"

Wow, Bill from InDC turned out to be a really big asshole, didn't he?

Gotcha, BF. The money's on the dresser.

See-Dubya,
"Newt Gingrich served his wife with divorce papers while she was in a cancer ward ... he knew he wasn't willing to stay in the marriage until the end." I didn't know that. I thought she served him after he had given the money back on his big book deal and then resigned. But if he did, I doubt they had not discussed it before and it was a total surprise to her. It would be a total surprise to me if that were the case. Where can I find this info?

I think the rational feeling that Mr. Schiavo is a massive dick is influencing rational thought.

Absurd. Explain to me how it's rational to allow the suddenly-remembered-7-year-old-hearsay-declaration-of-a-desire-to-die to control in this case.

Or to allow a man who is no longer a husband to pretend that he is to get his wife offed as expeditiously as the law will allow.

Is Michael Schiavo a dick? The evidence seems strong. But what is beyond dispute is that he is no longer Terri's husband, except on paper, and yet courts, which routinely scrutinize beyond formalities to get at the real truth, seem more than happy to pretend this sham "marriage" still exists if it can help get Terri dead.

BTW, Bill from InDC is a good guy. So is Hoke, for that matter.

Well... kinda.

I confess bafflement that they're so willing to let a woman be killed on the say-so of an estranged, soon-to-be-remarried "husband," but whatever.

That doesn't mean we're enemies.

It just means, you know, they're a little... off.

"Gotcha, BF. The money's on the dresser."

My original comment was going to be '...i don't want to out you...' and changed it for this very reason. :)

Ace - Whether Mr. Schiavo is a dick, whether he is currently Mrs. Schiavo's husband in any meaningful way is not relevant to the argument that seven years ago the court found him to be Mrs. Schiavo's husband and so have the standing to ask that life support be denied. The state of Mr. Schiavo's wedding vows in the intervening seven years is only relevant in an emotional sense.

72V--this references it: http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Jul2000/PWMSNewtsEx.html
And La Shawn Barber mentions it as well though without a link: http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/17/why/

Hmm...and this CNN piece calls it "part of the Gingrich legend", which I think is journalese for "we didn't bother to fact-check this": http://www.cnn.com/US/9512/man_of_year/biography/

Most of the rest of the hits are scurrilous lefty crap you're prob. not interested in. I haven't heard a formal denial from Newt, but I'm curious about his side of the story.

"The state of Mr. Schiavo's wedding vows in the intervening seven years is only relevant in an emotional sense."

Better go back and read up a bit more on the case, dude. It ain't the last seven years that's a problem. It's the whole fucking fifteen, including the constant demands for NO THERAPY from Day 1, the illegal withholding of life-saving anti-biotics 12 years ago, the refusal to use insurance money EARMARKED for Terri's rehab and the hateful denial (roughly a decade ago) of Terri's contact with her brother, sister, mother and father.

WuzzaDem, thanks for the info that they are not seeking money.

I think one thing that has hit a nerve with us on Terri's side (at least with me, anyway) is that this is a judgement that clearly violates Terri's constitutional rights, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. A judge opens his mouth, and So let it be written, So let it be done. Judges have the power of God in our system, and as we see, it can be used to protect the guilty and murder the innocent. If it were not for this fact, this whole bizarre case would be so irrational that it would not even make good fiction.

The really sick thing is that this ties directly into Barbara Boxer's effort to increase the number of votes needed to approve a judge. Activist judiciary is one of the ways that the extremists who are in the minority are able to push their preverse will on the majority. When extremists aren't allowed on the bench, there is little chance that they'll be able to impose their will on the majority.

Anon - There may be relevant arguments regarding Mr. Schiavo's actions and what effect they should have on the case, but what is not relevant is the current state of Mr. Schiavo's wedding vows.

John from WZD--I have seen somewhere around here that Michael Schiavo has offered to donate the moneyhe would receive to charity. [Right, and John Kerry told Imus he would submit his Form 180.] I have also seen that there isn't any money left because it's all been spent on Terri's care, which is strange because he refused some chances to treat her. [COUGH diamonds for the new hoochiemama COUGH].

And then someone else in this thread says the records are sealed. Oh wait, that was you.

Sounds like there's a lot of ambiguity about this.

it sounds like a lot of ambiguity surrounds MS's windfall potential. Anyone care to throw down some links?

Are you going to force him to live up to this standard - choose between destroying his own life and fulfilling his wife's wishes, leaving her trapped?

If Michael "Mengele" Schiavo's penis is more important to him than his wife's last wishes, then I submit that he's not the kind of person that I'd want my daughter married to. Or my sister, if I had one. Or even my pet goat.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. He cannot be the devoted and stubbornly insistent husband eager to fulfil his wife's last wishes and at the same time carry on like it's nobody's business on the side.

But then again, that's just my idea of devotion and fidelity. It's sacrifice sometimes, but if you can't handle that part, you're not a wife or a husband.

Regarding Mr. Schiavo's potential financial interest in this case, he was offered $1 Million Dollars [/Dr. Evil] to surrender guardianship and refused. That does not seem like a man out for the money.

One last chance to enlist the feminists:

I enlisted (so did Judith Weiss at Kesher Talk). But it doesn't count, because my vagina told me to vote Republican last November.

Stupid monologuing vagina.

I can think of three reasons why Schiavo would fight it out with Terri's parents instead of just divorcing her.

1. He's keeping a promise to her, i.e., he's telling the truth.

2. He's been in a pissing match with the Schindlers for 15 years and he intends to win, whatever the cost. Not an uncommon sentiment in litigation.

3. He's got money coming to him when she dies. John from Wuzzadem says above that this is a possibility; I really have no idea. It's worth noting that he turned down a million dollars just last week to transfer custody to the Schindlers, although I concede that the ransom-like nature of the offer probably made it impossible for him to accept. It's also worth noting, though, that Schiavo has made some financial sacrifices himself by staying married to Terri. Had he dropped dead while all this was playing out, she would have been entitled to at least a portion of his estate; tough luck for his kids and fiancee.

Number 2 seems to me an unlikely explanation given the circumstances, so it's 1 or 3. If it's 3, then there must be some serious coin at stake to make it worth 15 years of aggravation. But if it's 1 then I think the force of Ace's argument about Schiavo having lost his standing as a husband is lost. As Ace put it the other day:

There's a saying: the rule extends as far as the reason for the rule extends. Where the reason ends, thus does the rule. And the reason for this rule is that husbands are thought to be acting solely in the best interests of the stricken wife.

If Schiavo is telling the truth then he is acting in her interest, notwithstanding the fact that he abandoned her in every other sense. The impulse to say that he shouldn't be allowed to have his cake and eat it too is understandable but we shouldn't lose sight of Terri's wishes being the guiding star here. Granted, he's behaved like a cad; just explain to me why he would have chosen caddishness over a quick and easy divorce long ago. If it's money, fine. Then show me the money.

Ilyka,

I guess I meant 'liberal feminsits.' Certainly I did not mean to cast aspersions on your vagina, nor how it may have told you to vote.

HowardDevore: Thanks for the partial answer, but what about the President? Could he (theoretically) restore the feeding tube by issuing an Executive Order? Again, I'm not asking if he might/will or if it would be smart/stupid, just want to know if he (or anyone else on the planet other than the judge hearing the case) has the clout.

I'm not sure if it's hilarious or depressing to observe people easily dismiss the findings of various courts and the Wolfson Report regarding the particular facts of this case. Unless I'm missing something, they were in a far better position to review the credibility of the participants in this controversy than any of us.

But I suppose each and every one of them simply ignored the "truth," which is so obvious to anyone that's heard the allegations of Terri's family, who of course must be viewed as 100% truthful at all times.

Unbelievable.

What I actually said was:

"There is some confusion as to how much money, if any, Michael will receive/inherit when Terri dies, but one of the House members (can't remember who) said during the debate Sunday night that his staff was unable to find answers to similar questions because the records to Terri's trust have been selaed at the request of Michael's lawyers."

That was in response to a question, I didn't just throw it out there. Michael Schiavo's attorney (Felos) has said repeatedly that there is only $50,000 left in her trust account. I have heard him say this as recently as last night, and when asked where the money went, he admitted there there have been "significant legal fees" paid out of that fund.

I read the Wolfson report in its entirety. On page 31, there is a note that Terri said 'No' at one point during physical therapy, but that this never recurred. I'm not a doctor, though I did play one as a child, but I'm pretty sure that saying 'No' would not generally be considered a reflex. I also read in a Reuters report that the chance for survival of [of a PVS patient] greater than 15 years is approximately 1 in 15,000 to 1 in 75,000.

So we have a number of things to conjure assuming we're not hellbent on seeing Terri starve to death.

One is whether or not the diagnosis of PVS is 100% accurate. I mean saying a word, I would think, is fairly atypical of PVS based on what I've read. We also have the odds. Either Terri is that 1 in 15000-75000, or the odds are 15000 to one (or better) than she is not in a classic PVS. Is it worth being sure by doing a PET or MRI as suggested by some "rabid right-to-lifers" like some Neurologists who are Catholic (oh no!)? Probably not, according to some. Of course, if it were my daughter, I might feel otherwise. If it were my daughter, I don't think I would settle for "probably" either.

The other issue relates to Michael Schiavo's status as Terri's legal guardian. According to Wolfson, this has been adjudicated more than once with Michael Schiavo prevailing each time. In those cases, and in spite of how bad things look, and they do look bad, I have a tendency to go along with the court since they had access to a totality of evidence which I have not had. Assuming that those decisions regarding guardianship didn't turn on some technicality like the Schindler's cover letter being set in the wrong font, rationally I have to yield to the judgment of the court. Morally and emotionally, though, and as a parent myself, I have to wonder why a husband would deny a parent the certainty they seek.

This study

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7048/13

conducted by the Royal Hospital for Neurodisability, London, studied 40 patients that had been diagnosed as PVS. They found that 17 (43%) had been misdiagnosed, and concluded that:

Identification of awareness in the presence of profound and complex neurological disabilities requires the skills of a multidisciplinary team experienced in long term management of disability due to brain damage.

This study was done in 1996, I don't know if there have been any quantum leaps in PVS diagnosis that would invalidate their findings.

And the recent NRO article on Terri's diagnosis stated:

David Gibbs, attorney for the Schindlers, submitted 33 affidavits from doctors and other medical professionals contending that Terri’s condition should be reevaluated. About 15 of these affidavits are from board-certified neurologists.
...
Almost 50 neurologists all say the same thing: Terri should be reevaluated, Terri should be reexamined, and there are grave doubts as to the accuracy of Terri’s diagnosis of PVS. All of these neurologists are board-certified; a number of them are fellows of the prestigious American Academy of Neurology; several are professors of neurology at major medical schools.

Maybe they're board-certified religious freaks, but I'd say she should have an MRI and PET.

Mike,

Once you're done laughing and/or have come out of your depression, would you mind sharing your methodology for divining "The truth?"

Are you saying that courts, judges, lawyers, etc., never make mistakes? Is everything that comes from a judge or lawyer (including reports) automatically true?

Misha I - Who maintains that celibate devotion to a missing and presumed dead spouse - dead in the absence of final certaintly............is what America should enforce.

ACE seems to follow that line of reasoning, too.

And any man or woman who seeks companionship when that of their spouse is removed should - on moral grounds - seek a divorce, give up guardianship of the spouses estate and children - so they can move on without "sin".

By that logic, the thousand or so wives of Vietnam MIA, presumed dead were a pack of cumsluts.

Like Michael Schiavo, after 2, 5, 13, 15 years of their husbands still being missing - as Misha I would say - their love of companionship and a new penis won out - and the MIA wives failed to turn over their kids or guardianship of their lost husband's estate to the husbands parents.

How dare the "Immoral cumsluts"!!

Cedarford*, the problem with this case is reasonable doubt. There is too much credible testimony of Terri's non-PVS activity and MS's non-guardian-like behavior to simply say,

"Well, the judge looked at all of this and concluded, in his infinite wisdom, that their evidentiary value was outweighed by the opposing side's material".

That's BULLSHIT. This isn't the search for the owner of a lost fucking dog. This isn't trying to figure out if the fence between two neighbors is exactly on the property line.

It isn't even about trying to figure out where some 6 year old Cuban kid, washed up on the beach, is going to live.

It's about a woman who is being starved to death by the state, over the agonized objections of her brother, her sister, her mother and her father.

And all the fucking polls in the world, citing leading questions, asking people who don't have a stake in this fucking case, don't amount to a hill of beans.

*who, by the way, is a cocksucker.

If Michael "Mengele" Schiavo's penis is more important to him than his wife's last wishes, then I submit that he's not the kind of person that I'd want my daughter married to. Or my sister, if I had one. Or even my pet goat.

What a hyperbolic, moonbat-like argument. "Mengele." Equating mating and having children (generally considered the primary goal of most people's lives) with simply placing his "penis" above the wishes of his wife who may actually be a vegetable with no consciousness. Ridiculous.

Wow, Bill from InDC turned out to be a really big asshole, didn't he?

No, just thoughtful beyond rhetoric. Try it sometime. Consider the implications of complex issues beyond your gut feeling about a specific case.

I know it's hard, but you can do it!

Ok, maybe you can't. Liberals, conservatives - simplistic, dogmatic, self-righteous assholes exist on every side of the divide.

BTW, I'd like to see all of the SOLDIERS OF WHAT IS RIGHT AND NO ONE CAN DISAGREE out on the front lines pronto, protesting all of the myriad decisions like this that take place every day in the medical field.

You know, not just the ones that happened to make CNN.

Because really, how can you not go apoplectic every day when these Nazi-like decisions about life and death happen so frequently?

No- you have not insulted me personally. I just strongly disagree with your position on the Schiavo matter.

I just cannot understand how any conservative can take the position of Michael Schiavo.

#1, I'm more of a libertarian, so the "conservative" label never suited me all that well.

and I can't understand why so many conservatives think that discussing precedents set by the case and the negative implications of varying proposed legislation constitute "taking the position of Michael Schiavo."

I may not like him specifically, yet understand how changing procedure for this case might affect a spouse in a similar yet different set of circumstances.

You know, if one looks beyond outrage.

Come home, Bill from InDC. It's time for your meds. I'd have to think the 'asshole' comment related to your over-the-top reply to Old Coot. It's hard for us on this thread to fully appreciate your attitude toward Mr Coot. For those like me, who got to know you for your work on Rathergate, reading your comments here has definitely helped fill in your personality profile.

Come home, Bill from InDC. It's time for your meds. I'd have to think the 'asshole' comment related to your over-the-top reply to Old Coot. It's hard for us on this thread to fully appreciate your attitude toward Mr Coot. For those like me, who got to know you for your work on Rathergate, reading your comments here has definitely helped fill in your personality profile.

Ah, because visitors to Ace's site get the vapors around phrases like "shit on the living room carpet ..." and "back door?" Such shocking, nasty language - far beneath the man you thought you knew!

Old Coot was banned from my site for trolling and insulting me a couple of times. After that, he proceeded to visit sites that trackbacked to me for a few weeks, determinedly commenting on what an asshole I was, in weirdly obsessive behavior reminiscent of stalker. Some of those sites actually told him to pound sand to varying degrees, but I guess he's found a nest here at Ace's.

Because HE was banned, he continues to throw around hyperbolic accusations about me and my commenting policies.

So there is some info that may fill in HIS personality profile. Now let's construct yours - beyond your anonymous name and flaming comments, who are YOU?

Carpet shitting - and banging one's wife in the rear - are analogies to visiting someone's blog and taking swipes at them. If I call into question Ace's logic on a post, even pointedly, that's legit (the same goes on my blog). If I show up and tell Ace that he's a piece of dog crap a couple of times, I'd say that that constitutes wearing out commenting privileges.

Allah's comment above at 05:54 PM hits the nail precisely on the head and echoes a point I reached earlier today in a similar discussion at my site. The way I see it, this whole (mostly extralegal) debate boils down to whether or not you believe Michael Schiavo and /or trust his motivations. All the rest is just layers on the rhetorical onion.

As it stands, I simply cannot accept that the Florida courts, Michael Schiavo, and a host of spec1ialists, court appointees, et al., are engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to kill Ms Schiavo for sport.

I have lingering concerns about the medical diagnosis -- and I'm inclined to err on the side of life -- but the courts disagree, and they are far more informed about the totality of the evidence than am I.

An interesting post to take a look at, here.

None of this diminishes the difficulty of this case; and though I believe the courts are acting in accordance with the law, I find it quite disturbing to watch on TV as a grieving family is forced to stand by and witness the death of their loved one, to whom they cannot provide the food or water they know will keep her alive. Were I in their position, I'd probably storm the room with a jug of Gatorade and force a cop to put a bullet in me to stop me from pouring it down her gullet. But I'd be breaking the law.

Well, Billy, all I got to say is you're damn lucky you haven't watched any TV lately on the couch with any of us, because you're one bump on the head away from starving to death.

Well, Billy, all I got to say is you're damn lucky you haven't watched any TV lately on the couch with any of us, because you're one bump on the head away from starving to death.

I'd rather be euthanized (by lethal injection, starvation, wooden spikes through the face, whatver) than be forced to hang out on a couch and put up with your self-righteous ranting.

Bill,

With all due respect, I have absolutely no idea what transpired between you and Old Coot-- never heard of this banning business before -- but just please do me a favor and watch the possible insinuations of "found a nest here at Ace's."

You probably didn't mean it that way, I know.

But look, I honestly have no clue what you guys are fighting about, and I'd sort of like to be left out of it.

JeffG:

Check out Kaus's observations that the entire system is rigged in favor of killing the inconvenient. Top of his musings today.

Will do, Ace. And if you haven't already, check out that link I left to Football Fans for Truth's post.

What is wrong with you court groupies referring to "procedure" and the "judge knows best"--liberal double talk.

Look- I don't know how many of you pro-deathers are Fathers-- judging from your carpet shitting rants; many of you sound like apple martini drinking metrosexual -court tv junkies.

The fact is over 30 medical experts, MD's, RN's etc, believe that Terri deserves a chance to live- considering she is not PVS.

To hell with the swamp judge and this Schiavo character. My highly oiled thinking wheel tells me to trust the parents.

For those of you stuck on procedure are nothing more than slaves of the state.

"...your self-righteous ranting..."

Guilty as charged. If only I had used dispassionate, thoughtful rhetoric in arguing my case. Hmmm... If only I had the tact and class to say:

"I'll come visit you, pull my pants down and take a shit on your living room carpet."

And, for the clincher, I could have easily won the debate with this followup:

"...And perhaps you'll let me bang your wife, as well. In the back door."

Yes, if only...

I trust you aren't aiming that comment at me, HundredPercenter...

Jeff-
When I wrote it I was not thinking about anyone in particular. I meant it as a general statement.

Plus- you don't seem like the apple martini type anyway- more like the JÄGERMEISTER type.

But- now since you mentioned it- I do think you are wrong citing procedure in a case like this.

Just closing the italics tag that Jeff "Fucking Asshole Cocksucker" Goldstein left open.

Now please-- go back to being civil with one another.

LOVE ME SOME SOME COCKSLURPIN'! AND SOME ASSHOLES! AND FUCKING THOSE ASSHOLES WITH A GOOD-SIZED COCK!

In case you are pondering what type that prick HP is:
http://www.deppenbroek.nl/mitraswijn/whiskeys/johnywalkerblue.jpg

"LOVE ME SOME SOME COCKSLURPIN'! AND SOME ASSHOLES! AND FUCKING THOSE ASSHOLES WITH A GOOD-SIZED COCK"

On that note, HP is respectfully signing off.

I always thought it was Jeff "Gannon's Gay Cock Porn of HYPOCRISY" Goldstein....

You learn something new every day at Ace's place.

I really gotta start reading PW more frequently...

Ace -

Old Coot nests. like a rat.

And if someone takes a swipe at me, I'm going to respond, whether it's your site or a message board reserved for insults. Remember, I'm not the one that started any personal attacks.

While I'll follow your admonition after you make a specific request like that, as a general rule you shouldn't expect otherwise.

I meant I didn't like the insinuation about my site being a nesting ground for the detritus you've cast off (I know that's a bad mixed metaphor).

I don't care if you mix it up with one of my posters. He's a big boy, I figure.

Guilty as charged. If only I had used dispassionate, thoughtful rhetoric in arguing my case.

Oh, I'm not talking about dispassionate, thoughtful rhetoric in general, or hypocritically advising againsy personal insults regarding matters COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the topic at hand, just you and Hundred Percenter's holier than thou castigations of anyone that doesn't agree with you on this issue.

Both of you - rhetoric and all - remind me of the hippies that chant slogans about the Bush Nazi death machine at protests. Is their unflinching, non-contextual hyperbolic compassion for the lives of innocents ripped apart by just one JDAM that veers off course somehow any more inherently ridiculous than vitriolic posturing over the fate of Terry Schiavo - in a manner that rejects all logical, rational and potentially contrary debate about the case?

In your world, obviously.

Tell me dogstar, how many blogs were you banned from today? And why?

"hippies"?

Now Bill, that's just low.

"...in a manner that rejects all logical, rational and potentially contrary debate about the case?"

Um, that's you, dude. And Cedarford, and Dickie, who cite national public opinion polls as proof of her need to die, and accuse her of being a leech on society (because her guardian squandered her trust funds), and can't bring themselves to admit making as simple of a mistake as lying about Terri being in pain from constant bedsores.

See, for arrogant, blind, holier-than-thou "intellectuals" like you three, anyone with the nerve to point out inaccuracies, fallacies and contradictions in your arguments MUST be in the wrong.

So tell me, Bill, how many living room carpets did you shit on today? And why?

Let's get intellectual- carpet shitter. If you haven't read this yet, please do.
http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/
csi_medblogs_co.html

Ace

an interesting site that seems not to take sides but to report the "facts" (with particular focus on the legal issues) is:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

wherein you will find an interesting section right towards the end that states that Michael did not get to make the decision - he petitioned the courts to make Terri a ward of the court - the court then heard testimony from him, the parents, Terri's friends et al and the court decided that Terri would not wish to continue. It would appear that since that time Michael hasn't had a say-so, the court continues to uphold its own decision.

for what it's worth, I see this case (and euthanasia) as:
* suicide,
* assisted-suicide (doctor/other), or
* murder (state sanctioned or otherwise - I would categorise capital punishment here).

Why is this not being called doctor-assisted suicide sanctioned by the court/state?

I pray for Terri.

Ace,

FWIW.

This is a long thread and yes, its tenor and civility has deteriorated (loose shit), but perhaps understandably.

Or not.

In any case, the tragedy that is the life (and death?) of Terri Schiavo has ignited a firestorm of controversy surrounding such diverse topics such as judicial appointments, surrogate decision making, abortion, defense of marriage, federalism and state's rights, judicial review, just to name a few.

Of the three issues at the center of this specific case: the clinical diagnosis; the appropriateness of Michael Schiavo as guardian; and the content of Terri Schiavo's premorbid statements, the controversy as to her clinical state is, to my mind, the most difficult to comprehend.

Here:

Almost 50 neurologists all say the same thing: Terri should be reevaluated, Terri should be reexamined, and there are grave doubts as to the accuracy of Terri’s diagnosis of PVS. All of these neurologists are board-certified; a number of them are fellows of the prestigious American Academy of Neurology; several are professors of neurology at major medical schools.

There are approximately 12,000 neurologists in this country. Not all of them are board certified. It is a small, but not homogenous group. There may be only 3 or 4 degrees of separation in the world of neurological medicine. Neurologists are characteristically (but not universally) measured, careful, and prudent. They typically check and recheck their findings. And then they check again.

Today while in an office, I heard two neurologists give their diametrically opposed diagnoses and prognoses regarding Terri Schiavo.

I briefly caught glimpses of her CT scan brain (Note to Cedarford: the links you posted to the U Miami website were not operative for me.)

FWIW again, her scans (what I could see of them) look terrible. Horrific. Cataclysmic.

Having said that, there can be discprepancy between the appearance of the brain and its function.

But for there to be such a discrepancy as to the findings and opinions, and over the highest profile case imaginable, is impossible to reconcile.

There is no explainable way for Terri Schiavo to be both in a PVS, with an isoelectric EEG, and awake and communicative with an excellent chance to regain some function.

It is simply impossible to imagine how there can be such a disagreement.

This is not like saying Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player that ever played and someone counters that it was Willie Mays.

It is like someone counter the case for Ruth with saying, no, it was Wilma Rudolph.

Whatever the resolution of this tragedy, if you can ever call it resolved, there will no doubt, be a high price paid for the neurologists who were wrong about her clinical state.

This may be of comfort to some, but to no help of Terri Schiavo.

"Michael did not get to make the decision - he petitioned the courts to make Terri a ward of the court - the court then heard testimony from him, the parents, Terri's friends et al and the court decided that Terri would not wish to continue.

I've heard this quite a bit, and I'm not picking on anyone, but if Michael asked the court to make the decision, then testified that Terri told him blah blah blah, what outcome do you think he was looking for?

This is a motion by Michael's lawyers to block the deposition of seven witnesses - three that would testify regarding her medical treatment wishes, three expert witnesses who would testify regarding her medical condition, and one "identified as being the person with whom Mr. Schiavo lives."

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/motprotorder112503.pdf

Lawyers will be lawyers, but it doesn't sound like Michael's attorneys were willing to just let the court hear what everyone had to say - they had an agenda. They wanted a particular outcome.

As for the claim that Michael was willing to donate any proceeds to charity - the Football Fans for Truth post says:

Michael Schiavo offered to give the $700,000 to charity to assure the parents that he wasn't acting out of financial motives. The parents turned it down.

Look at this letter:

http://www.terrisfight.org/downloads/charity.jpg

Michael's offer was to donate the net proceeds of of Terri's estate to charity if her parents withdrew their objection to Terri's being denied food and water. The offer stood for ten days.

I'm not surprised they "turned it down."

And while I see a lot of people touting the Wolfson Report (I've already posted the problems I have with the author's apparent lack of objectivity), and pointing out that Wolfson was appointed by Jeb Bush, I've yet to see anyone include Bush's response:

http://sun6.dms.state.fl.us/eog_new/eog/library/releases/2003/December/litems-report_12-2-03.html

"That Dr. Wolfson recognizes the continued need for an independent third party Guardian Ad Litem is encouraging, as is his recommendation that Mrs. Schiavo undergo swallowing tests and therapy. Based on this third party analysis, I am hopeful that Mr. Schiavo and his attorney will no longer prevent this vital testing from taking place."

Taken as a whole, however, I am concerned that too many open questions still remain. Chief among them is the issue of Mrs. Schiavo’s wishes, and whether or not there is clear and convincing evidence as to what those wishes were. The current court proceedings have not addressed this issue, or her current guardian’s conflicts of interest, nor have I been given the opportunity to develop evidence, or test the accuracy of Mr. Schiavo’s assertions on this matter.

“I am also concerned we do not know the expertise of the individuals who provided the ‘answers’ to the questions that are addressed in the report. I am sure that Dr. Wolfson, who indicated his reliance on ‘good science-based medicine,’ understands the importance of knowing which good scientists and good doctors he relied on to reach certain conclusions."

Mr. Schiavo and his attorney never did allow the vital testing he mentioned, or provide the answers regarding the "expertise of the individuals who provided answers" to questions in the report.

All,

It is late.

Here are several interesting and worthwhile links from National Review Online, regarding Michael Schiavo.

They are especially interesting in light of Allah's speculation as to Michael Schiavo's possible motives.

The posts are written by Rich Lowry and John Derbyshire, both of whom could be considered "dyed-in-the-wool" conservatives.

FWIW.

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_03_20_corner-archive.asp#058983

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_03_20_corner-archive.asp#058986

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_03_20_corner-archive.asp#058989

I have been a reader of National Review since 1981. The discussion over Terri Schiavo at The Corner is provocative.

Make your own judgments.

Metoothen - Sorry that the Shiavo CAT scan link didn't work for you, but you found them posted elsewhere. At another site I linked it and some knowledable people that were leaning towards the camp that said Schiavo was cognitive based on the neurologists that said it was clear from the videotape - did a collective "Holy Moley!" when they saw the CAT scans, and the reference to the EEG Flat-lining in the cognitive area.

I have tried explaining the MRI wouldn't add anything, because the CAT scan was so horrific in detailing the brain damage. It turns out she did have a MRI in 1990 after all: 7/24/1990
MRI Report Dr. Pinkston
Profound atrophy w/ very atrophic appearing cortex. Mild white matter disease, anoxic/hpoxic injury..

As a layman, I compared the demand to do MRI & PET scans "just to really know for sure" to someone that broke his arm, who goes into the emergency room, where an x-ray was done showing the break. Where doctors look at his arm and see the bend and swelling and the patients reaction to manipulation, look at the x-ray, and say, "broken arm". But the guy, who can't believe his arm is broken despite its flopping around and the x-ray....asks for a MRI and and ultrasound to be sure and is told by the MDs that it would be absolutely pointless.

I hate to dash hopes...but it was very troubling to see the doctors trying to make diagnosis just from a videotape, including several Republican doctors in Congress. I also hate to suggest - but as you said - you have a bunch of doctors staking their reps on this, and I hope they do an autopsy on Schiavo to remove all question.

That she will die looks very likely now. News just came in that the 11th CKT turned down the appeal, and the last stop is the SCOTUS - which has turned down the Schindler parents before.

And finally there is that one neurologist Dr Hansmaller, who claims Schiavo is not PVS and could be helped enormously by hyperbaric treatment and maybe even recover range of voluntary motion, swallow, and speak. I don't know about a guy who puts Nobel-nominated neurologist on his resume`. It makes him sound like a quack. Turns out his Congressman, a businessman, was the guy that nominated his golf buddy by writing a letter to the Nobel Committee. Real Nobel winners may have inklings of being a nominee.....but no serious person puts a secret nomination & selection issue of being a nominee on their resume`.

I could write the Nobel Committee and make ACE a nominee for the Nobel Prize in Literature. Somehow, despite ACE's worthiness, I doubt the Nobel Committee 4th level screening flunky secretary would do anything with ACE's nomination other than deposit it in the nearest Stockholm wastebasket after seeing some nobody nominated him.

Cedarford,

What's the link for the MRI entry you cite?

John,

He has no link. He's making it up as usual. Notice him non-specifically, and disingenuously trashing a *neurologist* who disagrees with him. What a joke. I'm going to write a letter to his 'home' and ask them to take his computer away!

Okay, John, BF, here's what I think is ultimately the source for Cedarfark's MRI quote.

It's a long list of medical professionals describing their interactions with Terri. They include descriptions of Terri laughing, smiling, non-reflexively moving her arm, reacting to people, and saying "Mom" in recognition of her mother.

Problem is, you see, this is a pro-Terri site. And while they're not too specific about the source of their info, if we believe them that an MRI was done, well, we also have to believe that Terri manifests several indications of sentience.

I'm sure Cedarford was going to get around to posting a working link to this eventually. Looks like I've saved you the trouble. No need to thank me!

Or perhaps Cedar didn't yet realize he had been caught by the machinations of the ever-so-subtle religious right, abducted onto Randall Terry's bible-thumping Joy-Bus ride, and manipulated into revealing a source of information that contradicted his points about her brain-death?

"Mr. Schiavo and his attorney never did allow the vital testing he mentioned, ...."

Actually, they agreed to the swallow test. Wolfson was brokering a deal. If each side agreed to a swallow test, then each side had to agree to the results. (Obviously, this was when Wolfson had the ability to broker a deal during Terri's law.) If she passed, then Schiavo would agree that she was not PVS and would no longer seek to remove the feeding tube. If she failed, the Schindlers would no longer oppose the removal.

Wolfson did not think the swallow test was medically necessary or required, so it wasn't "vital". He just thought it would be a way to get both sides to put up or shut up.

Schiavo accepted the terms. The Schindlers refused.

Terri Schiavo FAQ for the Uncommitted for a few other answers. Do you all ever actually read the original source documents, or does that ruin all your cause for righteous outrage?

Hey Cal, you think they refused because a swallow test is not a valid test for diagnosing PVS? Duh. Your condescending attitude would be more effective if you weren't such a moron.

(I know its ad hominem but its ok if its true, isn't it?)

The parents are not potential beneficiaries- they have said repeatedly they will sign over all funds to MIchael if he will only let them care for Terri.

I have read that Michael and his common law wife have an insurance business. He refuses to answer the question about whether or not he has life insurance on Terri.

More importantly, Michael never remembered to mention that Terri 'didn't want to live like this' until after he won that big lawsuit and cut the checks. In the lawsuit he promised to love and care for Terri forever, that he would use the money for her rehabilitative care. Once he cut the checks, he put a DNR on her chart, refused permission to give an antibiotic to treat an infection, and denied access to her medical records to her parents. There was indeed a fight over the money- her parents wanted him to spend the money on Terri's therapy as he had promised. He refused.

Terri had one independent Guardian Ad Litum who recommended FOR Terri- saying there was no way of knowing if she really wanted to be killed in this situation since Michael was the only witness, he'd taken so long to come forward wtih the info, and he had a serious conflict of interest. Furthermore, at that time Michael had already had two other relationships- including with a woman who testified that he had told her that he had no idea what Terri would have wanted, they'd never discussed it. Suddenly, two more witnesses came forward to support Michael's story- they happened to be his brother and the brother's wife. That Guardian was dismissed when Michael's lawyer complained about him, and Judge Greer himself chose to act as Judge and Executioner.

I've also just read that Michael fathered a child with another woman while he was still married to Terri and that he pays child support for that child. I'm still trying to find a better source for that.
Friends of Terri's have testified that she was unhappy and was going to ask for a divorce.

Oh, and when asked in court if he would again deny Terri antibiotics, he said no, since 'apparently there was a law against him doing that.'

I find this whole case a chilling throwback to teh days when a husband could have his wife committed to an insane asylum on his own say-so. All we have here is hearsay evidence from people with a serious conflict of interest. Not a single friend of Terri's has supported Michael's statements. Terri's friends have testified that she, in fact, valued life and rebuked them when they said things like "who would want to live like that?' about patients on machines.

And Terri isn't on a 'machine.' She was getting food and hydration. Denying them to an innocent woman on the hearsay testimony of a man with major conflicts of interest is just sick.

One last chance to enlist the feminists: Consider that by marrying a man you give him the power of life and death over you, even after he ceases being a family member in fact.

Do feminists concede this power of life-and-death over women to men -- estranged men, virtual-stranger men-- by simple virtue of a piece of paper titled "Certificate of Marriage"?

I don't think that this is an issue for feminism. If the situation were reversed, Terri would have the same power over Michael's fate. Although it would be interesting to see society's reaction if she were living with another man and bearing children out of wedlock while her husband was in PVS.

"Wolfson did not think the swallow test was medically necessary or required, so it wasn't "vital". He just thought it would be a way to get both sides to put up or shut up."

Cal,

What about the other tests (MRI, PET)? I have seen the source documents, and you didn't address the ones below that show that Michael's offer to donate the 'net prooceds' of Terri's trust to charity was based on the condition that they now object to having the feeding tube removed.

By the way, if he had no control over the trust fund, how could he do that?

I've got an opinion on this, and I think it's clear in my comments. There are people who disagree with me, and that's fine, but at least they come out and say so.

They don't act like they're one of the few people on the planet who have based their wholly unbiased opinions strictly on documentation.

This is a motion by Michael's lawyers to block the deposition of seven witnesses - three that would testify regarding her medical treatment wishes, three expert witnesses who would testify regarding her medical condition, and one "identified as being the person with whom Mr. Schiavo lives."

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/motprotorder112503.pdf

Lawyers will be lawyers, but it doesn't sound like Michael's attorneys were willing to just let the court hear what everyone had to say - they had an agenda. They wanted a particular outcome.

As for the claim that Michael was willing to donate any proceeds to charity - the Football Fans for Truth post says:

Michael Schiavo offered to give the $700,000 to charity to assure the parents that he wasn't acting out of
financial motives. The parents turned it down.

Look at this letter:

http://www.terrisfight.org/downloads/charity.jpg

Michael's offer was to donate the net proceeds of of Terri's estate to charity if her parents withdrew their objection to Terri's being denied food and water. The offer stood for ten days.

What a hyperbolic, moonbat-like argument. "Mengele." Equating mating and having children (generally considered the primary goal of most people's lives) with simply placing his "penis" above the wishes of his wife who may actually be a vegetable with no consciousness. Ridiculous.

If two wishes conflict, you get to choose one and give up the other. You do not get to choose both because they were both "important" to you and still maintain that you're a perfectly moral person.

But hey, I'm just being ridiculous, right?

I can live with that. It's being wrong I tend to have a problem with.

Oh, and Cedarford: You are, to put it very mildly, a complete effing moron.

As has by now been pointed out to you (not that I harbor any illusions that it has penetrated the massive concrete wall of ignorance surrounding your skull), there is this nagging matter of "reasonable doubt".

But let's not dismiss your brilliant analogy out of hand because of this. Let's look closer at it instead:

This "reasonable doubt" in Terri Schiavo's case could be put to rest, once and for all, by a simple MRI and/or PET scan, both of which her "husband" has refused stubbornly to have performed, for whatever strange reason.

Now, to use your analogy, this would be tantamount to the MIA wives you talk about being approached by somebody who could guarantee that they could go find their husbands or their remains, only to be met with the answer of "Hell no! I'm fine with presuming him dead!"

Is it any clearer to you now why I consider you to be the intellectual equivalent of a lobotomized hamster?

Wow

I would usually say don't feed the trolls, bit Misha brought poison troll treats.

Eat up, Cedarhole. Have another.

Misha I -

The MIA wives did not wait 15-20 years to move on. Nor did they relinquish the estate and children of their lost husband to their inlaws. They were not cumsluts. Nor is M Schiavo morally less because he moved on in his personal life while retaining legal rights over his vegetative wife. There is nothing warranting revocation except the Religious Right's argument that he is " impure" for not electing for a celibate life alone.

Your just one of the morons who is unsucessfully trying the "reasonable doubt" logic that Courts are set up to consider, not you.

You have a ring in your nose. The Religious Right tells you that ONLY the MRI and PET tests are needed - ignoring the Schindlers already said they would keep T Schiavo "alive to receive our love" under any circumstances. Cut all her limbs off if gangrene develops, alive even if a letter was found where she clearly said she did not want to exist as a vegetable, alive even if the MRI and PET confirmed all the dozens of other tests. Which they would and is why the Court agreed with the consulting neurologist that tests are unecessary.

And doing the tests wouldn't deter any dedicated Right to Lifer. They would just say the CAT scans, EEGs, a dozen other neurological tests, the MRI from 1990, and the new MRIs and PET test being negative don't prove Terri really isn't happy and doing Jesus's work ....

And they would demand she not be allowed to die until a brainstem happiness test and a test that determines Jesus's will can be invented and conducted on her.

For removal of all 2nd-guessing, I think they should do an autopsy to confirm the neurologist's diagnostic techniques with Schivo. It would give the public - misled by the Schindler's edited video and false claims of cognition - more confidence about how we can be sure a person is vegetative or not.

The insistence on more and more tests..."just to be sure"....has been shown to be medically unecessary
hopefully my "broken arm example" was useful for someone with doubts, but who has a more open mind than Misha I.

Cal - I went to your article at Football Fans For The Truth and read it. The FAQs were very good.

This isn't just one case. Thousands of people are removed from life support every week in America. There are 25,000 non-Alzheimers vegetative adults and 8,000 vegetative children. The decision on artifical life support may be coming to a family very near or including each of us.

Getting to the truth - something Football Fans For The Truth have done well in other instances, is valuable in allieviating the doubts and concerns arising from misinformation spread in the Schiavo case.

ACE and all posters should review Cal's compilation. It answers many open questions.

I read somewhere that she was given an MRI (before the implants), and that the MRI showed the same thing the CAT and EEG showed: nobody's home.

Why has this fiction of inadequate testing become Urban Legend?

RB--see my post of 7:32 above. It appears an MRI was done; it also appears Terri can move her arms in response to stimulus and say "hi" and all kinds of interesting things.

The details of which scans were done is irrelevant to my own feelings here. If she were in a coma, I'd feel the same way.

The MIA wives did not wait 15-20 years to move on. Nor did they relinquish the estate and children of their lost husband to their inlaws.

The point here, and let's try it for the THIRD time, is that there is one major difference between the MIA wives and Mikey, that one being that the former had no idea of what had become of their husbands AND NO WAY OF FINDING OUT.

Please, idiot child, in the name of all that's holy, don't ask me to come back and do origami and flowcharts as well in order for you to understand.

Your just one of the morons who is unsucessfully trying the "reasonable doubt" logic that Courts are set up to consider, not you.

The shit of a judge smells no different from anybody else's. Yes, I know that that seems obvious to anybody else reading this, but apparently Cedarford is having trouble with the concept.

And which part of my "moron" attempt to mention reasonable doubt isn't working? The fact that those Omnipotent, Omniscient Judge Masters of yours that you uncritically worship have so far rubberstamped what little evidence Judge Greer allowed for them to review?

Well, color me devastated.

You have a ring in your nose.

The Religious Right tells you that ONLY the MRI and PET tests are needed

- ignoring the Schindlers already said they would keep T Schiavo "alive to receive our love" under any circumstances.

blah, blah, yadda, yadda...even if the MRI and PET confirmed all the dozens of other tests. Which they would and is why the Court agreed with the consulting neurologist that tests are unecessary.

You presumably know a lot about these things to be able to say that, right? Come on, don't be shy. I've only been in the diagnostic part of the health sector for a decade and a half. Surely you can top that and explain to me why these additional tests most assuredly would confirm what you've been told to believe, right?

And doing the tests wouldn't deter any dedicated Right to Lifer.

But what do I know? I'm just an actual member of the group of people that you claim to be able to read the minds of. Intriguing, considering that you obviously don't have one of your own.

For removal of all 2nd-guessing, I think they should do an autopsy to confirm the neurologist's diagnostic techniques with Schivo. It would give the public - misled by the Schindler's edited video and false claims of cognition - more confidence about how we can be sure a person is vegetative or not.

I've determined that you have terminal cancer with no more than a week to live. Now, we could run some tests on you to see if that was the case prior to doing anything else, or we could just kill you off in your own best interests. After all, we can always run an autopsy on you afterwards to see if we got it right.

The insistence on more and more tests..."just to be sure"....has been shown to be medically unecessary

hopefully my "broken arm example" was useful for someone with doubts, but who has a more open mind than Misha I.

Have your minder find a dictionary for you and ask him/her to read the definition aloud for you before you make an even more momentous ass of yourself in public.

The problem with your "broken arm" analogy was that it was just as completely asinine as your "MIA wives" one. You presented a situation in which there could be no objective doubt from mere physical examination that your arm was, indeed, broken, and claimed that it was the same as the much more complicated criteria for diagnosing PVS.

You, sir, are a complete and utter buffoon, and if it wasn't for the fact that I have derived some small pleasure from Fisking your idiotic ramblings to tiny shreds, I would've never bothered to answer in the first place.

Now bother me no more, kiddo.

Cedarford, this is the second and last time I'll address you in any way, shape or form.

I respect Ace's rules about decorum and refrain from personal attacks. If I didn't, I might say that you are indeed a cocksuker. I might even tell you to go fuck yourself.

I wouldn't say that because I disagree with you, but because you try to portray yourself as someone who is only trying to find the truth, yet somehow every subjective "fact" you find leads you to the same conclusion.

You find a link that either has a BS notation about an MRI of Terri's brain that doesn't look good (to your untrained eye) or shows notes from her medical record that refute your claims of Terri's lack of cognition. So you refulse to provide the link.

If this were an argument over a particular piece of legislation or foreign policy then your words would amount to nothing more than the usual pile of stinking troll dung, but this is about someone's life. You should be proud.

If I wasn't following the rules I'd say you disgust me. Don't bother baiting, you'll get nothing more than me.

I just reread a lot of this thread, and I'm finding hard to avoid the conclusion that more than a few who are ready to let Terri's feeding tube be removed seem to be motivated by a hatred of the "Religious Right" as much as anything else. Don't know that it's so, but it's how it comes across.

I have a daughter and a son. Some of those on this thread who disagree with me on Terri probably do as well. Forgive me, though, if can't help seeing this through the eyes of a parent who is faced with someone allowing their child to die when, in that parent's eyes, there is still hope.

Misha I -

Your response as a dedicated Right to Lifer - by your own admission - reveals why most of society wants nothing to do with your ilk and it's attempts to shove their religious beliefs down everyone's throats. Your "just a few tests more" strategy is going nowhere. The flatline EEG and the CAT showing half her skyll is empty, the 1990 MRI - the diagnosis since 1990 has remained the same - Vegetative, due to severe brain cortex damage from apoxia.

But you have a higher mission now, lad. There are 35,000 Vegetatives on average in the US on any given day, not counting the Alzheimer vegetatives. Hundreds have feeding tubes or other artidicial life prolongation means withdrawn every day.

Shouldn't you be out demanding that "life no matter what" be enforced by new laws codifying your religious views on others??

JohnfromWuzzadem -

Your long string of insults ostensibly complying with ACE's request to be civil with other posters don't fool anyone. If you can't try to be civil....maybe you should pack up and take your act elsewhere.....it's not like there isn't a happy home for a dickhead RTL fanatic like you somewhere.

And you know what you can do with your demands for other posters to be your private researchers and lay out, just for you, links on facts you are too lazy to look up and verify for yourself.

And you fool no one with your attack 'n duck technique - saying you are gone. Like the crack whore your young daughter isn't, you'll be crawling back soon.

In the meantime, try and figure out a single issue that is not about a precious human life, one of Jesus's little lambs....And why do you care so deeply for Terri while you ignore the hundreds of tubes removed and unpluggings in just your state. Why is Terri like Laci Peterson to you - you do nothing for others you claim to champion....just the media celebrity cases???

Hmmm...I guess it's true. If a piece of shit falls in the woods and there's no one there to hear it, it doesn't make a noise.

BrewFan's Troll Identificatin Tip of the Day:

1. Asserts something to be 'true'
2. Refuses to give cite or link to their source when asked
3. Insults person who asks for source

Cedarford--you mean this MRI? Hmm.. it's here somewhere--

Let's see--

2/6/1991
Speech-Language Notes
Commands to voice - moves tongue, (slight elevation noted), blinks eyes. Movements not developed to the point that a yes/no response could be initiated. Visual tracking to left is inconsistant. Oral motor stimulation results in increased reflexive chew / swallow


2/8/1991
Therapeutic Recreation Notes Sherri Lage
Seen 5X last week. Had eyes open each session, appeared to focus on family pictures but only slight tracking to left noted X1. Consistent startle response to auditory stimuli


2/11/1991
Summary of all Departments
Swallowing improving, some possible following commands to voice



2/12/1991
Progress Notes Dr. Carnahan
Labs consistent w/ H.O., plan trial Didronal


2/13/1991
Progress Notes Dr. Alcazaren
Arouses easily


2/13/1991
Speech Language Notes
Minimal visual focusing and tracking were observed. She responded briefly to family photos. Responses to commands is inconsistant. Movements noted include - voicing, onset, tongue protrusion, swallows, right foot and head nodding


2/15/1991
Progress Notes Dr. Alcazaren
Knees swelling, left greater than right. H.O. vs. breaking of adhesions, treat locally w/ heat


2/15/1991
Therapeutic Recreation Notes Sherri Lage
30 day summary


2/15/1991
Psychology Notes Patti Shook
Terri's eye opening responses were her strongest. Terri's tactile responses were her best, with the other four modalities only 1 to 2 points behind. This level of functioning is appropriate for a sensory stimulation program.


2/18/1991
Progress Notes Dr. Carnahan
Knees both tender to touch, right lower thigh indurated, probably H.O.


2/19/1991
Progress Notes Dr. Alcazaren
Opens eyes to auditory stimulation


2/19/1991
Speech Language Notes
Responds briefly to family photos

No wait, I don't see it there--the MRI result was higher up...

7/12/1990
Progress Notes Dr. Baras
Responsive, eyes open to sensory stimulation in arm.


7/13/1990
Progress Notes Dr. Baras
Eyes open to voice, tracking, moving head toward sound, no voluntary movement consistently as yet, but does move right upper extremity

7/18/1990
Progress Notes Dr. Baras
Will do femoral nerve block left lower extremity, if helpful will do on right


7/19/1990
Progress Notes Dr. Baras
Pt. does respond to pain with moaning.


7/21/1990
Progress Notes Dr. Baras
Pt opens eyes to voice and stimulation, sucking movements, occasional moans


7/24/1990
MRI Report Dr. Pinkston
Profound atrophy w/ very atrophic appearing cortex. Mild white matter disease, anoxic/hpoxic injury


7/26/1990
Progress Notes Dr. Baras
Pt awakens to her name but does not track or turn head to noise


7/27/1990
Progress Notes Dr. Anderson
Attempted Barium Swallow Test (2 cc thin barium by syringe). Patient uncooperative, does not elicit a swallow. Material leaks anteriorally from oral cavity. Recc continued NPO with peg tube


8/4/1990
Progress Notes Dr. Williamson
Stares, no tracking for me, sucking, chewing, oral movements with stimulation. Continue rehab

That's the MRI result that tells us she's brain dead, right, Cedarford? It goes on like that for several pages of information about how she moves and laughs and tracks and smiles...

...and moans in pain when she has an infection or menstruates or is poked.

A plant reacts and moves to stimulae.

You are just describing early symptoms that gave Michael Schiavo and a few of her her doctors some hope, despite the Vegetative diagnosis. But her condition worsened even further from 1990-1992. The 1996 CAT scans showed brain rotting and liquification had continued past the 1990 tests.

I do think it is important to autopsy her brain to remove the 2nd guessing by the Religious Right... Pull what's left out, make some pics or drawings of what is left, share that with the public.

All I can think about is my dad, when his parkinsons escalated to where his organs had shut down. They put him in a morphene induced coma, in which a feeding tube would be senseless, due to the organs. However, with Terri, She is awake, she is not on oxygen, what in the hell is to come of this world.??I feel like I am watching another episode of Animal Precinct Miami!!!! Those animals, that are emaciated, have been STARVED, A VERY SLOW, PAINFUL DEATH...!!!
What is so different here because she is a human, and not an animal??? Those animal abusers get steep fines and face jail time!!! But, we can say, its OK to starve this poor woman and not have to suffer the reprecussions??? Something is VERY WRONG HERE INDEED!! i THINK her husband has motives outside the best interest of Terry. I think HER PARENTS, should have the right to remove, and let remain, the feeding tube. Its not like she has a No Recetation Wish, Hell, she is breathing good. But now, she will not only die, not herself, but she will have to let the entire WORLD WITNESS, her slow, starved demise. I think it is sick, and inhumane. Fuck her husband.....This is out & out torture--DID PEOPLE FORGET THAT "MIRACLES" HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO HAPPEN IN THE MOST GRAVE SITUATIONS????
I feel like this man, her husband, is tired of caring for her, and is corrupting the chance of possibly a miracle occuring, and therefore, fate is being changed.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH ALL YOU SICK=O'S THAT HAVE COMMENTED ON THIS PRECIOUS AREA TO VOICE YOUR OPINIONS, ALL YOU CAN DISCUSS IS YOURSELF, AND RESORT TO NAME CALLING.....
WHY HAVE PEOPLE LOST THEIR COMPASSION, AND ARE COMPELLED TO VERBAL ABUSE OTHERS FOR THEIR OPINION, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THEIR OWN?????
\

YOU PEOPLE THAT UTILIZE THIS AREA, TO FIST FIGHT BECAUSE YOU ARE SAD, MISERABLE FOLK, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE TO VENT OK??? HER PARENTS ARE PROBABLY READING PEOPLES COMMENTS, AND i FOR ONE, AM ASHAMED OF SOME OF THE BULLSHIT THAT COMES OUT OF YOU SAD, MISERABLE HUMAN BEINGS MOUTH, SERIOUSLY. SELF PITY AND SELF CENTEREDNESS, IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE WANTING FROM THE NATION RIGHT NOW..OK? PLEASE, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE FOR YALLS LITTLE PITY PARTIES AND WAR OF WORDS, DO ALL OF US THAT ARE COMPASSIONATE FOR THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE,
A BIG HUGE FAVOR CAPEESH???
marsha prollock

PS
and tell me please, what in the Gods green earth, is getting the very words, ALLAH" into these comments???
Go Allah AWAy!!! We are AMERICANS HERE...
WE LIVE IN THE U S OF A
ALLAH., IS A BELIEF THAT IS FAR FAR AWAY IN ANOTHER COUNTRY..OK? ALLAH GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH STARVING PEOPLE.

DONT WE HAVE ENOUGH STARVING AMERICANS IN THE COUNTRY WITHOUT HAVING TO "DELIBERATELY CAUSING AND
watching as well??? This is so sad, I feel so sorry for that loving mother and father, having to watch the very child she gave birth to, slowly die and not be able to do ANYTHING!!!!!
QUESTION: I ASK YOU: SO SHE IS SLIGHTLY MENTALLY CHALLENGED DUE TO STROKE....
I THINK THAT MENTALLY RETARDED, OR CHALLENGED PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE WORLD, SHOULD BE SHAKING IN THEIR "BRAINLESS? SHOES, AS WHAT'S TO STOP "THEIR' CAREGIVERS, FROM JUST SAYING, "YOU KNOW, I AM TIRED, AND WEIGHED DOWN TENDING TO THIS VEGATABLE OF A HUMAN...
I GOT IT!!! LETS STARVE THEM, WATCH THEM SHRIVEL, AND I'LL BE WORRY FREE....."
SOMETIMES STROKE PATIENTS, GO A VERY VERY LONG TIME, NEVER REVERTING BACK TO SOME KIND OF THEIR NORMAL EXISTANCE AS BEFORE...HOWEVER,,,,,, SOME OF THEM, WITH THERAPY EVERY DAY, AND CONSISTANT, WITH ALL POSITIVE OUTPUTS, HAVE BEEN FACTUALLY KNOWN, TO REGAIN ALMOST EVERY ASPECT OF THEIR LIFE, PRIOR TO STROKE, CAR WRECK, HEAD INJURY ETC...
YET, WE FEED PEDIFILES LIKE KINGS, CATER TO THE MURDERERS IN JAIL, AND PROVIDE TAX PAYER BENEFITS FOR THEM DURING INCARCERATION...
TELL ME AGAIN, WHY THIS POOR POOR VOICELESS, WOMAN, WHO I THINK IS THINKING LIKE A BIG DOG INSIDE HER HEAD, IS WATCHING EVERYONE IN UTTER NON BELIEF OF WHAT IS UNFOLDING RIGHT BEFORE HER VERY EYES!!!!!
I AM A MOTHER---AND I BELIEVE THAT "HER MOTHER' CAN ALMOST READ THAT POOR WOMANS MIND, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE PROBABLY FATAL FOR THE MOTHER AS WELL.

GOD BLESS THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE!!
(UNLIKE allah.....) give me a friggin break....

" SHAKING IN THEIR "BRAINLESS SHOES?"
(certainly I am NOT referring to special people as being "brainless" at all, I was merely stating what some people, TERRYS HUSBAND PRIMARILY, refer to people that have become, "a little challenged,". And, while I am on a roll, (lol), how in the HELL, did Terry 'Tell" her husband that she does not want to be in this condition, somewhere, up there in all the hooplah, I read someone write that,
Her husband is requesting this due to the fact that she EXPLICITLY TOLD HIM, that she doesnt want to live like this...."
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS STATEMENT?????
DO PEOPLE ACTUALLY MAKE SHIT UP IN A VAIN, LAME ATTEMPT TO ACTUALLY BELIEVE PROPAGANDA????
things that make ya say , "HMMMMMMMM......"

I feel your pain Marsha. This whole situation is so very very sick. I just keep thinking about information I have seen in the past on the mapping of the brain and how crude our attempts to do it are. I recall a discussion of the amazing capacity of the brain to re-map itself in the face of trauma.

Medical science knows very little about our brains. Who is to say that Terri's brain is not re-mapping itself?

I, like you, see a living breathing human being who has not stated conclusively that she would want to have a feeding tube removed and starve to death.

As a mother and a human being, seeing the news coverage just moves me to tears. I am furious and feel an overwhelming sense of powerlessness. Where the hell do we live? in a work of Nietzsche?

Hello, this is my homepage.

http://thekitchenboutique.com
http://backgammon.thekitchenboutique.com backgammon
http://backgammon-rules.thekitchenboutique.com backgammon rules
http://free-backgammon.thekitchenboutique.com free backgammon
http://motif-backgammon.thekitchenboutique.com motif backgammon
http://backgammon-online.thekitchenboutique.com backgammon online
http://play-backgammon.thekitchenboutique.com play backgammon
http://backgammon-download.thekitchenboutique.com backgammon download
http://backgammon-sets.thekitchenboutique.com backgammon sets
http://backgammon-game.thekitchenboutique.com backgammon game
http://how-to-play-backgammon.thekitchenboutique.com how to play backgammon
http://backgammon-board.thekitchenboutique.com backgammon board
http://backgammon-free.thekitchenboutique.com backgammon free
http://online-backgammon.thekitchenboutique.com online backgammon