While the drama queens danced…

“saving a life isn’t constitutional, but anal sex is”

WTF is that supposed to mean? Did someone actually bring up anal sex?

If anal sex is constitutional, so is saving a life.

That’s the point.

Congress determines the jurisdiction of the courts. No constitutional question at all. If we can call abortions and anal sex constitutional, we can leave saving Terri’s life alone.

Why are you working so hard to convince a group of people that your beliefs are right?

[i]And Congress had every right to step in as it is part of this country’s judicial system. I think you need to accept that.[/i]

And the judicial system put forth it’s opinion.

Apparently that’s all they felt was needed.

Your dislike for the procedure doesn’t make it wrong.

I wouldn’t know if I like it or not; they didn’t follow it.

No, The legislation gave the USDC for the Middle District the jurisdiction to hear the case. It further directed them to determine if Terri Schiavo’s rights had been violated, and issue any RO to reconnect the feeding tube if necessary.

Gibbs failed to provide precedent orders to support any of his claims, even when asked repeatedly. Therefore, Whittemore determined there was nothing to indicate her rights had been violated. On the RO, he ruled that Gibbs had no likelihood of succeeding the merit of the case.

He did as he was instructed. Again, just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t correct.

He was instructed, in Sec. 2, to review the evidence and determine whether or not Terri’s rights had been violated. This isn’t a day trial. It will take far longer than Terri will live. Therefore, Gibbs asked for a RO to replace the feeding tube until the case could be heard. In order to grant the RO, Gibbs must present evidence to support that he has a likelihood of succeeding the merits of the case.

Whittemore asked for any information to support this. Gibbs had none. Therefore, the restraining order wasn’t granted.

rama,

You aren’t entirely correct. With minor therapy, it is entirely likely that Terri would be able to swallow food and water.

Put the tube in, consider the evidence, if it isn’t enough yank the tube and it’s over.

That’s the key right there. It’s two seperate issues. First, asking Whittemore to hear the evidence anew and rule on it. Second, a restraining order to bar a previous order while this is taking place.

The first isn’t an issue. He can, and most likely would have, complied. The second, however, requires Gibbs to present evidence that he would win the first point. He wasn’t able to do that.

It isn’t a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It’s the law. If you don’t like the law than work to change it. Whittemore, however, acted appropriately.

Vinny, this case and anal sex are really over the same issue: The governments right/ability to control our private lives.

The precedent for 200 years is that in the very private issue of medical decisions, it is the right/duty of the spouse to determine the best course of action when the patients are unable to do so for themselves.

This happens thousands of times every year. We cannot have the government micromanaging our lives any more than they do so now.

Isn’t it ironic that one of the loudest voices in this “struggle” is Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas? His mother made this exact same type of decision for his father in 1988.

The spouse made the decision to end his life. In this case, the father/husband was essentially suffocated by having his breathing support removed. Barbaric.

He also won’t grant interviews on the subject, as it is a “private matter”. No shit.

No, the only difference was that there appeared to be no dissent among family members in DeLay’s case.

There were also these similarities: Both stricken patients were severely brain-damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared from being kept alive by artificial means. And neither of them had a living will.

So how would you resolve that? I’d take it to court. The parents did, and Schiavo won. Every time. Over a 15 year period.

You want to overturn this because Jeb got some doctor to observe her for an hour and pronounce that all of the previous doctors were wrong? Come on.

Hey, all’s not lost. At least you’ve got Jesse Jackson on your side now
http://insignificantthoughts.com/wp-images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif

(a little humor to lighten things up…)

Huh? If I get the chance, I’ll look up the facts, but it is something like 8 different courts and 15 judges. Local, federal appellate, state supreme, federal supreme just to name 4 I can think of.

Rama, where did I say I was a doctor and diagnosed Terri as having a fully functioning digestive system. So far as any of us know, her actual digestive system is fine. Her ability to swallow is in question. And as her ‘husband’ has refused to allow any type of therapy or testing on Terri, none of us will ever know for sure whether or not she can swallow. But if you bothered to read my post, you would have seen that I said there were several affidavids from several registered nurses who have cared for Terri in the past that did spoon feed her and have offered to testify that she did in fact swallow the Jello and enjoyed it.

Someone’s always bringing up anal sex.

And the reason that it’s legal is the 9th Amendment. To paraphrase the honorable Judge Reinhold, “Learn it. Know it. Live it.”

I am the mother and legal guardian of my three daughters. It doesn’t mean I have the right to starve them to death. I have the right to make medical decisions regarding their care but I do not have the right to have them killed.

Not that I ever would as my daughters are my life.

Ok, so be it. But is it his right to withhold actual food and water? She can swallow her own saliva, she can swallow sips of water. Does he have the right to withhold that? Legally no. If I walked in to my children’s pediatrician’s office and told their doctor I didn’t want them to have any food and water for the rest of their natural life (and according to ‘Judge’ Greer food and water is not part of a natural life, and certainly not a natural death), social services would be called and my children taken away because that would constitute abuse.

Christopher Reeve was fed through a tube. What if his wife walked to his doctor and said it needed to be pulled cause he had no rights as she was his guardian, his wife. I know kids with cerebal palsy that are fed through tubes – should they have it pulled by the parents, since those parents are the guardians and chances are there are no living wills made out by these children.

It is not his right under Florida law. Florida law clearly states that in circumstances such as this where there is no written documentation, the patient is not to be denied medical treatment as it is presumed the patient would want life. A judge decided to rule against the law.

And Congress had every right to step in as it is part of this country’s judicial system. I think you need to accept that.

Ummm, no they didn’t. They decided on the case procedurally when they were supposed to take a look at the case as a new case with everything that has come to light in the last 7 years.

Sure. After all, Judge Whittemore had a crystal ball in hand when he proclaimed that the Schindlers wouldn’t win on an appeal anyway.

I mean, that’s always grounds to decide a case: soothsaying.

And, for the record, “soothsaying” is entirely what Whittemore’s job was. In order for him to win a temporary restraining order you must prove the likelihood of succeeding the merits of the case.

Whittemore was told to look at the case as a new case and determine if Terri’s rights were violated.

Period.

Not to determine if they could win.

If anyone overstepped his boundaries, it was Whittemore.

Just because you do like it, doesn’t mean it is.

He was supposed to look at the case De Novo.

De Novo means as if it’s a new case from the beginning with witnesses, testimony, fact finding. The whole nine yards.

THEN, after hearing all the evidence old and new, seeing testimony, and taking into account witnesses that were not called in the prior trials, make his decision.

He did not do that.

You may be right on every other angle, but the fact is he did not, in 3 hours, hold a new trial, which is what he was supposed to do.

You may be right on every other angle, but the fact is he did not, in 3 hours, hold a new trial, which is what he was supposed to do.

There won’t be a new trial. They didn’t expect a new trial. There isn’t enough time for a new trial. The trial is completely independent of the RO to overturn a previous order. Gibbs just didn’t have anything to support his case.

There isn’t enough time for a new trial.

What’s the time constraint?

Put the tube in, consider the evidence, if it isn’t enough yank the tube and it’s over. I don’t buy this “urgency” argument for a minute.

You are absolutely correct about time, orders, etc. But that’s assuming you agree with what Whittemore did. You do, I don’t and we’re just not going to agree on that.

It kind of is a matter of agreeing and disagreeing because laws can be interpreted any number of ways.

But it’s water under the bridge at this point. We can only look ahead.

It absolutely positively is not the same thing. His father was never going to recover and was brain dead, with no debate and no experts saying otherwise.

The only similarity is that it involved a family member who couldn’t make the decision for themselves. I don’t remember there being a dispute over his dad’s wishes and desires for treatment, like the Schiavo case.

Do you?

Come on Mike… Can we not talk about the court decisions like it was 15 different judges?

It was the same Judge 15 times.

It’s like saying I asked twenty parents if I could go outside over the course of a week and they all said no. Granted they were all my dad, but it’s still twenty parents!

I get your point, but let’s call a spade a spade here.

DeLay’s family and Schiavo are completely different. Not even comparable. At the very basic levels, one required machines to “live”, the other didn’t.