Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Terri Schiavo and the separation of powers
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 16 of 48 (192998)
03-21-2005 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
03-21-2005 5:02 AM


Re: And another thing...
What I don't understand is why the Flordia Court didn't just give guardianship to the parents.
I've caught bits and pieces, so I may have missed something, but supposedly the parents wanted guardianship.
I would think that it would have been a better choice for the courts to change the guardianship than deciding to remove the feeding tube, especially since the husband has supposedly moved on.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2005 5:02 AM Silent H has not replied

  
kongstad
Member (Idle past 2870 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 17 of 48 (193005)
03-21-2005 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
03-21-2005 5:02 AM


Re: And another thing...
The history of the case is that her husband and parents where in agreement for the first long years after her braindamage.
When the husband finally gave up - and acknowledged the fact that the she no longer existed as a person, he approached the courts and asked them to rule if she should be kept alive.
In the following trial the husband represented the case against keeping her alive, and the parents the case against. The court ruled that she should not be kept alive.
It is this court ruling that ultimately caused her feeding to be removed.
So her husband has no say in this anymore. If he divorced her and the guardianship was transfered on her parents the ruling would still stand.
Furthermore. In PVS you can still track objects with your eyes, and display emotional responsen such as Terry does. But you only do it sometimes and generally display such responses at random.
In one of the court cases the court viewed all 4 1/2 hours of recordings of Terry and decided that what looked responsive in the 40 seconds snippets displayed on her parents website was not the norm, but seemed to be random occurences.
This is the same diagnosis that most of the physicians who have actually examined her came to. Furthermore her CAT scan show most of highe brain to be missing.
The 14 affadavits supplied in the latest motion is from people who have never seen her, or only seen the small snippets displayed on her parents website.
So to sum it up.
The courts has allready, on several occasions decided the case on its merits. The courts have found that the medical evidence is not in question.
Her husbands interest in this is to see what he sees as her last will carried through, an oppinion he shares with the impartial court.
/Soren

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2005 5:02 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2005 9:35 AM kongstad has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 18 of 48 (193012)
03-21-2005 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by kongstad
03-21-2005 8:01 AM


Re: And another thing...
Thanks for the more detailed explanation. Although I suppose I still have some questions off of this.
Granted that I am understanding the court system overwhelmingly favored the husband's decision (in more than one trial if I heard right), and that personally I agree with the husband, I still wonder if there is some merit for the general legislation (as I heard it) proposed.
What is the legislation, and does it simply call for federal review of contended cases?
If so, then I am not sure that I see any problem with this. If the facts are correct, and legal situations have not changed, then what is the potential for a federal review to have any effect?
I guess everyone is free to note the utter hypocrisy of any Republican ordering a federal review of a state decision, but that just continues the slide they started after the 2000 election, and I am not seeing a specific downside.
Hope no one thinks I am actually siding with Bush and Co on this. I am just not seeing the overt badness of the legislation (at least the version I heard).

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by kongstad, posted 03-21-2005 8:01 AM kongstad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by bob_gray, posted 03-21-2005 11:08 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 42 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2005 3:59 AM Silent H has replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 19 of 48 (193031)
03-21-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Silent H
03-21-2005 9:35 AM


Re: And another thing...
Hope no one thinks I am actually siding with Bush and Co on this. I am just not seeing the overt badness of the legislation (at least the version I heard).
I don't think you have to worry about this, unless this is the first post of yours someone is reading.
As far as the federal legislation is concerned I do not think that there is any merit to it. In my opinion the federal government has way overstepped its authority in this matter. How does this in any way relate to the running of the country? This is _clearly_ a case best left to the states.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2005 9:35 AM Silent H has not replied

  
kongstad
Member (Idle past 2870 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 20 of 48 (193053)
03-21-2005 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Silent H
03-21-2005 5:56 AM


Re: Bush rushes to save a life!
About Bush
See this link:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/scottbateman/407590.html
/Soren

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2005 5:56 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2005 3:03 PM kongstad has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 21 of 48 (193088)
03-21-2005 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by kongstad
03-21-2005 12:47 PM


Re: Bush rushes to save a life!
If it is really true that Bush signed a law allowing hospitals to unhook patients over the wishes of relatives, in order to save money, why is no one hammering on this in the media?
This would be a great way to stick it to Bush. In fact if what came out of this is a federal move to undue that piece of legislation, that'd be great.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by kongstad, posted 03-21-2005 12:47 PM kongstad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by berberry, posted 03-21-2005 3:16 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 23 by kongstad, posted 03-21-2005 4:29 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 24 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 7:07 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 31 by vossy, posted 03-23-2005 1:27 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 45 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2005 4:37 AM Silent H has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 48 (193090)
03-21-2005 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Silent H
03-21-2005 3:03 PM


Re: Bush rushes to save a life!
holmes asks:
quote:
If it is really true that Bush signed a law allowing hospitals to unhook patients over the wishes of relatives, in order to save money, why is no one hammering on this in the media?
They are, although not very loudly. I've heard this on both CNN and MSNBC today, so at least it isn't being ignored entirely. In fact, MSNBC went so far as to show examples of the Texas law being applied in cases as recently as last week, where feeding tubes were disconnected. It's just one more example of right-wing hypocrisy.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2005 3:03 PM Silent H has not replied

  
kongstad
Member (Idle past 2870 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 23 of 48 (193100)
03-21-2005 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Silent H
03-21-2005 3:03 PM


Re: Bush rushes to save a life!
I think perhaps the "in order to save money" is a little colourful, perhaps the hospitals deem that there is no gain for the patients in prolonging their lives. Just like the doctors think in the case that has your legislature running amok!
/Soren

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2005 3:03 PM Silent H has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 48 (193253)
03-22-2005 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Silent H
03-21-2005 3:03 PM


Re: Bush rushes to save a life!
quote:
If it is really true that Bush signed a law allowing hospitals to unhook patients over the wishes of relatives, in order to save money, why is no one hammering on this in the media?
Because your media is compliant and toothless, and merely reports government statements rather than questioning them.
quote:
This would be a great way to stick it to Bush.
And why would they want to do that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2005 3:03 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 8:06 AM contracycle has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 25 of 48 (193266)
03-22-2005 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by contracycle
03-22-2005 7:07 AM


Re: Bush rushes to save a life!
Contra, why on earth are you trying to start an argument? I think my question was essentially rhetorical and assuming that news media is deficient (and this is not the first time I have told you that I admit the general US news media is deficient).

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 7:07 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by contracycle, posted 03-23-2005 5:26 AM Silent H has replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2909 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 26 of 48 (193586)
03-23-2005 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by berberry
03-19-2005 9:18 PM


Any further legislation would also violate the bill-of-attainder provision, wouldn't it?
A bill-of-attainder is a bill that historically was used to ataint an indvidual. Generally he was to be executed and all his property was confiscated by the government(crown). It usally applied to all his relatives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by berberry, posted 03-19-2005 9:18 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by berberry, posted 03-25-2005 12:32 PM tsig has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 48 (193622)
03-23-2005 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Silent H
03-22-2005 8:06 AM


Re: Bush rushes to save a life!
quote:
Contra, why on earth are you trying to start an argument?
Why do you construe a direct answer to your question as a desire to start an argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 8:06 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Silent H, posted 03-23-2005 5:50 AM contracycle has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 28 of 48 (193625)
03-23-2005 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by contracycle
03-23-2005 5:26 AM


Re: Bush rushes to save a life!
Why do you construe a direct answer to your question as a desire to start an argument?
Because it was not a direct answer, it was simply a slam job.
For instance, what is "my" media? I am in Holland, and I watch British and European news sources. Yet you say my media is toothless etc etc, which can only be a ref to US media which I have already criticized, so there is no point in your answer.
My statement was suggesting that there was a lapse in the media, but what was the source? For US it might be obvious, but what about foreign media? Have you been seeing this getting broadcast in England or any other Euro news?
The first place I heard it was here, the next place I saw it happened to be a US news source.
Instead of finding an excuse to inject diatribe, why not come up with a serious answer, especially when you feel compelled to answer a rhetorical question?
Okay, this probably all sounds meaner than I meant it. I apologize if it sounds a bit hostile.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by contracycle, posted 03-23-2005 5:26 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by contracycle, posted 03-23-2005 7:16 AM Silent H has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 48 (193636)
03-23-2005 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Silent H
03-23-2005 5:50 AM


Re: Bush rushes to save a life!
quote:
Because it was not a direct answer, it was simply a slam job.
No, it was a direct answer.
quote:
Have you been seeing this getting broadcast in England or any other Euro news?
Not specifically, probably because Bush cannot be any further discredited.
This sort of proposition does have cogent arguments in its favour, of the accounting variety. The answer to the question as to why this was not used to attack Bush is that US media has no interest in doing so. They do not question, they merely report.
quote:
Instead of finding an excuse to inject diatribe, why not come up with a serious answer, especially when you feel compelled to answer a rhetorical question?
Why don't you accept an honest answer when you get one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Silent H, posted 03-23-2005 5:50 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 03-23-2005 7:32 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 30 of 48 (193640)
03-23-2005 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by contracycle
03-23-2005 7:16 AM


Re: Bush rushes to save a life!
Why don't you accept an honest answer when you get one?
Ughhh... I didn't say it wasn't honest. I don't think it was direct, and it appeared to be seeking an argument where there didn't need to be one, simply due to its provocative nature.
If you meant it as direct and nonprovocative, fine, I took it the wrong way. I apologize.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by contracycle, posted 03-23-2005 7:16 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024