Terri Schiavo: When Politics, Religion, and Science Collide

"Terri Schiavo will either die without her feeding tube, or the tube will be put back in by court order and legislative action. Science will still have medical facts about her case, and religion will still have beliefs to reckon. And politics will go on picking its issues by how it will play out in the voting booth back home."

(from post above)

Well said. Choice to use technology is always an ethical issue. Insulin for diabetes or typing on a computer are not "natural," by definition and are not prescribed or proscribed in the Bible.

This has been the ultimate "wedge issues" and distractor from the 2nd anniversary of the Iraq war. All troops were to be home by the end of 2004 at the latest.

"Religion should have comforted the Schindler family over their daughter's misfortune, and it did not. Science should have done something to save their daughter and it did not. Now, in an agonizing attempt to request that politics do what neither science nor religion could do, we are all witnesses to how much a folly politics can actually be."

Amen Tutterfly

DiAnne---

Not for one minute should we foget the troops or the second anniversary of the war. Over 1500 funerals have taken place. Many thousands of injured will need long term care. The veterans who will be finding themselves hard placed to find adequate medical care for the injuries they received in service to country (in and unjust war, no less) should be given the same access to Congress when the time comes. Will congress make laws for each and every individual who manages to get the publicity that the Terri Schiavo story has received?

Are they any less important, and will they be pushed away as politically unimportant? Will they be bad for publicity?

Will the right to lifers and the culture of lifers protest for that veteran?

And, were the right to lifers all tied up in Texas? It seems that Sun Hudson should have been on Tom DeLay's blotter.

Posted by: DiAnne at March 21, 2005 10:16 AM
I agree, DiAnne...this is a wedge issue. But the war is apparently not convincing the moderates how this regime is failing our country and our world. Perhaps a wedge issue and human interest story like this will. I'm not minimizing what is happening with and to Terri Schiavo, nor do I believe it is right in any way to politicize this. But it's most definitely a political issue now, thanks to Congress and as stated in the memo that the Republicans passed around this weekend (as reported on NPR this morning).

So maybe this will open people's eyes and minds to be more aware of everything else that is happening...

Found this very interesting post on a Terri Schiavo story at DU..........

I did some Internet research and learned that many of the attorneys, activists and organizations working to keep Schiavo on life support all these years have been funded by members of the Philanthropy Roundtable.

The Philanthropy Roundtable is a collection of foundations that have funded conservative causes ranging from abolition of Social Security to anti-tax crusades and United Nations conspiracy theories. The Roundtable members' founders include scions of America's wealthiest families, including Richard Mellon Scaife (heir to the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune), Harry Bradley (electronics), Joseph Coors (beer), and the Smith Richardson family (pharmaceutical products).

I found a Web site called mediatransparency.com which tracks funding for these foundations. Using just that Web site and the Schindlers' own site, terrisfight.org, I learned of a network of funding connections between some of the Philanthropy Roundtable's members and various organizations behind the Schindlers, their lawyers and supporters, and the lawyers who represented Gov. Bush in Bush v. Schiavo.

Here are a few examples:

Schindler lawyer Pat Anderson "was paid directly" by the anti-abortion Life Legal Defense Foundation, which "has already spent over $300,000 on this case," according to the foundation's Web site. Much of the support for Life Legal Defense Foundation, in turn, comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-gay rights group which collected more than $15 million in private donations in 2002 and admits to having spent money on the Schiavo case "in the six figures," according to a recent article in the Palm Beach Post. Mediatransparency.org states that between 1994 and 2002, the Alliance Defense Fund received $142,000 from Philanthropy Roundtable members that include the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation.

Wesley Smith and Rita Marker also work for organizations that get funding from Roundtable members. Smith is a paid senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that advocates the teaching of creationist "intelligent design" theory in public schools. Between 1993 and 1997, the Discovery Institute received $175,000 from the Bradley Foundation. Marker is executive director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia, which lobbies against physician-assisted suicide. In 2001, Marker's organization received $110,390 from the Randolph Foundation, an affiliate of the Smith Richardson family.

Roundtable members also played a role in financing the Bush v. Schiavo litigation.

The Family Research Council, which uses its annual $10 million budget to lobby for prayer in public schools and against gay marriage, filed an amicus curiae brief in Bush v. Schiavo supporting Gov. Bush, at the same time its former president, attorney Kenneth Connor, was representing the governor in that litigation. Between 1992 and 2000, the council received $215,000 from the Bradley Foundation.
>
>
http://blog.bioethics.net/2005/03/have-conservatives-bo...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1673139

To all my friends online- If you have a Bank of AMerica or Wachovia credit card (I do) BEWARE!!!! An article in my local paper from Gannet News service states that the minimum payment on credit cards from these two companies is going to go up from 2 percent to 4 percent. On an average American's credit card debt (around 9 K) that's an increase from $160 per month to $320 per month. You cannot tell me that this is not related to the new bankruptcy bill, which makes it more difficult to erase debts in full for overextended citizens. The banks have their way now, and the bankruptcy bill has confirmed it for them. Most AMericans won't be able to pay the 4 percent, so the credit card companies will the raise their interest rates up to 26 percent or so, and add on late fees to the point that it will affect nearly every average American's credit negatively.
One more reason not to vote Republican until hades freezed over. And not then either.
Please let all your friends with Credit cards , Republican and Democrats alike, know that this is coming. Bank of AMerica and Wachovia are the tip of the iceberg. B of A's reps are denying it by phone, by the way. I called them this morning. But it's in the news, so they won't be able to deny it for long.

Follow the money.

It's really too bad that hypocrisy isn't illegal. There is a mother in Texas, a mother without publicity, without financial backers who have political connections, without the culture of life running to her aid, who is burying her child. Because Texas has a law, signed with the same hand that signed Terri's law, the culture of science trumped the culture of religion.

This mother saw life in her child, but she did not have anyone offering her a press conference, or high priced representation. Where are the people stepping forward to run Sun's law? The medicine that said this child was not alive was immediately accepted and no religious or moral aid stepped in to stop technology.

Are we to accept that God finds more worth in the financially connected? Are laws written in order to pay back political favors? Once again, being poor is an accpeted reason to apply different rules.

Linda E
Speaking of money, the best policy is to use as little credit as possible & if using credit cards, pay the entire balance at the end of the month se as to avoid interest.

Too many people in this country live beyond their means & the country itself lives beyond its means. By 2008, it will take 40% of everything made or sold in the US to pay the interest on the debt!

Tutterfly

Good point. When I worked in a facility exclusively for head injury rehabilitation, those who ran out of money went into nursing homes on Medicaid, regardless of how much progress they were making. There was some therapy there, but not as specialized or intensive. Those with million dollar settlements or good insurance continued with their programs, based on ability to pay not amount of rehabilitation potential.

Again, follow the money. I never felt good ethically about working in systems that were for-profit because of such discrepancies. I'm much happier now working for a nonprofit hospital where we don't turn people away for inablity to pay. They can apply for charity care and those with good insurance get the same care as those on state-subsidized programs.

It's hard to think of anything more corrupt than the United States health care and pharmaceutical industries. The Balanced Budget Act under Clinton did alot to reform Medicare and that has curtailed alot of fraud that was happening. I could write a book on unethical charges I've heard about over the years. People actually make money off the misery of others. You can trade in this stuff on the stock market!

Dianne- I expect the next thing they'll be doing is computing interest daily so that even paying off the debt monthly won't be enough to avoid it. But that will affect their high income customers too much, so maybe they won't do that. They're vultures, that's all.

Linda E
Best not to use them. I have only ever done it to earn air miles. If we don't have the cash to buy something, we don't need it.

More hypocrisy:

BUSH SIGNED LAW ALLOWING HOSPITALS TO DISCONTINUE LIFE SUPPORT: In a statement released early this morning, President Bush said he will "continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans." But the facts make it hard to believe that Bush is standing on principle. In 1999, then Gov. Bush signed a law that "allows hospitals [to] discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree." Just days ago the law permitted Texas Children's Hospital to remove the breathing tube from a 6-month-old boy named Sun Hudson. The law may soon be used to remove life support from Spiro Nikolouzos, a 68-year-old man. Bush has not commented on either case.

(American Progress Report)

More hypocrisy:

DELAY VOTED TO SLASH FUNDING THAT PAID FOR SCHIAVO'S CARE: At every opportunity, Tom DeLay has sanctimoniously proclaimed his concern for the well-being of Terri Schiavo, saying he is only trying to ensure she has the chance "we all deserve." Schiavo's medications are paid for by Medicaid. Just last week, DeLay marshaled a budget resolution through the House of Representatives that would cut funding for Medicaid by at least $15 billion, threatening the quality of care for people like Terri Schiavo. Because the Senate voted to restore the funding, DeLay is threatening to hold up the entire budget process if he doesn't get his way.

FRIST FIGHTING AGAINST FINANCIAL RECOVERY FOR PEOPLE LIKE SCHIAVO: Bill Frist has been positioning himself in the media as a champion for Schiavo's interests. Yet, much of Schiavo's medical care has been financed by $1,000,000 from two medical malpractice lawsuits Schiavo won after her heart attack 15 years ago. Frist has been leading the charge to limit recovery for people like Schiavo who are severely debilitated. If Frist is successful, people like Schiavo would not be able to recover any punitive damages no matter how severe their injuries.

(American Progress report)

DiAnne, just sent that info off with a note to my media list.

Spinnaker
Yes - I thought those were great "talking points" - that's what liberal think tanks are for!!

I'll do the same.

Sheer, unmitigated, utterly disgusting hypocrisy.

Reduced to dollar signs, political campaign chips and pandering to religious special interest.

How will this play in the churches? How will this raise a few bucks for the next campaign? How can I turn this into a plus for my party?

Is there such a thing as a human being anymore?

I came across this new web-site via buzzflash. They have foreign news in English.

http://www.watchingamerica.com/

Does anyone else think it's ironic that the Senate that is "fighting to save Terri's life" is the same one that shot down the proposed amendments to the bankruptcy bill that provided expemptions due to exhorbinant medical costs?

Right-Wing Leaders Make Spectacle of Terri Schiavo's Life
Notice the last point. He had the opposite position about life for the sick in Texas.

March 21, 2005

In a gross abuse of governmental authority, right-wing leaders have turned the life of Terri Schiavo into a media circus and exploited her condition for crass political purposes. President Bush signed legislation early today to force federal courts to violate the wishes of her husband to end Ms. Schiavo's life with dignity. Americans everywhere are rightly outraged at the insatiable demands of right-wing politicians to decide when and how people should live and die.

Congress has no place intervening in the private medical decisions of any American. The shameless 11th hour intervention in the Schiavo case by right-wing leaders is a disgrace to all Americans. The case had been fully vetted by state and local courts in Florida for years, yet at the last minute, Congress decides it knows better than the judgment of Ms. Schiavo's husband and Florida state courts. Conservatives, once the self-proclaimed protectors of individual privacy and federalism, have morphed into the party of personal violation and ham-fisted federal intervention.

The political manipulation of a personal life-and-death issue by right-wing leaders is shameful and morally repugnant. Make no mistake about it: President Bush, Tom DeLay and Bill Frist are no friends of the Schiavos. DeLay's unprecedented attack on Terry Schiavo's husband, Michael, was designed solely for political gain and represents a new low for the ethically challenged House leader. A memo distributed by Senate leadership to right-wing members called Schiavo "a great political issue" and urged Senators to talk about her because "the pro-life base will be excited." The presence of anti-abortion extremist Randall Terri with Ms. Schiavo's parents yesterday, confirms the worst suspicions about the right's motivations in this matter.

As Governor of Texas, President Bush signed a law to allow hospitals to discontinue life support even if family members disagree. In a statement released early this morning President Bush said he will "continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans." But the facts make it hard to believe that Bush is standing on principle. In 1999, then Gov. Bush signed a law that "allows hospitals to discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree," according to the Houston Chronicle. Just days ago the law permitted Texas Children's Hospital to remove the breathing tube from a 6-month-old boy named Sun Hudson. The law may soon be used to remove life support from Spiro Nikolouzos, a 68-year-old man. Bush has not commented on either case.
Daily Talking Points is a product of the American Progress Action Fund

ARRRKKHH...
And now the Vatican is congratulating Bush! Did they congratulate the pedophile priests as well?

Even the muslim world is appalled! I found a very good article from a Marrakech paper that says " Bush sentences Terri Schiavo to life"

snip

"Strange logic! The man that does not hesitate to sentence to death some of his healthy kins, can sentence to life others who are almost dead on a functionnal level"

He then raises questions about the death rows...and innocent babies, children or adolescents who perished under the bombs as death casualties, because of a man's despise... Stange world.

Sorry it was in French, I just translated the main lines.

Too many articles to comment on. Better get a supply of barf bags...

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=475609

Read how BUSH SIGNED LAW ALLOWING HOSPITALS TO DISCONTINUE LIFE SUPPORT:

Read how DELAY VOTED TO SLASH FUNDING THAT PAID FOR SCHIAVO'S CARE:

Read how FRIST FIGHTING AGAINST FINANCIAL RECOVERY FOR PEOPLE LIKE SCHIAVO:

More hypocrisy:

http://www.texecutions.com/

What would Bush do?

Sorry..am off target again..this is about raising the minimum wage...

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=474149&tr=y&auid=774372
[snip]
Labor market earnings have fallen so low that disadvantaged young men, particularly minorities, frequently drop out of the job market altogether. The costs that their nonemployment and poverty impose on children, neighborhoods, and our nation are simply staggering. Worse yet, if these young men turn to crime and become incarcerated, their future employment options will be severely and often permanently curtailed.

Play the SS arcade game...Cute..

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=289148&tr=y&auid=774370

From Public Theology..

http://www.pubtheo.com/

Look at Hypocritical Moral Grandstanding which pertains to the current topic.

Look at the other articles if you have time...

Katie Curic was asking abour a Memo circulating the hill about how good this issue can be for Republicans, the one she was talking to kept saying no one has seen any such memo, I have been looking for any referance to it on here :( and can not find it, this ticks me off!! I wanted to see it, it's proof of what the republicans are doing anyone who doesnt see this is blind come on they are letting Delay do the talking. Good publicity anyone??

April-ABC news reported the repug talking points memo. Here's info............

ABC News obtained talking points circulated among Senate Republicans explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them, that it is an important moral issue and the "pro-life base will be excited," and that it is a "great political issue — this is a tough issue for Democrats."

When asked about these talking points on "Good Morning America," DeLay said, "I don't know where those talking points come from, and I think they're disgusting."

In this case, the Republican's political wrangling in the Schiavo case does not seem to reflect the majority of American's opinions.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Schiavo/story?id=595905&page=2

Posted by: nancyjane at March 21, 2005 01:15 PM

Thanks so much I thought I was hearing things, I was getting little one ready to go and wasnt watching just listening. I heard him saying no one has seen any such memo and was yelling yeah right!! Please evidently the American people have shown how stupid they are and now Republicans are running with it!

April-also a diary on dkos about this memo with linky to WaPo story..........

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/20/151626/707

Posted by: April at March 21, 2005 01:04 PM

April, Katie Couric was on the list of email addresses that several of us sent email letters to last night regarding the Terri Schiavo. I'm not saying that was the "memo" Katie was referring to, but let's say the media was informed. Good work, DCP!

CORRECTION: THAT should read: regarding the Terri Schiavo case.

No politics here. How can we out this memo writer?

As ABC News' Linda Douglass first reported Friday night, Republican staffers on the Hill circulated a memo predicting political benefit for conservatives who work hard on this issue. The Republican leadership denied producing the memo and disclaimed they were using Schaivo as an instrument to shore up the base in the 2006 midterm elections. (We wonder if the author of the memo will be outed.)

Today's Globe Politics
Home > News > Nation

Kerry seeking to build support for Democrats
March 20, 2005

Page 2 of 2 -- Still, the grass-roots push comes amid a flurry of signals that Kerry is already positioning himself for another White House run. Early this week, he traveled to Florida and Georgia to thank campaign supporters and drum up support for his bill to provide universal healthcare to children, and he has a more extensive travel schedule on tap for April and May.

This week, he raised money to run Internet ads aimed at seven Republicans who favor drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He said 260,000 supporters in 24 hours signed his ''citizens roll call" to protect the refuge from oil exploration, though the Senate voted in favor of drilling despite his opposition.

On Thursday, he delivered a speech where he railed against Washington lawmakers for being out of touch with Americans. During last year's campaign, President Bush lampooned Kerry as an entrenched congressional insider.

''This week's debate on the federal budget should remind all Americans that Washington is not working for them," Kerry said in his speech. ''The votes this week weren't just ticks in the won-loss column. They were assaults on our nation's character."

He has also tried to shore up wounds left over from November. He vowed in January to authorize the release of his entire military record, something he has refused to do in previous campaigns, though he still has not signed the requisite forms.

Kerry has quickly established himself as the most politically active failed presidential candidate since Richard Nixon, who lost the 1960 campaign and immediately mounted a run for governor of California, said Larry Sabato, a government professor at the University of Virginia.

But he will have a difficult time following Nixon's path, who although he lost the run for governor bounced back and claimed the presidency in 1968, Sabato said. Democrats would greet a second Kerry candidacy with skepticism and second-guessing, he said.

''It's a major obstacle, and Democrats are much tougher on their defeated candidates than Republicans," Sabato said. ''This is really tough for Kerry to pull off, but what he's doing now offers the promise and the potential of a comeback."

Rick Klein can be reached at rklein@globe.com

I am thrilled with this story Pamella.

Does anybody know anything about James Whittemore? He is the judge hearing the case. All I can find is that he was appointed by Clinton.

Posted by: oncall at March 21, 2005 02:28 PM

Great-so they already have a built-in excuse if the ruling doesn't go their way this afternoon-Liberal activist judge. Wonder how long before the "culture of life" folks bag themselves a judge??!!

Some discussion going on AM with Al Franken, ably calling the dems the "culture of life"folks,which I like as then approval of HC for all. This gang of thugs,nothing but hypocrites!

ABC News Poll Results

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=599622&page=1

March 21, 2005 -- Americans broadly and strongly disapprove of federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, with sizable majorities saying Congress is overstepping its bounds for political gain.

The public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case. Congress passed such legislation and President Bush signed it early today.

That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more — 70 percent — call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.

This ABC News poll also finds that the Schiavo case has prompted an enormous level of personal discussion: Half of Americans say that as a direct result of hearing about this case, they've spoken with friends or family members about what they'd want done if they were in a similar condition. Nearly eight in 10 would not want to be kept alive.

Intensity

In addition to the majority, the intensity of public sentiment is also on the side of Schiavo's husband, who has fought successfully in the Florida courts to remove her feeding tube. And intensity runs especially strongly against congressional involvement.
~snip~
Conservatives and evangelicals also are more likely to support federal intervention in the case, although it doesn't reach a majority in either group. Indeed, conservative Republicans oppose involving the federal courts, by 57 percent-41 percent.

Conservatives and evangelicals hold these views even though most people in both groups — 73 percent and 68 percent, respectively — say that if they personally were in this condition, they would not want to be kept alive.

The Schiavo Talking Points Memo itself

John Aravois points out on his Americablog.org link to this:

"Check out the last line about her and Ted Bundy, if you really wanted messed up."

http://dcinsidescoop.blogspot.com/2005/03/exclusive-gops-schiavo-talking-points.html

John Aravois points out on his Americablog.org link to this:

"Check out the last line about her and Ted Bundy, if you really wanted messed up."

Ah the meaning of the universe is all coming together - Satan's image found on a Turtle Shell:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/21/evil.turtle.ap/index.html

April:

GOP memo says issue offers political rewards

By The Washington Post

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2002213728&zsection_id=2002107549&slug=memo20&date=20050320
WASHINGTON — Republican leaders believe their attention to the Terri Schiavo issue could pay dividends with Christian conservatives whose support they covet in the 2006 midterm elections, according to a GOP memo intended to be seen only by senators.

The one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators by party leaders, called the debate over Schiavo legislation "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who is up for re-election next year.

"This is an important moral issue, and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a co-sponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."

I'm sure we're all sick of this topic but let's run it into the ground anyway. The Republicans sure do set the issues but we need to relentlessly fight back, reframe, be refuseniks.

"Under the law Bush signed as Governor, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. There Were No Republican Protests. Tom DeLay, Mr. Moral Relativism Was Silent." - buzzflash.com

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_03_20_digbysblog_archive.html#111134934659869241

From Daily Kos, Digby:

By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.

Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schiavo's because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.

And those of us who read liberal blogs also know that this grandstanding by the congress is a purely political move designed to appease the religious right and that the legal maneuverings being employed would be anathema to any true small government conservative.

Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is "stepping in to save Terry Schiavo" mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain.

This is why we cannot trust the mainstream media. Most people get their news from television. And television is presenting this issue as a round the clock one dimensional soap opera pitting the "family", the congress and the church against this woman's husband and the judicial system that upheld Terry Schiavo's right and explicit request that she be allowed to die if extraordinary means were required to keep her alive. The ghoulish infotainment industry is making a killing by acceding once again to trumped up right wing sensationalism.

I thought his bedtime was 10 PM:

Bush stepped outside his bedroom and signed it at 1:11 a.m., standing in the hall of his private residence.

(bunny pajamas?)

While we're paying attention to Terri Shiavo, here are some other things that are happening around the world, as reported by BBC...

US raises pressure on N Korea
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned North Korea it faces "other options" if it does not co-operate in six-nation talks on its nuclear plans.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4365409.stm

Gun battle in Baghdad 'kills 24'
A gun battle between Iraqi insurgents and US troops near Baghdad has left 24 rebels dead, the US military says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4366857.stm

Worldwide protests mark Iraq war
Protests have been taking place across the world marking two years since the start of the war in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4364305.stm

Posted by: DiAnne at March 21, 2005 04:12 PM

I'm going to pour a drink now. Sometimes I think the battle to save our democracy is hopeless. Not very often, but sometimes.

If the blogs have these kinds of stories, how can talking heads at the networks and on cable have the nerve to still call themselves journalists?

Will Pitt FYI: Protest Stories
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/3/21/9466/08728

Fort Bragg | A Film by Chris Hume
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/032105Y.shtml

I feel that most of you guys on this blogsite do not know the true facts of this case. I feel that folks on the left are mostly motivated by generosity and compassion.

I am opposed to the death penalty, and to war, especially the war in Iraq. I am indeed, very concerned and aware of all the families in Iraq, and here in the U.S., who have lost loved ones.

I have been protesting against war and the death penalty since the '60's, when I was in college and protesting against the war in Vietnam.

Like you, I also feel that poor folks here in the U.S. need, are entitled to, and must have, better medical care.

I did vote for John Kerry, although I am pro-life. I voted for him for the above, and many other, reasons. It was not an easy decision, but I grew up in a union household, and have never voted anything but Democratic.

I do not feel that Bush's "pro-life" stance is sincere. I feel that he is opposed to abortion, but that doesn't make him "pro-life". Yet, at least, he says it up-front. That's what I like.

Many of the people at Blogs for Terri feel the same way you guys do about these issues, especially the little baby in Texas who died because hospitals there have the right to overrule parents' decisions regarding life-support. They are highly critical of this, and they know it's horrible.

The folks who support Terry Schiavo are just as critical of the Bush camp as you guys are, if not more. Many of us are very much aware that these politicians are using Terry in various political moves.

Yet, none of these things is Terry's fault. And, she should not have to die a slow, horrible, painful death because of them. Death by dehydration and starvation is horrible. I would never want to try it.

Since I am against the death penalty for murderers, isn't it consonant that I should be against the death penalty for an innocent, disabled woman?

The only "technology" that Terry relies on, is an 8 inch rubber tube, and it works by gravity only.

There is evidence that Terry's husband was physically abusive towards her. She has had injuries to her bones, and was in pain for a long time. Her husband would not allow her to receive treatment for life-threatening infections. She has not had a dental exam for several years, and has lost four teeth because of dental neglect.

Terry only needs a feeding tube because her husband would not allow her to eat by spoon. She was being spoon-fed at the hospice, and enjoying it, but her husband said she should only be fed by tube.

Terry breathes on her own. Therefore, she is not in a persistent vegetative state, by definition. She is also not brain-dead, and not terminally ill. She was placed in a hospice illegally, and there are many irregularities regarding Medicare and so forth, in her hospice. (Although, I admit, I'm not familiar with the particulars of it.)

Hospice care is supposed to be only for those who have six months or less to live. Terry is 41, and has no disease. She is disabled, not terminally ill, or vegetative, or brain dead.

Michael received a 1.7 million dollar award for Terry's rehabilitation, yet she has never received any rehabilitation. Her husband even told nurses not to put a washcloth in her hand, to prevent her from curling in her fingers.

As far as following the money, the judge in this case and Michael's attorney have some strong connections to some "right-to-die" organizations. There is also some very compelling evidence of corruption and collusion among the three of them.

I don't care about the Democrats, or the Republicans, or the left or the right, or anybody in Congress, or any politics at all.

I only care about Terry.

I am not an ideologue (or however you spell it), and I think the right and the left are both pretty much full of baloney, to tell you the truth.

We are all human beings, and this is an issue of simple fairness and justice.

To learn about the facts,go to "Myths About Terry" on http://www.terrisfight.org

Posted by: Diana Goodavage at March 21, 2005 04:35 PM
You misunderstand. We're all on Terri's side. We all feel deeply for what she is going through.

No one can win with what is happening, especially Terri Schiavo. Most importantly, this is a private family matter and it is truly not our business nor is it our government's business.

If the people who love her most cannot resolve this, how can you expect anyone else to?

Posted by: madame defarge at March 21, 2005 05:09 PM

Fox is preparing a new family sitcom for the fall 2005 that addresses this very question:

DeLay Knows Best

"Since I am against the death penalty for murderers, isn't it consonant that I should be against the death penalty for an innocent, disabled woman?

There is evidence that Terry's husband was physically abusive towards her.

She is also not brain-dead.."

Diana: how do you know that she is not brain dead. Have you gone to medical school and practiced medicine to come up with this conclusion because numerous board certified neurologists, including independent court appointed neurologists have concluded otherwise.

"There is evidence that her husband has 'physically abused her". Whose evidence is this and what constitutes abuse?

I do not doubt or question your sincerity. What I doubt are the so called facts we are being force fed by right wing lunatics like my congressman Tom DeLay, whose medical knowledge doesn't extend past being an exterminator hell bent on saving himself from sure indictment with this deversion.

My problem with this case are the people like Delay and Scaithe funding this, the agenda of these folks and the 5 million dollars expended for this one poor woman. I am informed that this was a medical malpractice matter which Republicans daily rail against. I also have a problem with the problem that over 45 million cannot buy health insurance, that my 89 year old healthier mom struggles to buy her medications because this Administration refuses to let her buy them from Canada and at the same time Medicaid is expending $5 million or more on Ms. Schiavo, millions of children and millions of disabled folks are being denied medical care.

It is a Values Issue for me. Why is this one woman's life which many experts question exists more vital to this country than millions of ordinary kids and families who are not Republicans or allies of Tom DeLaye who can not afford ordinary vaccinations, simple xrays or medications. And as a husband I want to know why my wishes for my wife should be overriden by other family members or the political agenda of the right wing.

My mom had a feed tube inserted because of dementia. It was a very difficult struggle for my family. Should we have first consulted with Tom Delaye or Sen Frist before we decided to take it out, or should my family have the right to make that decision in consultaion with my mom's geriatric physician and rabbi? Why would that be any of your business, Tom Delay's business or Senator Frist's business.

If there is a dispute, and these things do happen why should we no longer trust our courts, judges, social workers, and attorney ad litems to make that decision in our local communities based on my local community standards, not the standards of Congress or someone in Congress who cares more about their next re-election ploy than my family.

And as a lawyer how far do we plan on going in totally undermining our judicial system? If we don't like a jury verdict or judges ruling do we now start asking our Congressperson to carve out a Congressional exception or call them activists judges because they ruled against us? And what happened to our belief in state's rights?

And allowing someone to die is not the death penalty. That is an affirmative action imposed by a jury to take away a life to exact a punishment.

This is what I am struggling with.

(bunny pajamas?)
Posted by: DiAnne at March 21, 2005 04:23 PM

DiAnne,

W signing in his Spongebob Squarepants pajamas would have been a great image . . .

Oh Bob---

you know that Spongebob is now officially cartoon-non-grata at the W/H now. S/B and Patrick have been exposed for what they really are.......

Posted by: Diana Goodavage at March 21, 2005 04:35 PM

Diane, I feel very sorry for you that you are being pulled in by this pack of lies. There is no evidence whatsoever of abuse by her husband. You sound like a nice person.

Second, you are woefully misinformed as to the facts about what a death by starvation is like. It is not at all painful. The body fairly quickly enters a euphoria type phase. Further, since Terri cerebral cortex is LIQUID, she cannot feel any sensation of pain whatsoever. I have read the list of lies at Terri's fight.

Your website and foundation are funded by the same people who fund other extremist and dangerous fundamentalist groups, so you should really find out more about the company you keep.

In order to better understand Terri's true extent of brain damage, perhaps you would like to consult the results of her CAT scan of her brain and a full medical explanation of those results by a physician who is staunchly opposed to "euthansia" and agrees that Terri's case is nothing of the sort.

Furthermore, Terri cannot swallow, and the kind of therapy that she would get for swallowing, would be electrical shock stimulation. She cannot receive food and liquid because she willdevelop aspirational pneumonia very quickly. If her husband really wanted to "do her in" he would order her to begin receiving food and drink immediately. She would be dead within the week.

But let's get down to basics, shall we? I have read every one of the 17 affidavits, plus the report of the examining physician on whose findings Schiavo's parents are basing their case, plus the rulings from the trial court and the court of appeals.

None of the 17 affidavits are by providers who examined Schiavo. Only one of the 17 providers claims to have reviewed her medical records. The remaining 16 providers apparently based their statements primarily on six snippets of videotape, totalling 4 minutes and 20 seconds, which have been posted on Schiavo's parents' website and broadcast repeatedly on the news. Several of them explicitly say that they viewed these clips on the net, and the others all refer to the same short samples of behavior (e.g., Schiavo's eyes tracking a balloon). Many of them say they read news stories about Schiavo. One admits to only seeing news stories and photographs. They all reference their experience with "similar patients," but without qualifying what they mean by "similar." For example, one doctor draws comparisons to catatonic patients - but catatonia simply refers to an absence of voluntary motion or interaction, and can be caused by any number of things. Another references stroke patients, and two more talk about patients with Alzheimer's. You see the problem, don't you?

Not one of them mentions the specific degree and type of brain damage that Schiavo has, as documented by her CAT scans:
Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. [...]

Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.

Most of the affidavits mention sophisticated new neuroimaging techniques which have been developed since the 1996 exams, and recommend that Schiavo receive a functional MRI (which tracks blood flow in the brain in response to specific stimuli) or a neuroSPECT exam (another functional imaging test). They note, correctly, that functional tests are capable of providing much more information about the nature and extent of brain damage than structural tests like a CAT scan. Yet Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex is not damaged, it is absent.

Terri Schiavo doesn't have a cerebral cortex. She's not going to have a normal fMRI pattern. She simply couldn't. So it's pointless to speculate about what it would mean if she did.

Terri Schiavo's case is tragic, but not medically complicated. Nothing about it suggests any room for diversity of medical or neuropsychological opinion. The "experts" who submitted affidavits appear to know little about her case beyond what they were able to glean from cherry-picked videotape segments only a few minutes in length. They recommend sophisticated neuroimaging techniques which are not relevant to the question of the feasibility of rehabilitation when the cerebral cortex is gone.

Here's the link to a breakdown of Terri's medical condition, with actual facts and tests and everything. http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_respectfulofotters_archive.html#111120735448873570

Here is the CAT scan of Terri Schiavo's brain, with a medical explanation of the imaging. http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/18/terri-schiavo-news/.

So you see, the points you make are completely invalid in the face of actual facts.

In fact Terry received much rehabilitaion for the first five years after her bulemia induced heart attack. There is no evidence of any collusion or anything remotely like it from Michael Schiavo and you tred on the lines of libel for even suggesting such.

And when you say the judge in this case, could you be more specific? This case has come before 19 judges and ALL nineteen without exception have come to the same conclusion. Are all nineteen wrong Diane? I think not.

I think perhaps your mind has been temporarily highjacked by the dangerous fringe which occupies a part of this country.

And while you may not agree, there is a real case here for all of us to consider: No one has the responsibility to submit to everything that medical science could potentially do to prolong life. As individuals who own and have sovereignty over our bodies, we have a fundamental right to bodily integrity. No one has the right to invade our bodies without our consent, even if their purpose is apparently benign.

And for anyone who wishes to read a fact based and thorough explicated review of this case, I would recommend this site: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/03/terri_schiavo.html.

And as far as your post goes, I have seen the EXACT SAME POST on eight different sites, all by different people. It's called talking points, and we are not fooled by you.

The thing about talking points is, Diane, you wouldn't need them if you had the facts on your side. And while you are at it. You should tell Randall Terry to go back where he came from.

Nobody needs his brand of hatriotism. Least of all the already pained family of Terri Schiavo.

Apologies for the long post, but nonsense must be fully dealt with.

Tips of the hat to Rivka and Hilzoy.

Spinnaker---

Bravo!! You are incredible.

spinaker your analysis was impecable. I apologize for all of my typos, my basic point was that we need to preserve some integrity to the judicial system and the separation of powers doctrine. Regardless of what many people think about courts, judges etc, most probate judges bend over backwords with attorney ad litems and independent medical reviews to do the right thing in these type of cases. We also need to make a judgment of how we intend to allocate our medical resources in this country. That is the only possible positive that come from this tragedy; a real discussion about moving forward on health care and how we allocate our resources to provide for the common good.

Well, I am glad to know you guys are on her side. She has been without food or water for over 72 hours now. So, if you care about her, I'm not sure what you are doing on this blog.

As far as "private family matters", that's what domestic violence used to be called. Terry is, or might have been, a victim of domestic violence. That was what caused the "incident" that resulted in her brain's being deprived of oxygen for several minutes.

At the time of the incident, she was alone in the house with her husband, Michael--------a registered nurse. Yet, she received no CPR, or other care.

Yes, many medical professionals have stated that she is not brain dead. How could she be brain dead, when she breathes, turns to sound, vocalizes (but not when she's alone), laughs, smiles, fixes her eyes (although she has trouble with this, possibly because she's blind)

Forcibly depriving a healthy, young, disabled woman of food and water, when she's incapable of fighting you off, is not "allowing" her to die. It's killing her.

If you deprived your family pet of food and/or water, you would be criminally liable. Here in Dane County, people can go to jail for decades for neglecting an animal.

Frankly, if your mom is breathing on her own, indeed I do hope you allow her to retain her feeding tube.

I am sorry about your mom's plight with the Rx. My mom, and my disabled son, and others I know and care about, have the same problem. I know it's difficult for all of us, especially those of us who are not so well-heeled.

But, none of these things is Terry's fault, and I feel that I should do what I can to help her. Not to do so would be a sin or crime of omission.

I do agree, that it's a great distraction for the politicos from other matters. Especially, the war. That's what politicians do. They're all a bunch of crooks, pretty much, as far as I'm concerned, and they're all just in it for what they can get, while spouting a bunch of platitudes to the average citizen (i.e., us, you and me). Most of them just haven't been caught yet.

But, so what? That's not Terry's fault, either. And, it can be fixed (or, worked on) later, after Terry gets her food and water back. I do not feel that the end can ever justify the means.

I do not think we are totally undermining our judicial system. Is Judge Greer completely infallible just because he is a judge?

On the contrary, the question is, what is to be done regarding a well-connected judge who is dishonest, corrupt, and determined to kill? I demonstrated for Mumia Abu-Jamal because Judge Sabo seemed determined to kill him. So, why wouldn't I do the same for Terry now that Judge Greer is trying to kill her?

As I'm sure you guys know, Mumia was "duly" convicted. I have always believed in Mumia's innocence, and I have always believed that he was the victim of corruption and collusion, and that he should get a new, fair trial.

Why would I expect less for Terry?

From what I know--------which isn't much, to be sure-----this would be a matter of federal review for this particular case only.

Personally, as a disabity rights advocate, I wish this were available in EVERY case. I think it was originally drafted to be available in every case, but some folks felt that was too broad, so they just made it for Terry only right now. Later, the may make it available to all disabled people. My understanding is that it will be like a habeas corpus review for the innocent.

When I started a disability rights organization several years ago, I had some very strong ties to some "left" and "liberal" causes, but they turned their backs on me when I suggested that perhaps those with the label "mental illness" did not deserve to be tortured, raped and murdered with impunity.

Please check out our Website:

http://repeal_51.tripod.com

I would like to thank all of you for your thoughtful, courteous responses. I'm so tired of all the name-calling and accusations. (Of course, I just called all politicians "crooks who haven't been caught yet" but I hope you won't tell on me for that LOL)

Diana,

I suggest you go back and re-read Spinnaker's post very closely and look at and thoroughly absorb the other sites which she has linked to within her post.

Respectfully,
dwahzon

Ms Goodavage,

I do not doubt your sincerity. But I do question you accepting a web-site by the family as an unbiased source for your information. It would be highly unethical for you to assume that you are repeating verified information. One must be able to refer to multiple sources.

As to why I am posting on this blog, may I only say to you that this happens to be a site for activists, interested in democracy, with a little 'd.' There are a multitude of issues that require even more attention than Terri Schiavo, and it is up to people like us to make sure those issues are addressed.

So, if you care about her, I'm not sure what you are doing on this blog.
Posted by: Diana Goodavage at March 21, 2005 06:05

I am here because I am a patriotic American who believes in democracy and all it entails. This site is the best one I've found to help me learn how to effect the changes our country so badly needs right now. As you can see, everyone helps each other and we give voice to all kinds of perspectives and discussions. That, to me, is the true definition of democracy.

So why are you here?

Spinnaker, and Tutterfly, Once again you have not let me down! I've been all over the web all day and this thread contains more information than I was able to gather.

The part of the bill the concerns me the most is the fact that the judge is ordered by Congress to conduct a "de novo" hearing. I had to use Google, but found out this means in effect that he starts over, a new hearing, without reference to any former findings. 19 judges have heard this case, The Supreme Court has passed on it not once but twice, and now Congress wants to start over. This sounds sarcastic, but I wonder if the judge will be in contempt of Congress if they don't like the findings?

Ms. Goodavage,

For someone who spends so much time claiming to be presenting facts in the face of media lies and deliberate distortions of the truth, it seems odd to me that you also spend so much time pointing out that you really don't know many actual facts of the Schiavo case at all. To wit:

"Terry is, or might have been, a victim of domestic violence. That was what caused the 'incident' that resulted in her brain's being deprived of oxygen for several minutes."

Either Terri (which btw is spelled with an "i" and not a "y", a really basic fact that you seem to have somehow missed also) was a victim of domestic violence, or she was not. A vague statement "...is, or might have been..." does not predicate a specific declarative statement like "That was what cause the 'incident'...".

If she might have been abused, then possibly that might have caused her heart attack (even though all the medical reports say otherwise); but if also might *not* have been abused, then you can't categorically state that abuse caused her condition. You have absolutely no way of knowing either way.

FYI, over a six-year period the Tallahassee Department of Children and Families investigated several dozen tips and reports regarding Terri's alleged "abuse", without finding evidence to support any of them. Perhaps they know more of the actual facts about this down there than you do up there.

Andf when you start off making your subsequent points with disclaimers like "From what I know--------which isn't much, to be sure-----", then it's awfully hard not to agree with you on that one. What you know to be sure doesn't seem to be much to me, either.

Ms. Goodavage, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are sincere in your beliefs, but those beliefs are misinformed and misguided when it comes to this particular case.

It's a terrible thing for anyone to have to be dealing with, and Terri's doctors and both sides of her family and their attorneys and all the layers of the Florida judicial system have been dealing with it for many, many years now.

So why not listen to your own statments about how little you know of the real facts of the Terri Schiavo case, and defer to their accumulated decades of study of the details while concerning yourself instead with the greater question of whether the legislative branch of the federal gocernment has any business whatsoever getting involved in such highly personal matters?

regards,
Otter

"won't tell on me for that?" what is that about?

A feeding tube is not making food/nutrition available, it is an extraordinary medical procedure. Most medical journals and I have read many when deciding about the care for my mom, recommnd against feeding tubes except for infants and only then for a short period of time.

Try volunteering at an Alzheimer's facility. You will understand what aspiration is all about.
Would you put a feeding tube Diane in a late staged Alzheimer's patient b/c they are breathing? In my mind that is the cruelty you are talking about.
You keep repeating its not Terry's fault. No, but the family has chosen on her behalf to be manipulated and used for partisan purposes by Tom DeLay and friends.

You refuse to answer my question whay 12 judges, numerous attorney ad litems, and the US Supreme Ct. are all wrong. I suppose that if a judge ruled against you or your family you would expect Congress to intervene an change the results. That is underminding an independent judiciary and ends the separation of powers which is the cornerstone of this democracy and would put an end to having an indpendent judiciary in this country, Diana.

Dear Spinnaker,

Thanks. You sound like a nice person, too.

You most definitely have NOT seen the exact same post anywhere. I just wrote it today, as I was sitting in front of the screen. I composed it entirely out of (what's left of) my own mind, without notes, or reference materials of any kind.

I really don't know what makes you think this. I am aware that Blogs for Terry does have a list of "Talking Points", but, actually I've never read this document. I guess most of the things in it are things that I learned from reading the other materials, so that may be why it sounds familiar to you, but PLEEEEEEEZ, I consider myself a writer of sorts, and I do have great respect for the English language.

I would never quote someone else's work without attribution. Also, I did not try to hide the fact that I was active on Blogs for Terry, or that I was actively trying to save Terry.

Yes, I do have a Website, but I have no foundation at all. My Website space is completely free, from Tripod, and, my organization's budget has been $0.00, for the five years that it has been in existence. I think you may have me mixed up with someone else.

I am not trying to fool anybody, and I don't understand why you would say that. I don't know anything about Tom Delay, and I don't really care anything about him, except that he's helping with this. I've never heard of that other name-----Scaife??------except, from Pittsburgh, where I grew up. The Mellon and Scaife families were in-laws or something, I think. I left Pittsburgh in 1983.

This word "hatriotism", I've never heard of that word, and I don't know what it means. Except, it seems to have something to do with "hatred".

Really, these words are very hurtful. You don't know me at all, and I hope I haven't said anything to offend anyone (except policitians LOL).

Diana:

You may be misinformed and well meaning
but I really doubt that you are so naive as to not understand how you are being used and manipulated by DeLay and Scaife for partisan political advantage. That is really sad to hear.
If you really think that Tom Delay gives a darn about Ms. Schiavo I suggest you read a little bit about his hateful political career and Randall Terry's.

If you haven't heard this on NPR today, you can listen to it here. It's an interview Dr. Jay Wolfson, who was Terri Schiavo's guardian ad litem for a month in 2003. Wolfson is a professor of public health and law at the University of South Florida.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4544756

And here is a link to Dr. Wolfson's report: http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf

To me, the real issue here is why our Congress is inserting themselves in the private affair of a single family. I'm amazed at the amount of my tax dollars that have been expended. Any idea of the $$ amount it took to keep Congress open and in session last night? Not to mention to pay for yet another trip back from Crawford from yet another vacation for the pretender-in-chief.

We need to be talking about how we communicate to our representatives and senators how we feel about their expenditure of resources and why they haven't addressed health care for ALL Americans.

Diane,

I do all that work to bring you to reality and you don't even go and read before you post the talking points again.

the fact of the matter is that I faced the same situation with my father, who in the late stage of COPD and emphysema, could not swallow without aspirational pneumonia and so feeding tube or no feeding tube. Being a lawyer, you'd think he would have left specific instructions, wouldn't you?> But nope. He didn't. He did discuss it with me, however, and made me PROMISE no extrordinary measures. Are food and drink extraodinary measures I needed to decide. Yes, they were, because they involved and assault on his body. With them he could have lived years and year probably, but to what end. He was bed ridden, awaiting the next round of pnemonia, unable to speak and in the throes of dementia. Would that the decision were as easy to make as Terri Schiavos. But he made me promise, and that was that.

There is nothing which says that we need take medical treatment ad infinitum, and this is not a case about Michael Schiavo, but Terri Schiavo, who made her wishes known to a number of people. And as for the "judge is a part of a vast left wing conspiracy" you have presented no evidence of such. And how about the guardian, was the guardian who gave a thorough accounting of the settlement money and called Michael's care of his wife "exemplary" and put her in the care of places and was so attentive that she never even had one bedsore in thirteen years? Was he in on it too? If Michael was in it for himself, why not just spirit her out of town? To some substandard treatment facility? There was nothing whatsoever that would have prevented him from doing so in the last fifteen years. As a matter of fact and law, he could have, himself, without the court EVER being involved, ordered the end of the feeding tube. It was Michael who brought it to court to help Terri's parents deal with the loss of their daughter.

And you only mention Judge Greer. What about the other eighteen judges. And I believe I already made a thorough review of all of the Schindler consultants and the inartfulnews of their case review which , again nineteen courts rejected.

If you are wondering how to account for Terry's "so called" laughing, etc, let me help you out, as you quite obviously know nothing of stroke or hypoxia patients. I can help you out here Diane, because my sister had a double necked brain aneurysm rupture at the age of 49 , so I am very well acquianted iwth the effect of stroke and hypoxia on every area of the brain.

The 17 affidavits all put considerable weight on the fact that, in the video snippets on Schiavo's parents' website, she appears to be responding to stimulation. Her eyes track a balloon. She smiles in response to her mother's voice. The affidavits therefore conclude that Schiavo is appropriately responsive to external stimuli, and that she is at least minimally conscious - not in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) at all. Yet none of the exhibited behaviors are, in themselves, unusual for patients with PVS. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke:
Individuals in such a state have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns. Even though those in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher brain functions, other key functions such as breathing and circulation remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur, and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may even occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh. Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands.
So the presence of smiles, grimaces, vocalizations, and eye movements alone is not relevant to the question of whether Schiavo has retained any degree of consciousness or may benefit from therapy. They may be in part reflexive - as when she "smiles" when her cheek is stroked - and they may be completely random. The key to the 4 minutes and 20 seconds of video is that Schiavo seems to be responding in a meaningful way to specific stimuli. All 17 experts who reference the videos take for granted that they demonstrate meaningful emotional or communicative responses. Could they really all be wrong?

Oh, yes. All you need to know to illuminate the question is that the six snippets of video were selected from 4 1/2 hours of tape. As do most people with PVS, Schiavo emits random behaviors and noises. If a person gives enough commands or makes enough interaction attempts over the course of several hours, by sheer coincidence some of Schiavo's random behaviors will appear to coincide with their commands. Both the trial court and the appeals court viewed the entire 4 1/2 hour tape, and both concluded that her responses were indeed random. As the original court decision pointed out:
Dr. Hammesfahr testified that he felt that he was able to get Terry Schiavo to reproduce repeatedly to his commands. However, by the court's count, he gave 105 commands to Terry Schiavo and, at his direction, Mrs. Schindler gave an additional 6 commands. Again, by the court's count, he asked her 61 questions and Mrs. Schindler, at his direction, asked her an additional 11 questions. The court saw few actions that could be considered responsive to either those commands or those questions. The videographer focused on her hands when Dr. Hammesfahr was asking her to squeeze. While Dr. Hammesfahr testified that she squeezed his finger on command, the video would not appear to support that and his reaction on the video likewise would not appear to support that testimony.
Hammesfahr's own report makes clear that he relied on a ludicrously low standard to conclude that Schiavo's responses were purposeful:
Interestingly, some of the commands, such as close your eyes, open your eyes, etc. she tended to do several minutes after I gave her the command to do so. She had a delay in her processing of the action. However, when praised for the action, she would then continue to do the action repetitively for up to approximately 5 minutes. As we had moved on to other areas of the exam, at times she was continuing to do the previous command, then at inappropriate times since the focus of the exam had changed.
He commanded her to emit some of her known behaviors, such as closing or opening her eyes. If she did, that was a "hit" - a sign that she had obeyed the command. If she did so several minutes later, that was still a "hit," apparently no matter what else he'd asked her to do in the interim. If she continued , long after he'd moved on, that was not a sign that she was unresponsive to his subsequent commands but, instead, a sign that she was responsive to praise. Almost any response, correct or incorrect, could apparently be interpreted to signal consciousness. Hammesfahr, like Schiavo's parents, wanted to be convinced. Sorry to say, it doesn't work like that Diane.

As far as a habeas corpus review, Terri has had more due process that any case in history, and that too is a fact. To suggest otherwise, is to outright lie, and I am almost certain that is not your intent.

As for people with mental illness, that is another topic for another day, as Terri Schiavo is not mentally ill, and none of the court documents, nor even Terri parents or family go so far as to assert this.

I would strongly suggest you review the difference between "killing" and allowing someone to refuse medical treatment and unwanted assault on their person.

What is at issue in the Terri Schiavo case is not whether it is legitimate to kill her or actively promote her death (for example, by an overdose of morphine), but whether it is legitimate to refuse medical treatment intended to prolong her life. (Make no mistake about it: nutrition and hydration are medical treatment, when they're supplied through a stomach tube.) While the distinction between active promotion of death and witholding lifesaving medical treatment may seem like hair-splitting, in fact they are critically different.

I will state it again with thanks to rivka:

No one has the responsibility to submit to everything that medical science could potentially do to prolong life. As individuals who own and have sovereignty over our bodies, we have a fundamental right to bodily integrity. No one has the right to invade our bodies without our consent, even if their purpose is apparently benign. If we are competent adults, we have the right to refuse medical treatment at any stage of an illness. That might mean opting out of a second round of chemotherapy after a first round of cancer treatments has failed, preferring to focus on preserving quality of life for the time we have left. It might mean deciding to die of a terminal illness at home, even if hospitalization could add a few extra hours or days. It might mean requesting aggressive pain management, knowing that it might depress respiration and shorten our lives. We have the right to say "enough," and let the natural dying process take its course. We have the right to have the integrity of our bodies unviolated by unwanted medical treatment - just as we have the right to insist on aggressive efforts for life extension. We have the right to choice. And when we are no longer able to exercise that right ourselves, we have the right to designate our closest others to do so on our behalf.

To define the exercise of that right as "killing" is to pervert the end of life unimaginably. The natural course of life ends with death. To allow that natural process to take its course is profoundly different than hastening it along. Asking others to refrain from interfering with nature is profoundly different from asking them to make, or be complicit in, the decision that nature is not progressing quickly enough - as in euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia asks the physician to play God, to decide whether another person's life is sufficiently without value that it should be actively terminated. The cessation of life support asks the physician to stop playing God, to refrain from intervening further in a disease process which has its natural terminus in death.

Terri Schiavo is under no moral or legal obligation to stay alive at whatever the cost to her bodily integrity, in order to assuage our fears of death or nuture her parents' unrealistic hopes of a miraculous recovery. A court has determined, based on the testimony of several witnesses, that Schiavo's wish would have been to remain unviolated by a feeding tube if she had no hope of recovering. That ruling has been affirmed and re-affirmed. It is our best estimate, our only estimate, of what Terri Schiavo would have wanted. If we want our own rights to bodily integrity preserved, we have no choice but to uphold hers.

Enough is enough.

dwahzon:

I may be alone here in fearing that our judicial system, the bedrock of our democracy is being undermined. Whenever we don't like a jury verdict or judge's ruling we just call up Tom DeLay and ask for a favor.

Congressman Hoyers mentioned $5 million. They may be for Ms. Schiavo's medical care but think of how many sick children $5 million could care for.

Perhaps what we need to do is turn this into a healthcare debate. Kerry's Kid's First Program will help with that argument dwahzon.

Ms Goodavage, Once upon a time, in a blog far far away, you might have been called a troll and we would have been done with you. One of the things you fail to understand here is our concern is the Act of Congress which is overreaching at least. Do you actually want Congress to pass bills on every custody case that comes to family court? Do you want all medical treatments to have to pass Congress? There is a point of seperation of powers here that all the pleas for Terry's life fail to address. It is not the case per see, however sad it is, that concerns us here, it is a Congress that is attempting to legislate over the courts.

I'm not looking for "objectivity". I don't believe there is such a thing in any event. It's fairness and accuracy I want.

The reason Terry has never had a CAT scan, is that Michael would not allow it. That's also the reason these other doctors referred to, have never seen Terry. Michael would not allow it.

The fact that Michael has two kids with another woman, should have disqualified him as Terry's guardian a long time ago.

Michael received a 1.7 million dollar award for Terry's rehabilitation. But, that money has never been used for any rehabilitation for Terry. It has instead been used to pay Michal's attorney to obatin a judicial order to kill Terry.

If Terry's parents love her and are willing to care for her-----at their own expense--------then, why doesn't Michael just give up the guardianship, and allow her parents to care for her, as they wish? Why is Michael using government intervention, instead of just peacefully------and economically--------allowing the Schindlers to take her home?

That would resolve the issue of so much government money being spent, wouldn't it?

As a disability rights activist, I am very well aware of how attorneys and judges can and do sometimes distort and filter the facts-----especially when there is a $$$$ motive.

I thought the same thing about the cases of Mumia, Leonard Peltier, the Rosenbergs, and Joe Hill.

I am a speech pathologist with extensive swallow therapy experience, both with head-injured people and stroke patients.

Speech and swallow are highly complex neurological functions. Both require coordinated action at cortical, subcortical and peripheral sensory and motor nerve levels.

A Modified Barium Swallow evaluation is required to determine swallow safety, as aspiration can occur silently, without a cough reflex or other evidence save a low-grade temperature.

If the swallow mechanism is not reliable for both the oral bolus preparation phase (which relies on the cortex) and the pharyngeal phase (which is a reflex and relies on a fairly intact brainstem), feeding is very likely to cause aspiration into the lungs and aspiration pneumonia.

If the patient has a very latent and poorly-coordinated or poorly-timed swallow, then they would have to have certain positioning, textural and feeding technique recommendations made and followed to the letter. A person who cannot remain alert for a certain period of time is especially at risk.

It is quite difficult for someone with an impaired swallow to have the stamina and consistency of the swallow to take in all three meals by mouth. Well-meaning family members in many cases do not want to listen closely to swallow guidelines by a swallow professional, as feeding has such psychological importance tied to it in all cultures. They can inadvertently do great harm.

Also the electrical stimulation of the swallow that Spinnaker mentioned is quite experimental. Thermal stimulation is as well and most effects would occur within the first 3-6 months following the anoxic episode and after that, brain plasticity continues to diminish.

Cardiac arrest in particular can "erase" permanently certain brain function via anoxia, as the brain can not tolerate absense of oxygen for more than a few minutes, particularly the cortex. To speak, one needs to be able to comprehend, to formulate, to motor plan and execute the words.
There then must be adequate breath support for sound, controlled vibration of the laryngeal mechanism, then control of resonance and articulation via the pharynx and oral/lingual musculature.

Making a vocalization is fairly vegetative and the most easily produced is a vocalic sound, a grunt or an "automatic" overlearned word or even phrase but this can be done without much cortical linguistic or motor planning and may be about the extent of what can ever be expected, given severe brain damage, especially a long time post-onset.

I know it's not easy. I have a sister who is a chronic schizophrenic and once held out more hope than I do now. The thing about God or nature, there is no bending to the wishes of humans, no matter how hard they pray. A true faith would be in the universe and the realization that we are a small, humble part of it. We have no more say about what goes on in the grand scheme than does a rock, stick or earthworm.

Diana

If you are not looking for objectivity, then why would you advocate for a CAT scan?!

"The fact that Michael has two kids with another woman, should have disqualified him as Terry's guardian a long time ago." Problem: it doesn't.
Legally, as husband, he is still the guardian; whether you agree with that or not. Sorry, neither you nor Tom DeLay get to make up laws to fit your agenda.

This is what we use in the field of head injury rehabilitation. It is possible to range between levels 2-3. Patients must be consistently in level 3 to benefit from rehab and after about a year, probably will not change much if they don't begin to move up the levels. What I have read about responses in the above passage never exceeds Level 3 and does not stay in Level 3.

Rancho Los Amigos Scale of Coma

I. No Response

Patient appears to be in a deep sleep and is unresponsive to stimuli.

II. Generalized Response

Patient reacts inconsistently and nonpurposefully to stimuli in a nonspecific manner. Reflexes are limited and often the same, regardless of stimuli presented.

III. Localized Response

Patient responses are specific but inconsistent, and are directly related to the type of stimulus presented, such as turning head toward a sound or focusing on a presented object. He may follow simple commands in an inconsistent and delayed manner.

IV. Confused-Agitated

Patient is in a heightened state of activity and severely confused, disoriented, and unaware of present events. His behavior is frequently bizarre and inappropriate to his immediate environment. He is unable to perform self-care. If not physically disabled, he may perform automatic motor activities such as sitting, reaching and walking as part of his agitated state, but not necessarily as a purposeful act.

V. Confused-Inappropriate, Non-Agitated

Patient appears alert and responds to simple commands. More complex commands, however, produce responses that are nonpurposeful and random. The patient may show some agitated behavior it is in response to external stimuli rather than internal confusion. The patient is highly distractible and generally has difficulty in learning new information. He can manage self-care activities with assistance. His memoryis impaired and verbalization is often inappropriate.

VI. Confused-Appropriate

Patient shows goal-directed behavior, but relies on cueing for direction. He can relearn old skills such as activities of daily living, but memory problems interfere with new learning. He has a beginning awareness of self and others.

VII. Automatic-Appropriate

Patient goes through daily routine automatically, but is robot-like with appropriate behavior and minimal confusion. He has shallow recall of activities, and superficial awareness of, but lack of insight to, his condition. He requires at least minimal supervision because judgment, problem solving, and planning skills are impaired.

VIII. Purposeful-Appropriate

Patient is alert and oriented, and is able to recall and integrate past and recent events. He can learn new activities and continue in home and living skills, though deficits in stress tolerance, judgment, abstract reasoning, social, emotional, and intellectual capacities may persist.

I just had the opportunity to listen to the Wolfson interview, and his point of view is very pursuasive. This seems yet another instance of the actual facts in a situation being overwhelmed by ideological spin.

We are becoming a nation completely run by emotion, not logic.

Ah, but Terri (with an "i") *has* had a CAT scan. And that CAT scan shows abnormalities that indicate her PVS brain condition.

So it's pretty obvious that, despite your disclaimers, "fairness and accuracy" are *not* what you want. You're not even interested in looking at them when they're right there on the page in front of you.

And "The fact that Michael has two kids with another woman" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether he is qualified to remain her legal guardian or not. It's completely irrelevant. And it's also none of your business.

*None* of this is any of your business, actually. Or ours. Or Congress' -- *especially* Congress'. And that's the point the rest of us are all focused on here.

So please, Ms. Goodavage, stop wasting your time and ours by just repeating the same specious non-truths and dubious allegations and pre-digested opinions at us over and over, ok