Mitch,

Terri is not starving. Terri does not feel anything. Terri’s cerebral cortex is gone. It has been replaced by spinal fluid. The Florida courts which have endlessly reviewed this case have said that “no guardianship court has ever received as much high-quality medical evidence in such a proceeding” in finding that Terri is just simply gone. Read the extensive decisions for yourself and see what the repeatedly found evidence after two full trials was.

Here's the original appellate decision affirming the trial court’s conclusion after listening to all the medical testimony:

“The evidence is overwhelming that Theresa is in a permanent or persistent vegetative state. It is important to understand that a persistent vegetative state is not simply a coma. She is not asleep. She has cycles of apparent wakefulness and apparent sleep without any cognition or awareness. As she breathes, she often makes moaning sounds. Theresa has severe contractures of her hands, elbows, knees, and feet.

Over the span of this last decade, 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 At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid.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. “

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt

After a SECOND trial is ordered to consider purported new medical information, another appellate decision upheld the original findings:

“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.”

http://www.2dca.org/opinion/June%2006,%202003/2D02-5394.pdf

If the removal of a feeding tube was such a horrible way to go, why does Florida law specifically provide for the removal of feeding tubes where the patient’s wishes were clear [as repeatedly found in this case]? Neither the proposed new laws in the Florida legislature nor Congress’s absurd one-shot grant of federal jurisdiction does anything to change the fact that removal of feeding tubes is a well-established right throughout the country and such tubes are disconnected every day of the week.

There are close cases in the world. This is not one of them.
/jc

Posted by: Slash at March 21, 2005 10:29 AM

This case merely shows that the upcoming civil war is becoming a necessity. I don't think it's even a question of if but when anymore. There are so many issues, like the Schaivo case and abortion and the culture war and the battle between merit culture and the entitelment culture, where Red America needs to rise, and if necesary put Blue Amerika to the bayonet.

I for one won't bat an eye when the baloon goes up.

Posted by: Ray M at March 21, 2005 11:23 AM

Yes, damn those evil anti-American liberals and their respect for the rule of law, states' rights, and limited government.

How dare we suggest that the State of Florida and its duly appointed judges be allowed to pass laws and adjudicate them? How dare we suggest that when that case is adjudicated, that it's a bad idea for the United States Congress to get involved?

There was a time when you guys pretended you cared about limiting the scope of government. Stop lying. You don't give a damn about the size of government--as long as it's interfering where you want it to.

Well I do. Guess what? The party of small government is the Democratic party. If ever there was a doubt, it evaporated over the weekend.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at March 21, 2005 11:34 AM

Slash,

You got the facts right - but for the wrong issue.

I don't think Terry Schiavo is coming back; I know her brain is gone. I don't think she's capable of "emotion" in the sense that most of us recognize, as some of the anti-death crowd thinks.

And it doesn't matter. It's not about her mental/vegetative state.

It's about whether and when we err on the side of life when in doubt. And I think it's fairly reasonable to say that there are doubts.

For starters, Schiavo is not terminal - no more so than you or I, really, Slash. Her cerebrum is gone, but on the other hand it does NOT require any heroic measures to keep her alive. She requires food and water, and not a whole lot more. And labor and money have been pledged to keep that level of support going as long as needed.

There are doubts and questions about the medical exam she's been given, and Mr. Schiavo's motivations - but let's leave all of that aside.

Here's what it amounts to, as far as I (and a lot of people) are concerned: The only idea we have about Terry Schiavo's wishes comes from a man with a conflict of interest, who didn't mention those alleged wishes until *years* after the PVS set in. Terry has become inconvenient to him.

So on the one side, given a presumption that when in doubt life is to be preserved, we know that Schiavo will live for years with fairly minimal support, and that support is available in great profusion...

...while on the other, given the presumption that Michael Schiavo is right and that Terry *did* want to be left to die in this state (a story that only popped up years into her condition), the question is, when in doubt, what do we do?

Today, Terry's life is inconvenient for Michael Schiavo (and pro-euthanasia activists, and pro-abortion activists behind them); that decision will be used tomorrow (as it has already been used in the Netherlands) by other relatives on fuzzier cases; then, by Medicare; then, by insurance companies.

This isn't about whether Terry Schiavo will ever "recover" (although she's more intellectually acute than Air America's Mike Malloy even in her current state); it's about how far down the slippery slope we want a bunch of judges in Florida to let us slide.

I know, Slash; you don't believe in slippery slopes, because lawyers and judges ALWAYS find the reasonable solution.

Unless they're John Ashcroft, of course.

Posted by: mitch at March 21, 2005 11:39 AM

Ray: Ooof. Not exactly what I'm after here...

Posted by: mitch at March 21, 2005 11:40 AM

Jeff,

So many strawmen. My semi-automatic rifle can't get 'em all. Must switch to the fully-automatic one.

"Yes, damn those evil anti-American liberals and their respect for the rule of law, states' rights, and limited government."

Snarks rejected without comment.

"How dare we suggest that the State of Florida and its duly appointed judges be allowed to pass laws and adjudicate them? How dare we suggest that when that case is adjudicated, that it's a bad idea for the United States Congress to get involved?"

Who's saying you can't suggest it? We're suggesting they, and you, are wrong.

"There was a time when you guys pretended you cared about limiting the scope of government. "

Gosh, Jeff. Even the tiniest of governments abjure and condemn murder.

"Stop lying. You don't give a damn about the size of government--as long as it's interfering where you want it to."

Jeff, take a Valium. The sheer incongruity of comparing the liberal view of government - it can solve all our problems, it is inherently good, tax policy shall be used to level the economic playing field - with trying to use the law to ensure the definition of *life itself* isn't cheapened to worthlessness is a gap too big to bridge. Shall the uncorroborated word of a husband-in-name for whom Terry Schiavo's live is deeply inconvenient be accepted over 4,000 years of Western tradition that says that absent an individual's express wishes, when in doubt we fight for life?

"Well I do. Guess what? The party of small government is the Democratic party."

Er, yeah. Only until someone suggests cutting taxes, or that "judges" shouldn't create law.

The congress IS siding with smaller government in this case - trying to return control over Terry Schiavo's life to the *INDIVIDUALS* who are most concerned with her welfare.

Posted by: mitch at March 21, 2005 11:52 AM

You took both those guys and beat the crap out of 'em, Mitch. Well said. Leftists think snarky, sarcastic remarks are an argument. Has Slash ever heard of doctors testifying in court cases for whatever side needs their "expert opinion" to match up with their needs?

Terry's wishes should have been in writing...not hearsay from a husband that clearly wants her dead for selfish reasons. He's not still loving her, sitting by her bedside wishing better for her. Sitting home alone grieving for the life they had together. She's an inconvenience. He's a pig. Why not just divorce her and let her parents worry about it all. VERY fishy.

Posted by: Colleen at March 21, 2005 12:12 PM

Why doesn't he divorce her? He's been offered $10 million dollars to do just that. Terri's parents are okay with it, which would make it easy. So why not?

It could be that he wants to kill Terri dead. But that doesn't make any sense--she's already dead.

Or it could be that he sincerely believes he's honoring her wishes, and is willing to do what it takes to make sure her wishes are met.

This isn't murder. As I note on my site, my mom made this same decision ten years ago. I'll be goddamned if I sit here and let you call her a murderer, Mitch. She was doing what was right, and what my grandmother would have wanted her to do. So if I get a bit angry in my response, be aware that I do so because the incomprehensible Congressional interference in this case doesn't just call Michael Schiavo's conduct into question, but the conduct of everyone who's ever had to make this horrible decision.

As for Michael Schiavo--his wife died fifteen years ago. He switched careers to care for her. Five years ago, he became convinced she would never recover, and started trying to allow her body to pass peacefully. Should the man sit home for all eternity pining for a woman who is dead, but whose body keeps going?

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at March 21, 2005 12:18 PM

Good thing I switched to the fully-automatic strawman gun. I have to change belts.

This time, hollow points:

"It could be that he wants to kill Terri dead. But that doesn't make any sense--she's already dead."

Well, except for that pesky heart still beating and the fact that she is in no way terminal, except for the brain.

"This isn't murder. As I note on my site, my mom made this same decision ten years ago. I'll be goddamned if I sit here and let you call her a murderer, Mitch."

And yet another strawman, Jeff, and a really cheap, manipulative, sleazy and insulting one at that. Had Terry Schiavo had the same wishes clearly understood - that is, in a living will or by multiple people aside from her potentially-interest-conflicted husband - then neither I nor Congress would have ever heard about this case, and Terry Schiavo might or might not have passed away years ago.

But she didn't. All we have to go by are an interest-conflicted husband's long-delayed statement on the one hand, and on the other a tradition that says *when in doubt*, you choose life.

"She was doing what was right, and what my grandmother would have wanted her to do."

Right. *Because everyone knew it*. And there's a key difference; if I recall your post correctly (my office blocks Blogspot), your grandmother was clearly terminal. Schiavo is not, at least not physically. And if mental state is the sole gauge of viability, then as a parent I'm here to tell you no human is viable until they can hold down a job.

"As for Michael Schiavo--his wife died fifteen years ago. He switched careers to care for her. Five years ago, he became convinced she would never recover, and started trying to allow her body to pass peacefully. Should the man sit home for all eternity pining for a woman who is dead, but whose body keeps going?"

Perhaps not, but it's not about him.

Posted by: mitch at March 21, 2005 12:34 PM

MItch, I like your writing, but you have the same probem so many conservatives do. You don't think things are as bad as they are. You have hope. You really think your'e dealing with an enemy that believes the US is a free asociation of equals any more, rather than THEIR country to be run THEIR way and screw the peasant who would stand in their way.

Most Ameircans in 1776 did not think the time was right for armed revolt either. They then like you now are wrong. The issues we face today are no less intense than the ones in 1860. Its about the definition of life and who controls it. No more should people be able to kill the unborn or inconvient than they should be able to keep slaves. The Democrats would give no ground on slaves, they sure wont on abortion or euthansa (pardon my spelling).

Why is today different? I do not see it. I do see, though, a war in the future, nearer than you think. Sorry if that rains on anyones parade.

Posted by: Ray M at March 21, 2005 12:43 PM

Ray-
I heartily agree with you. It's going to get ugly in the future. The only reason it's gotten to the state it is now is because people sat around "being nice" while the shadows grew. They figured it wouldn't go that far...no matter what subject you hit on...abortion, euthanasia, property rights, environmentalism, education (or lack thereof..), religious persecution...etc.tc. etc. Well, it's gone that far and then some. And it's just warming up.

Posted by: Colleen at March 21, 2005 01:42 PM

Mitch,

You say:
“It's about whether and when we err on the side of life when in doubt. And I think it's fairly reasonable to say that there are doubts.”

-Then it’s clear you haven’t read any of the several Florida court decisions answering conclusively all of the alleged questions. Here they are, read them for yourself and see that there are in fact no doubts:

Original trial court order after trial
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

Second trial court order after new evidence received:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder0300.pdf

First appellate court decision affirming trial court orders:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt

Third trial court order after holding a new trial specifically on the issue of the medical evidence:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt

Second appellate court decision affirming the trial court’s findings after the new trial on the medical evidence:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt

The Florida Supreme Court decision striking down “Terri’s Law” as unconstitutional:
http://snipurl.com/dkg0

I’ve omitted the numerous decisions on more procedural matters.

You continued, Mitch:
“For starters, Schiavo is not terminal - no more so than you or I, really, Slash. Her cerebrum is gone, but on the other hand it does NOT require any heroic measures to keep her alive. She requires food and water, and not a whole lot more. And labor and money have been pledged to keep that level of support going as long as needed.”

-Against her stated wishes. Does that not matter to you? It certainly does matter under well-settled Florida law.

See appellate court decision:

We note that the guardianship court's original order expressly relied upon and found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were important evidence when deciding whether she would choose in February 2000 to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. See § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 16. Nevertheless, the trial judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs. Schiavo's values, personality, and her own decision-making process.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder07-01.txt

Mitch continued:
“There are doubts and questions about the medical exam she's been given, and Mr. Schiavo's motivations - but let's leave all of that aside.”

-Surely, as they have no basis in fact. Read the decisions.

About the famous “smile” on the video and purported attention she pays to her parents:

The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. . . .
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.”

Read the entire second appellate court decision after the new trial on the medical evidence. All the medical evidence is thoroughly discussed:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt

Mitch continued:
“Here's what it amounts to, as far as I (and a lot of people) are concerned: The only idea we have about Terry Schiavo's wishes comes from a man with a conflict of interest, who didn't mention those alleged wishes until *years* after the PVS set in. Terry has become inconvenient to him.”

-Again, just plain false, as found by repeated court decisions. E.g.,:

Original trial court order:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

First appellate court decision:

“Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt

Don’t believe those mean old courts? Read the opinion of the independent guardian Jeb and the Shindler’s insisted be appointed under the unconstitutional Terri’s law:

“Michael "had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care . . . In late autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing and formal diagnoses of persistent vegetative state with no evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa to California, where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. Michael remained in California caring for Theresa during a period of several months."

Says Wolfson now: "Michael was adoring of her. One nursing home complained he was hostile and abusive of the staff in championing her care. She was immaculately kept. In 13 years, she never had one bedsore."”

http://snipurl.com/d1sb

Mitch concluded:
This isn't about whether Terry Schiavo will ever "recover" (although she's more intellectually acute than Air America's Mike Malloy even in her current state); it's about how far down the slippery slope we want a bunch of judges in Florida to let us slide.

No, Mitch, this case is about whether a person who has been found to have clearly expressed a desire against receiving artificial life support will be kept alive against her will, and whether after repeated state courts have examined all the medical evidence and witness testimony and made repeatedly affirmed decisions under Florida law, the Congress will step in between a person’s own wishes and force treatment upon them.

So much for limited government.
/jc

Posted by: Slash at March 21, 2005 01:57 PM

Ray, you are hilarious.

"No more should people be able to kill the unborn or inconvient than they should be able to keep slaves."

But before...

"if necesary put Blue Amerika to the bayonet."

So, kill the inconvenient or don't kill the inconvenient? Or just those inconvenient Blue voting Americans? Putting Americans "to the bayonet" doesn't sound like much of a 'culture of life.'

Posted by: Andy at March 21, 2005 06:52 PM

Slash--

Well said.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at March 21, 2005 07:04 PM

Geez. I have never, ever heard anyone say they'd want to be kept alive in this Schiavo's state, whatever you want to call it. Let the woman die in peace - it's what I'd want for my loved one, it's what most people want for themselves. The posturing of congress and the President on this absolutely sickens me. What a sick, shameless spectacle.

Posted by: Chuck Olsen at March 25, 2005 04:10 AM

You've hit the nail on the head, Chuck. Personally I don't know what I'd do in a situation where I had to decide life-or-death for a loved one. I hope I never have to, but I will only know what to do if I'm faced with it directly, not by judging it from afar.

And that's why the second part of your post is so pithy. What is happening outside her hospital room is not a noble response to her pathos. Complete strangers judging this situation from afar, both FOR and AGAINST, are out of line.

It's perfectly abhorrent.

Posted by: Angie at March 25, 2005 02:58 PM

Re: Schiavo 3/21: It sounds like Mitch has the most love for Terri. An answer would be for Mitch to legally adopt her, go bedside and care for her to the end.This would not be a burden for someone that dedicated: her husband did it all those years before he had to face caregiver burnout. Surely some years from now we would forgive Mitch if he had to opt out then; meanwhile, all the expenses are being covered, and will be, unless George Bush gets his Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security "reforms" passed by our intelligent Congress.

This way everybody would be happy. Mitch will be too busy appreciating life to give vent to his murderous rage, the family could relax, the husband could have a life, and the country could go back to the urgent business of prosecuting Tom DeLay for his impressive dossier of criminal activities in office, and focusing on the second anniversary of Bush's Big Blowout in Iraq and our more than 150,000 war dead under our Right to Life President. And we can thank the Pope for reminding us that the greatest sin is not to feed the living, which would award the Neo-Christians and their leadership a chance to reconsider their agenda:
>to cut food stamps and basic heath care and subsistence for our poor in America,
>continue starvation by neglect in Darfur,
>siphon off the reconstruction money to Hallibuton in Iraq, and
>put the fate of the world's starving in the capable hands of Paul Wolfowitz.

Posted by: WalterG at March 25, 2005 10:23 PM

Walter; I'll try to be civil.

You dim little retarded fuckwit numbnuts. Mitch doesn't have to adopt anyone; the Schindlers and about a zillion volunteers have offered to do it. But for the bloodlust of a bunch of raging limpdicks like yourself, they could do just that.

As to the rest of the emesis you call a comment? Even IF there were 150,000 war dead in Iraq (there were not), at least that many lives have been saved. Every one of which is of more value to this world than yours, you greasy little piece of human diarrhea.

If you're an example of the Democrat brain trust, the GOP is in for a long, happy period in office.

I'm sure when Terry Schiavo dies, you'll be reaching for the hand lotion and kleenex to stroke your pathetic excuse for a pecker to your customary two seconds of throbbing ecstasy.

Worthless fuck.

Posted by: Josh at March 25, 2005 11:44 PM

Wow, if there was a point to Josh's post, I've failed utterly to find it. The question in this case is not over taking care of Terri, that is not a problem the question is over life, what are we supporting other then a beating heart for years by keeping her alive. This case is a waste of time and I am lowering myself to even respond. The real case as Walter said is the war, social security and other POLITICAL issues, not some poor brain dead woman in Florida. Its just turned into one big rightist hate fest.

Posted by: Brendan at March 26, 2005 12:54 AM

Thanks, Brendan for the Voice of Reason. Peace, my intelligent brother.

And thanks Mitch (Mitch, was that you?) from coming out from beneath the covers and letting everyone see what a beautiful, SENSITIVE mind you have. After all dialogue is a matter of practice. You have to start somewhere, I could give up some of my sarcasm. What have you got that you can afford to give up?

Posted by: WalterG at March 27, 2005 04:24 PM

Mitch: A thousand pardons, or please just one. It was Josh that had the panic attack, not you, and I was, as usual careless with the facts. So I will move my candle and my prayers over to another statue. It looks like Josh would have enjoyed the crucifixion more than the resurrection, as the easter pageant makes its annual run-by. I still don't understand why anyone would love the unborn and those at death's door more and hate all of us living, but I was raised to be a Christian and I don't understand these strange new Political Religions yet. Or how I can cash in on them. Just not equipped for Bush's world-in-the-making, I guess. Meanwhile, until I learn how to kill my inborn compassion, I remain concerned about the real consequences of the New Brutality that is being sold as Religion.

Posted by: WalterG at March 27, 2005 04:46 PM