An article about Ms. Schiavo...
Mar. 17th, 2005 07:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Here.
Debate Over Brain-Damaged Woman's Fate Shifts to Congress
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, March 17 - The Republican leadership of Congress thrust itself into the politically charged case of Terry Schiavo today, pressing for federal legislation that would prevent the removal of her feeding tube on Friday. The White House indicated that President Bush would sign the measure, if it passed, but it was uncertain whether any bill would reach his desk before doctors acted.
Democrats today blocked Senate consideration of two bills that would move the case of Ms. Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman, into the federal courts. A bill passed by the House on Wednesday was a broad measure that could be applied to many such cases; the Senate measure is confined strictly to the Schiavo matter.
"Before someone is, really, not allowed to die but be put to death by action of the state courts, there ought to be a federal review of that," said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida.
At the White House, the president's chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, said the proposed legislation fell within Mr. Bush's desire to "build a culture of life."
"In instances like this case, where there are serious questions and doubts raised, the president believes that our society and our laws and our courts ought to be on the side of presumption in favor of life," said Mr. McClellan.
The president's brother, Jeb Bush, has actively tried to stop doctors from removing Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube, but the courts have turned back his efforts. The Supreme Court declined to hear a last-ditch appeal by Governor Bush last month.
Conservative Republicans have been preparing to intercede in the case for the past few weeks and the issue was finally forced by the approaching two-week Congressional recess over Easter and the pending medical action in Florida.
Lawmakers said it was very unlikely that the Senate could pass the House measure, because of its broader implications. However, the minority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, and other Democrats said they might be able to come to agreement on the Senate version.
"A woman's life is at stake and it is absolutely imperative that we take action today," said Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota.
But it is also uncertain that the House would go along with the Senate version. And other Democrats see the legislative maneuvering as an unwarranted federal intrusion into a matter that has been handled in the state court, with Congress acting too hastily.
"We change the nature of all these things to put this into the political arena without a hearing," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California.
Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, said he would block attempts of the Senate to declare a recess unless a measure passed.
How messed up is this that 1. I am on Bush's side in this issue and 2. the Democrats are the ones going on about states rights?
Debate Over Brain-Damaged Woman's Fate Shifts to Congress
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, March 17 - The Republican leadership of Congress thrust itself into the politically charged case of Terry Schiavo today, pressing for federal legislation that would prevent the removal of her feeding tube on Friday. The White House indicated that President Bush would sign the measure, if it passed, but it was uncertain whether any bill would reach his desk before doctors acted.
Democrats today blocked Senate consideration of two bills that would move the case of Ms. Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman, into the federal courts. A bill passed by the House on Wednesday was a broad measure that could be applied to many such cases; the Senate measure is confined strictly to the Schiavo matter.
"Before someone is, really, not allowed to die but be put to death by action of the state courts, there ought to be a federal review of that," said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida.
At the White House, the president's chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, said the proposed legislation fell within Mr. Bush's desire to "build a culture of life."
"In instances like this case, where there are serious questions and doubts raised, the president believes that our society and our laws and our courts ought to be on the side of presumption in favor of life," said Mr. McClellan.
The president's brother, Jeb Bush, has actively tried to stop doctors from removing Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube, but the courts have turned back his efforts. The Supreme Court declined to hear a last-ditch appeal by Governor Bush last month.
Conservative Republicans have been preparing to intercede in the case for the past few weeks and the issue was finally forced by the approaching two-week Congressional recess over Easter and the pending medical action in Florida.
Lawmakers said it was very unlikely that the Senate could pass the House measure, because of its broader implications. However, the minority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, and other Democrats said they might be able to come to agreement on the Senate version.
"A woman's life is at stake and it is absolutely imperative that we take action today," said Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota.
But it is also uncertain that the House would go along with the Senate version. And other Democrats see the legislative maneuvering as an unwarranted federal intrusion into a matter that has been handled in the state court, with Congress acting too hastily.
"We change the nature of all these things to put this into the political arena without a hearing," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California.
Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, said he would block attempts of the Senate to declare a recess unless a measure passed.
How messed up is this that 1. I am on Bush's side in this issue and 2. the Democrats are the ones going on about states rights?
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 06:45 pm (UTC)You can pump air into her lungs and food into her stomach, but that won't change the fact that she's not there. Leaving the husband in limbo is unfair, and pouring resources into keeping a corpse animate while actual people are suffering is nothing short of criminal.
Her husband has every right to determine her medical treatment while she is incapacitated, and this has been no easy decision for him. If it was, he would have accepted the million dollars, gotten a divorce, and fled the country. Her parents might not want to accept it, but they need to come to terms with their daughter's death. Keeping the body alive indefinitely is no way to manage the grieving process.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 06:48 pm (UTC)There is evidence - lots of it - that she would be much better off now if she had gotten treatment after the settlement. Instead, all the money from the settlement went to pay the court bills to have her starved to death.
Furthermore, there is some serious evidence that she reacts to things around her. That isn't at all the same as being dead.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 06:54 pm (UTC)If you don't wake up for fifteen years, that's a good sign that you're dead.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 07:01 pm (UTC)2. Except for the woman who just woke up recently...?
Additionally, I remember a personal account I read recently. Posted about it. Woman was in a coma. When she woke up, people were talking about how she would "never recover". Her attempts at communication were attributed to mild seizures. She very nearly died because of this.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 07:12 pm (UTC)Look, I fear death more than almost anything else. But if I'm unconscious for more than a decade, I wouldn't want people to waste their time and energy keeping my body alive.
Unless, of course, it's a perfect world where no human lacks medical care or other necessities. Then feel free to feed my body for as long as you want.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 07:14 pm (UTC)That's the thing. People, her own husband, thought she was brain dead, that she wasn't "awake". I can imagine being in that state for 15 years, and everybody thinking I'm braindead when I'm not.
And recently there was a woman woken up from a coma she'd been in for... what was it, ten years? Twenty? I can look it up on CNN if I'm bored.
if I'm unconscious for more than a decade, I wouldn't want people to waste their time and energy keeping my body alive.
Then you should write it down. We shouldn't have to depend on the sayso of people who may have ulterior motives.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 07:18 pm (UTC)There we go, twenty years in a coma.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 07:24 pm (UTC)As I said, in a utopia, where the resources are not needed elsewhere, my decision would be different. I don't think that everyone who is dead should have their bodies kept alive indefinitely just on the off chance of a miracle.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 07:27 pm (UTC)Resources... resources... she's not draining the public health system. That argument is invalid - and it leads nicely into a little "life not worthy of life" trap. I know too many people who have very barely escaped that trap with their lives to consider it worthy of any of my energy.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 08:05 pm (UTC)And your argument leads to a potential human life has unlimited value trap. Just as dangerous.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 08:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 08:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 08:46 pm (UTC)Besides, let's consider your argument. She should be allowed to die because she's using up resources that could go to other people. But... do you really think, if she dies, that some poor person is *really* going to get better treatment because of that? Do you honestly believe that people are dying year by year because she is occupying that bed and feeding tube?
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 08:59 pm (UTC)Look, I just don't like the idea of government getting involved in this guy's business. It seems like he is unfairly being presumed guilty.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 09:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 09:20 pm (UTC)Terry Schiavo trusted her husband. Why should he loose power of attorney in this case?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-09 12:25 pm (UTC)Yes, I know this was forever ago, but I just read it, and can *not* let your mistake go. You. Are. Wrong. Getting married does *not* give the spouse power of attorny. When i married my husband, I did not automatically get power of attorny. How do i know? When he deployed this past february, he had to go to a lawyer and *get* me power of attorny. And not only that, he needed to get me three different power of attorny things. because "general" power of attorny does not actually cover much. There is "general" and "special" power of attorny.
If you are going to use something like that in an argument, at least be right about it.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-09 04:49 pm (UTC)I know that marrying someone doesn't automatically give them power to make legal decisions for you. However, it does give them the power to make legal decisions for you if you can't make them for yourself.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-09 04:56 pm (UTC)And it also does not give them automatic power to choose for you if you are incapacitated. Try reading p on marraige law before getting into a debate about it.
My husband had to get a *special* power of attorny for just this situation, if he is hurt that badly in an attack.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-09 05:13 pm (UTC)Look, I give in, I'm sure I'm getting the legal terminology wrong. It's still not uncommon for people to make medical decisions for incapacitated spouses.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 06:45 pm (UTC)You can pump air into her lungs and food into her stomach, but that won't change the fact that she's not there. Leaving the husband in limbo is unfair, and pouring resources into keeping a corpse animate while actual people are suffering is nothing short of criminal.
Her husband has every right to determine her medical treatment while she is incapacitated, and this has been no easy decision for him. If it was, he would have accepted the million dollars, gotten a divorce, and fled the country. Her parents might not want to accept it, but they need to come to terms with their daughter's death. Keeping the body alive indefinitely is no way to manage the grieving process.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 06:48 pm (UTC)There is evidence - lots of it - that she would be much better off now if she had gotten treatment after the settlement. Instead, all the money from the settlement went to pay the court bills to have her starved to death.
Furthermore, there is some serious evidence that she reacts to things around her. That isn't at all the same as being dead.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 06:54 pm (UTC)If you don't wake up for fifteen years, that's a good sign that you're dead.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 07:01 pm (UTC)2. Except for the woman who just woke up recently...?
Additionally, I remember a personal account I read recently. Posted about it. Woman was in a coma. When she woke up, people were talking about how she would "never recover". Her attempts at communication were attributed to mild seizures. She very nearly died because of this.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 07:12 pm (UTC)Look, I fear death more than almost anything else. But if I'm unconscious for more than a decade, I wouldn't want people to waste their time and energy keeping my body alive.
Unless, of course, it's a perfect world where no human lacks medical care or other necessities. Then feel free to feed my body for as long as you want.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 07:14 pm (UTC)That's the thing. People, her own husband, thought she was brain dead, that she wasn't "awake". I can imagine being in that state for 15 years, and everybody thinking I'm braindead when I'm not.
And recently there was a woman woken up from a coma she'd been in for... what was it, ten years? Twenty? I can look it up on CNN if I'm bored.
if I'm unconscious for more than a decade, I wouldn't want people to waste their time and energy keeping my body alive.
Then you should write it down. We shouldn't have to depend on the sayso of people who may have ulterior motives.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 07:18 pm (UTC)There we go, twenty years in a coma.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 07:24 pm (UTC)As I said, in a utopia, where the resources are not needed elsewhere, my decision would be different. I don't think that everyone who is dead should have their bodies kept alive indefinitely just on the off chance of a miracle.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 07:27 pm (UTC)Resources... resources... she's not draining the public health system. That argument is invalid - and it leads nicely into a little "life not worthy of life" trap. I know too many people who have very barely escaped that trap with their lives to consider it worthy of any of my energy.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 08:05 pm (UTC)And your argument leads to a potential human life has unlimited value trap. Just as dangerous.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 08:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 08:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 08:46 pm (UTC)Besides, let's consider your argument. She should be allowed to die because she's using up resources that could go to other people. But... do you really think, if she dies, that some poor person is *really* going to get better treatment because of that? Do you honestly believe that people are dying year by year because she is occupying that bed and feeding tube?
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 08:59 pm (UTC)Look, I just don't like the idea of government getting involved in this guy's business. It seems like he is unfairly being presumed guilty.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 09:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 09:20 pm (UTC)Terry Schiavo trusted her husband. Why should he loose power of attorney in this case?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-09 12:25 pm (UTC)Yes, I know this was forever ago, but I just read it, and can *not* let your mistake go. You. Are. Wrong. Getting married does *not* give the spouse power of attorny. When i married my husband, I did not automatically get power of attorny. How do i know? When he deployed this past february, he had to go to a lawyer and *get* me power of attorny. And not only that, he needed to get me three different power of attorny things. because "general" power of attorny does not actually cover much. There is "general" and "special" power of attorny.
If you are going to use something like that in an argument, at least be right about it.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-09 04:49 pm (UTC)I know that marrying someone doesn't automatically give them power to make legal decisions for you. However, it does give them the power to make legal decisions for you if you can't make them for yourself.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-09 04:56 pm (UTC)And it also does not give them automatic power to choose for you if you are incapacitated. Try reading p on marraige law before getting into a debate about it.
My husband had to get a *special* power of attorny for just this situation, if he is hurt that badly in an attack.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-09 05:13 pm (UTC)Look, I give in, I'm sure I'm getting the legal terminology wrong. It's still not uncommon for people to make medical decisions for incapacitated spouses.