An article about Ms. Schiavo...

[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?

Comments

[l33tminion]

The woman is dead. She's been dead for fifteen years. Medical technology may improve, but there's no chance it could bring her back from the dead. Keep her body on life support for long enough and maybe they could bring someone back but it wouldn't be her.

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.

[conuly]

They aren't pumping air into her lungs. The woman is not on life support. She uses a feeding tube. She does not use a ventilator.

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.

[l33tminion]

Amoebas react to things around them. And her body is still alive, I don't question that. But the woman is dead. As far as I've heard, none of the doctors think that there is a reasonable chance for recovery.

If you don't wake up for fifteen years, that's a good sign that you're dead.

[conuly]

1. I've heard otherwise, from doctors on her family's side.
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.

[l33tminion]

That person was out for how long? I doubt it was a decade-and-a-half.

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.

[conuly]

We don't know that she's unconcious.

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.

[conuly]

http://www.kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=2930161

There we go, twenty years in a coma.

[l33tminion]

Wonderful for her. Doesn't make it any more likely.

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.

[conuly]

And nineteen years in a coma here. It's looking more and more likely by the link.

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.

[l33tminion]

Out of how many cases? It's not looking significantly more likely to me.

And your argument leads to a potential human life has unlimited value trap. Just as dangerous.

[conuly]

Ah, except that *laughs* we never will know, now will we? Because if we all just "pull the plug" after a set period of time, we won't know how many would've recovered.

[l33tminion]

Not a set period of time. Prognosis should obviously be considered.

[conuly]

Well, her family's doctors have said her prognosis is much better than his doctors have said - and, repeatedly, that it'd be better with treatment.

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?

[l33tminion]

*sighs* No, but I do think that the government has better things to do.

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.

[conuly]

I'm rather stunned that you think of this only as "the government getting involved in some guy's business". Do you think that the government just randomly decided to pick on him? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, the family has a point when they say they're trying to prevent murder? Doesn't the family - her flesh and blood, to be blunt - deserve some say in her death?

[l33tminion]

When you give power of attorney to someone, you say that you trust them to look after your best interests if you are incapacitated. When you marry someone, you give them power of attorney.

Terry Schiavo trusted her husband. Why should he loose power of attorney in this case?

[l33tminion]

The woman is dead. She's been dead for fifteen years. Medical technology may improve, but there's no chance it could bring her back from the dead. Keep her body on life support for long enough and maybe they could bring someone back but it wouldn't be her.

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.

[conuly]

They aren't pumping air into her lungs. The woman is not on life support. She uses a feeding tube. She does not use a ventilator.

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.

[l33tminion]

Amoebas react to things around them. And her body is still alive, I don't question that. But the woman is dead. As far as I've heard, none of the doctors think that there is a reasonable chance for recovery.

If you don't wake up for fifteen years, that's a good sign that you're dead.

[conuly]

1. I've heard otherwise, from doctors on her family's side.
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.

[l33tminion]

That person was out for how long? I doubt it was a decade-and-a-half.

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.

[conuly]

We don't know that she's unconcious.

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.

[conuly]

http://www.kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=2930161

There we go, twenty years in a coma.

[l33tminion]

Wonderful for her. Doesn't make it any more likely.

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.

[conuly]

And nineteen years in a coma here. It's looking more and more likely by the link.

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.

[l33tminion]

Out of how many cases? It's not looking significantly more likely to me.

And your argument leads to a potential human life has unlimited value trap. Just as dangerous.

[conuly]

Ah, except that *laughs* we never will know, now will we? Because if we all just "pull the plug" after a set period of time, we won't know how many would've recovered.

[l33tminion]

Not a set period of time. Prognosis should obviously be considered.

[conuly]

Well, her family's doctors have said her prognosis is much better than his doctors have said - and, repeatedly, that it'd be better with treatment.

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?

[l33tminion]

*sighs* No, but I do think that the government has better things to do.

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.

[conuly]

I'm rather stunned that you think of this only as "the government getting involved in some guy's business". Do you think that the government just randomly decided to pick on him? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, the family has a point when they say they're trying to prevent murder? Doesn't the family - her flesh and blood, to be blunt - deserve some say in her death?

[l33tminion]

When you give power of attorney to someone, you say that you trust them to look after your best interests if you are incapacitated. When you marry someone, you give them power of attorney.

Terry Schiavo trusted her husband. Why should he loose power of attorney in this case?

[lizziey.livejournal.com]

When you marry someone, you give them power of attorney.

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.

[l33tminion]

I worded that poorly; I should have had that "if you are incapacitated" on the second sentence, not the first.

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.

[lizziey.livejournal.com]

I seriously doubt you simply worded it incorrectly as you repeated it, trying to drill it in. You were not correct in this.

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.

[l33tminion]

I'm hurt that you presume bad faith on my part. I only said "power of attorney" in that one comment.

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.

[lizziey.livejournal.com]

When you marry someone, you give them power of attorney.

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.

[l33tminion]

I worded that poorly; I should have had that "if you are incapacitated" on the second sentence, not the first.

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.

[lizziey.livejournal.com]

I seriously doubt you simply worded it incorrectly as you repeated it, trying to drill it in. You were not correct in this.

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.

[l33tminion]

I'm hurt that you presume bad faith on my part. I only said "power of attorney" in that one comment.

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.