• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Judge rejects GOP bid to keep Schiavo alive

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haven't seen any details, but the judge has ruled against the request to reinsert the tube.

Now the Republicans get what they really want: a rallying cry to put more far-right judges on the bench, and put pressure on the Dems to confirm them.
 
Well, I'm not reading the whole thread...

The Republicans' agenda is nothing more than to try and drag Democrats through the mud on the issue of abortion/pro-life. This isn't about Terry Schiavo at all. Between playing family court and the steroid sessions, Congress is wasting a lot of time and money. Then again they don't seem to ever do shit, so at least this is keeping them busy.

Anyway, now that is out of the way. I don't know who to side with. She didn't have anything in writing, and it's really hard to take someone's word for it. Especially when her husband doesn't exactly come off credible imo. People just need to let the state courts handle this. We don't need a new fucking law created everytime some Republican politician isn't happy with a judge's ruling.

p.s. I feel bad for the judge that got stuck with this. With the pressure that has been put on by the Republicans/Conservative Media... I'm suprised the judge didn't instantly rule in favor of the parents.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
considering that most of this country sides with the husband on this i don't see this as leading to any victory for Republicans. all they've done is rally their christian conservative base in larger numbers to support them in upcoming elections. talk about interest groups with power...
 

olimario

Banned
It's funny how people here say it's only political to republicans. :lol

I say that if you're going to kill her by removing the tube, just go ahead and give her a lethal injection.
Dogs and criminals get more human deaths than what this judge wants.

It's so sad that it's legal for somebody to starve to death, but peaceful euthanasia is against the law.
 

ge-man

Member
scorcho said:
considering that most of this country sides with the husband on this i don't see this as leading to any victory for Republicans. all they've done is rally their christian conservative base in larger numbers to support them in upcoming elections. talk about interest groups with power...

I sincerely hope that this and Social Security will finally send the neo-cons over the cliff. I've given up on the Democratic party getting a clue, but all it takes is few bads moves for non-politicians to see through the bullshit and vote accordingly.
 
olimario said:
It's so sad that it's legal for somebody to starve to death, but peaceful euthanasia is against the law.

I agree with this, and think euthanasia should be legal under certain circumstances. Regardless of whether she can feel it or not, it would be easier for everyone involved to do it quickly once all the ridiculous legal maneuvers are played out.
 
olimario said:
It's funny how people here say it's only political to republicans. :lol

I say that if you're going to kill her by removing the tube, just go ahead and give her a lethal injection.
Dogs and criminals get more human deaths than what this judge wants.

It's so sad that it's legal for somebody to starve to death, but peaceful euthanasia is against the law.

It's as if you guys don't even want to read what's already been posted so you can continue to post outright lies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7264562/

If Terri Schiavo dies from the removal of her feeding tube, her passing should be peaceful, experts say.

After all, she is in a persistent vegetative state without conscious awareness, they noted.

...

“It’s usually quite a peaceful death,” Portenoy said. “The person generally looks as if he or she is drifting off to sleep, and then dies.”.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/national/20death.html?

To many people, death by removing a feeding tube brings to mind the agony of starvation. But medical experts say that the process of dying that begins when food and fluids cease is relatively straightforward, and can cause little discomfort.

"From the data that is available, it is not a horrific thing at all," said Dr. Linda Emanuel, the founder of the Education for Physicians in End-of-Life Care Project at Northwestern University.

In fact, declining food and water is a common way that terminally ill patients end their lives, because it is less painful than violent suicide and requires no help from doctors.

Terri Schiavo, who is in a persistent vegetative state, is "probably not experiencing anything at all subjectively," said Dr. Emanuel, and so the question of discomfort, from a scientific point of view, is not in dispute.
 

Gek54

Junior Member
Whoa, I have been out for the last few days but the last thing I heard was that several doctors said they have seen patients in worse condition that have been completely rehibilitated and that husband stuck her in place, giving instructions to not do anything to rehibilitate her and he has spent a big chunk of the $1mil on lawyer fees to get her tube pulled. He also denied her parents visitation rights and told this care center to not brush her teeth.

Has all this been proven false???
 

Azih

Member
Gek54 said:
Whoa, I have been out for the last few days but the last thing I heard was that several doctors said they have seen patients in worse condition that have been completely rehibilitated The doctors who said this saw her on video, for 15 mins and that husband stuck her in place, giving instructions to not do anything to rehibilitate her and he has spent a big chunk of the $1mil on lawyer fees to get her tube pulled. He also denied her parents visitation rights and told this care center to not brush her teeth.

Has all this been proven false???

Dude you're a complete slave to the media machine spin aren't you? It's funny that you are expecting allegations to be proven false. I'm thinking that "innocent until proven guilty" is well and truly dead in America, now it's "guilty until proven innocent".
 

lo escondido

Apartheid is, in fact, not institutional racism
Even if the congress passed a law saying a federal court can review this, can't the judge just say, the state courts made up their mind and im sticking with that
 
Gek54 said:
Whoa, I have been out for the last few days but the last thing I heard was that several doctors said they have seen patients in worse condition that have been completely rehibilitated and that husband stuck her in place, giving instructions to not do anything to rehibilitate her and he has spent a big chunk of the $1mil on lawyer fees to get her tube pulled. He also denied her parents visitation rights and told this care center to not brush her teeth.

Has all this been proven false???

Oh lordy. :lol
 
Even if the congress passed a law saying a federal court can review this, can't the judge just say, the state courts made up their mind and im sticking with that

Congress specifically said that the federal courts will review this case de novo, meaning that previous rulings of the case should not be taken into account.
 

lo escondido

Apartheid is, in fact, not institutional racism
Fragamemnon said:
Congress specifically said that the federal courts will review this case de novo, meaning that previous rulings of the case should not be taken into account.
oh thanks
 
I just heard someone on Fox News try to make an argument that if Terri was black and was not allowed to vote, those dastardly liberals would be all over the state of Florida.

Um, what the hell does that have to do with anything?

Here's the real deal: While I wish they didn't have to go through with this, Terri's parents have shown they are nothing more than meddling in their daughter's affairs. The fact is in Florida, they are not the main guardian, her husband is. And he couldn't make the decision on what to do, that's why he took it into court in the first place; to allow the court to make the decision. The court took both sides into account, and concluded that Terri's wishes were in fact not to live like this. And in Florida law, feeding tubes are considered an artificial method of keeping someone alive. The parents' appealed the decision, as is their right, including the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case. And when the attorney for the parents yesterday argued the tube should be put in because it would be a "mortal sin" not to because of Terri's Roman Catholic beliefs, it's no wonder the parents' can't win in court, because that's not an argument that's going to fly in court. And why the judge rules that there's not a chance the parents can win.

What annoys me is some people feel that this case needs to go to federal court because it needs some "final check" by the feds. Well, the case has gone through all the normal processes as is called for by the state of Florida. No aspect of the law has been abused in this case. The problem is that the parents don't like the decision. They're seeing things through rose-colored glasses. A neurologist today says Terri could walk again with therapy, but he's the parents' neurologist, and if he didn't say that, the parents would find someone who would.

And what really annoys me is that someone with my position (let her go) some consider that I'm waiting to watch her die, whether it's painful or not. Nope. I don't want Congress involved in what is basically a family matter. They have NO reason to do so. If they wanted to get involved years ago, they could have passed a law that dealt with ALL people in this position, not just Terri.

Another thing that really annoyed me: the editor of the Weekly Standard was asked on Fox about how most of the polls show Americans saying they don't want politicians involved in this. And he spins it as the majority in this case doesn't know all the details, and that there's a very vocal minority that does. Well, I guess you should listen to a minority when it's a potential block of votes. It just made me sick, because these politicians (all of them) are in this because of political gain. I respect those who either decided to vote against or didn't vote at all, because they realized Congress doesn't need to be involved in such a matter. They are NOT experts, so how can they tell Terri's condition? I'd bet most are making a "diagnosis" from the ten second video clips on Fox/CNN.

If you would like a great source that is focused on the LAW in this case (which should have the final say) go here:http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html. A very good source of how this all started.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Gek54 said:
Whoa, I have been out for the last few days but the last thing I heard was that several doctors said they have seen patients in worse condition that have been completely rehibilitated and that husband stuck her in place, giving instructions to not do anything to rehibilitate her and he has spent a big chunk of the $1mil on lawyer fees to get her tube pulled. He also denied her parents visitation rights and told this care center to not brush her teeth.

Has all this been proven false???

Virtually all of the money was gone long ago, it went to caring for her. Right now, Terri's being taken care of in a hospice, free of charge.


olimario said:
It's funny how people here say it's only political to republicans.

Well, let's see here, Oli. Your boy Tom DeLay spearheaded this whole thing; And Bush, who MAYBE rolled over in his bed when the tsunami hit; Bush who sat and read a children's book for 10 minutes on 9/11; Bush, who signed a law in Texas explicitly allowing hospitals to pull the plug (or tube) on patients if their case was terminal and there was no hope for recovery. Where was his moral grandstanding when Sun Hudson, a baby, was pulled from life support in a Texas hospital? Maybe the - dare I say it - flip-flopping would've been too much damage for even Rove to control.

But for this political grandstanding, he cut short his Easter vacation to Crawford, went back to DC, and had his staff wake him when the bill was ready to sign. If that isn't "viewing it as a political advantage," then I don't know WHAT the fuck it is. What I can tell you is that it certainly isn't legitimate concern for Terri Schiavo, and it's outright contempt of states' rights, one of the basic tenets of the Republican party.

olimario said:
I say that if you're going to kill her by removing the tube, just go ahead and give her a lethal injection.
Dogs and criminals get more human deaths than what this judge wants.

This judge "wants" what the hospital is required to do, it's not as if he had a list of possible options. But yes, it is a shame that euthanasia is illegal in the U.S., you can thank fhe GOP for that as well. But in the meantime, take solace in the fact that her brain is so completely destroyed, that she most likely won't feel any discomfort from the starvation.
 

Gek54

Junior Member
How did he win $1mil to rehibilitate her if she was in a PVS? and why did he do everything but try to rehibiltate her? Couldnt they get him for contempt of court for that?
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Gek54 said:
How did he win $1mil to rehibilitate her if she was in a PVS? and why did he do everything but try to rehibiltate her? Couldnt they get him for contempt of court for that?

Because there's nothing to rehabilitate. Her state is severe.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
I side with the husband/guardian on this one. From what I've been reading this young lady has SEVERE brain damage... but strangely enough the CNN.com article barely points that out... they make it seem like.. oh she's just in a coma with no other problems... and it seems like her parents are running along that same track of thinking.... but the article I read in the Post today said she had severe brain damage....

"Terri Schiavo, whose husband said she had bulimia, suffered severe brain damage after a potassium imbalance caused a heart attack in 1990. Her husband and her parents have been locked in a legal battle about her care since 1998."

Let this young lady die in peace.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Gek54 said:
WTF? I dont think you actually read what I said.


I did, but your assumption about the money is wrong. It came from a malpractice suit, and subsequently went to her care. It wasn't earmarked for anything.
 

Gek54

Junior Member
Edit: Ah, I was under the impression it was earmarked.

Ok so what about the reports that he ordered to not have any rehibilitation be done and to not brush her teeth and to not allow for her parents to visit her?
 
Gek54 said:
How did he win $1mil to rehibilitate her if she was in a PVS? and why did he do everything but try to rehibiltate her? Couldnt they get him for contempt of court for that?

Um, I hate to break it to you, but rehab took place after the incident. Didn't work. And that's when the husband and the parents started to disagree on her care.

The husband DID give her a chance at recovery. It didn't happen. So he says she wouldn't want to live in a way where she is a burden to others. If that was her wish, and since that has never been overruled after being heard by 20 judges, I'm inclined to believe that's the truth and the parents need to learn how to let go.

I also came to the conclusion if the positions were reversed, I think the husband would still be cast as the "bad" guy in this situation.
 
Gek54 said:
Edit: Ah, I was under the impression it was earmarked.

Ok so what about the reports that he ordered to not have any rehibilitation be done and to not brush her teeth and to not allow for her parents to visit her?

Because as her guardian, he's trying to carry out his wife's wishes. The parents' are trying their best to stop that.

You're seeing people who can't argue with the facts trying to make the husband the bad guy.
 
DarienA said:
I side with the husband/guardian on this one. From what I've been reading this young lady has SEVERE brain damage... but strangely enough the CNN.com article barely points that out... they make it seem like.. oh she's just in a coma with no other problems... and it seems like her parents are running along that same track of thinking.... but the article I read in the Post today said she had severe brain damage....

"Terri Schiavo, whose husband said she had bulimia, suffered severe brain damage after a potassium imbalance caused a heart attack in 1990. Her husband and her parents have been locked in a legal battle about her care since 1998."

Let this young lady die in peace.

I have a lot of problems with the manner in which this has been reported. What also really bothers me is how the timeline in all this gets compressed; to read conservative news sources, you'd think the day after her brain damage, he attempted to pull the plug and marry his mistress. In fact it was eight years after that he began trying to allow her to die, after efforts at rehabilitation and countless medical reports.
 

tedtropy

$50/hour, but no kissing on the lips and colors must be pre-separated
One of the callers on the Glen Beck radio show this morning actually said that if she were in Schiavo's situation, she would want to be euthanized based on how physically unattractive she became and the fact that they show her face on TV. And she was dead serious and actually tried to support the argument.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Cyan said:
Oh, come on now, be fair to Bush. Yes, that law allows hospitals to pull the plug on people against their families wishes, but only if they can't afford to continue paying for care! :)


:(

I'm not going to be fair to man who claims to be compassionate, and is not. He can't even stick to the "conservative" end of that line, at least most of the time. Socially, he's conservative. Fiscally, he is not. And when you marry big government with nigh-backwards social beliefs, you get into very dangerous waters.
 

ge-man

Member
xsarien said:
I'm not going to be fair to man who claims to be compassionate, and is not. He can't even stick to the "conservative" end of that line, at least most of the time. Socially, he's conservative. Fiscally, he is not. And when you marry big government with nigh-backwards social beliefs, you get into very dangerous waters.

That's why I think the neo-conservative label is actually misleading. These crooks that have taken over the white house and the Republican party are closer to the ideology of facisim if anything else. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone in the mainstream would even dare to label these people correctly.
 

Azih

Member
ge-man said:
That's why I think the neo-conservative label is actually misleading. These crooks that have taken over the white house and the Republican party are closer to the ideology of facisim if anything else. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone in the mainstream would even dare to label these people correctly.

I'm always confused with that a bit.


Does Facism mean a system where large companies/corporations rule while providing huge kickbacks to government officials?
 

Macam

Banned
I applaud Judge Whittemore's efforts in upholding the rule of law, which has been so haphazardly tossed out the window by the administration and backers of the specialized legislative act. The comments by McClellan, Jeb, George, and co. have been, as expected, absurd in turn, and the case will now be appealed yet again. With any luck, all future judges will ignore the ridiculous amount of pressure unfairly placed upon them and simply stick to the law. If there's any state that can provide controversial, divisive issues, it's Florida.
 

olimario

Banned
If she is going to be euthinized slowly from the lack of food, why can't the judge approve a quick and proved-painless method of death?

Starvation of the brain damanged may or may not be painless. We should take the proven road for two reasons
1) to make sure it is painless
2) so her family doesn't have to witness her slowly dying over the next 2 weeks


It's senseless to let her die slowly, regardless of the amount of pain she feels. It's not humane.
 

GLoK

Member
Perhaps you missed it the dozen or so times that's been said already oli, but that's the ONLY LEGAL way to allow her to pass away. Euthanizing her is illegal. They can't give her any quick or painless way to go legally.
 

ge-man

Member
Azih said:
I'm always confused with that a bit.


Does Facism mean a system where large companies/corporations rule while providing huge kickbacks to government officials?

Not quite in that manner, but the blending of state and corporate powers is a cornerstone of facism.

Fascism is also extremely nationalistic and imperalist. It's an opponent to democratic ideals and puts war on a pedestal.

This is an excerpet of Mussolini's own definition of facism
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

"Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it."


I think some parts of his definition fit the administration to the "T."
 

Pimpwerx

Member
olimario said:
If she is going to be euthinized slowly from the lack of food, why can't the judge approve a quick and proved-painless method of death?

Starvation of the brain damanged may or may not be painless. We should take the proven road for two reasons
1) to make sure it is painless
2) so her family doesn't have to witness her slowly dying over the next 2 weeks


It's senseless to let her die slowly, regardless of the amount of pain she feels. It's not humane.
B/c euthanasia is illegal...get over it. This is the alternative the government approves of. Blame idiotic pro-lifers who have made it this way. Dr. Kevorkian was providing a very useful purpose prior to being locked-up. PEACE.
 

ge-man

Member
gblues said:
If it is murder to euthanize her, how is it not murder to starve her to death?

This is what's funny about this whole mess--the Christian Right's position is filled with contradictions. I find it ridiculous that these jokers want to keep Terri alive, but refuse to support research that may truly repair her in the future. The findings of stem cell research may be the only possibility for real recovery--and they're against it. They rather see her live like an extra in a George Romero film than to see her die from starvation or euthanisia, or to see her revived by research that supposedly attacks the "sanctity" of life.

I'm getting a living will and adPOA done asap because if I become a permant vegatable, I surely wouldn't want these morons trying to stop the plug being pulled on me. There's no way in hell that I would live two decades in a shell of a body like Terri has.
 

SickBoy

Member
DarienA said:
I side with the husband/guardian on this one. From what I've been reading this young lady has SEVERE brain damage... but strangely enough the CNN.com article barely points that out... they make it seem like.. oh she's just in a coma with no other problems... and it seems like her parents are running along that same track of thinking.... but the article I read in the Post today said she had severe brain damage....

That blasted liberal media...

I was surprised at the imbalance I perceived in the stories I watched on CNN (or CNN/Headline) the other day pertaining to this case. It definitely seemed to me that the scale was tilted to the emotional "save Terri" side than a more balanced viewpoint.

It was also the first time I saw any really continuous amount of footage of her, and I just don't believe there's anything going on there. She's moving around a little bit and blinking against the light, but that's about it despite people pushing themselves within an inch of her face, basically trying to elicit a reaction and not really succeeding... I'm not even convinced the blinking was changed by the variety of stimuli she was receiving.
 
xsarien said:
Bush, who signed a law in Texas explicitly allowing hospitals to pull the plug (or tube) on patients if their case was terminal and there was no hope for recovery.
Since I'm sick to death of hearing this, here's what ACTUALLY happened in Texas.

In August 1996 the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article describing procedures then in effect in Houston hospitals. Under these procedures, if a doctor wished to deny a patient lifesaving medical treatment and the patient or the patient's surrogate instead steadfastly expressed a desire for life, the doctor would submit the case to the hospital ethics committee. The patient or surrogate would be given 72 hours notice of the committee meeting would be allowed to plead for the patient's life at it. During that short 72 hour period, the patient or surrogate, while preparing to argue for life, could also try to find another health care provider willing to give the lifesaving treatment, food or fluids.

If the ethics committee decided for death, under these procedures there was no appeal. There was no provision that the food, fluids, or lifesaving treatment be provided after the decision while the patient or family tried to find another hospital willing to keep the patient alive.

So under these procedures, the hospitals in Houston were denying life-saving treatment, food and fluids against the wishes of patients and their families, when the hospital ethics committees said their quality of life was too poor. Patients and families were being given only 72 hours after being notified of the proposed denial to find another health care provider.

In 1997 there was an advance directives bill going through the Texas legislature that would have given specific legal sanction to such involuntary denial of life-saving treatment. An effort in the Texas legislature to amend the bill to require treatment pending transfer to a health care provider willing to provide the life-saving treatment had been defeated. When that bill reached Governor George Bush’s desk, he vetoed it, and said he was vetoing it precisely because it authorized hospitals to deny lifesaving medical treatment, food, and fluids against the will of the patients.

But even without that bill, these procedures were still going on. So there was an effort in the next sitting of the legislature, in 1999, to pass protective legislation. Unfortunately, the votes just weren’t there to require lifesaving treatment, food, or fluids be provided by unwilling hospitals. So there were negotiations that resulted in a bill that gave partial protection. That 1999 bill:

first, formalized more protections for in-hospital review
second, gave patients 10 days of treatment while seeking transfer, and
third, authorized court proceedings to extend the 10 days for reasonable additional periods to accomplish transfer.

Now this was not what patient advocates wanted and it wasn’t what Governor Bush wanted. However, it was an important advance over the existing situation of no legal requirement of treatment pending transfer, for any period of time. The votes were not there in the Texas legislature to accomplish a more protective bill. So Governor Bush signed it because it was an improvement over the existing law.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Kobun Heat said:
Since I'm sick to death of hearing this, here's what ACTUALLY happened in Texas.

You're talking about something else entirely. I'm talking about the Texas Futile Care Law, which was passed in 1999, and signed by Bush. If his principles were so deep, he should've been his usual, stubborn self and not signed off on it either.
 
Read more carefully. The last two paragraphs are about the 1999 bill. Bush signed it because even though it wasn't what he wanted it was an improvement over the existing situation and represented more options and help for patients.
 
You know, Gov. Bush refused to sign the bill allowing patients to sue HMOs for denying coverage, then took credit for that bill in the 2000 debates. He didn't veto it only because that veto would have been overridden.

So it's interesting that Bush did actually sign the law in question here. Sounds like he was ok with the second bill that was sent to him.

Kobun Heat said:
Bush signed it because even though it wasn't what he wanted it was an improvement over the existing situation and represented more options and help for patients.

See, I don't know that the revised bill wasn't what Bush wanted. I'd like to see if Bush said anything to that effect on the record, rather than just taking The Corner's word for it.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Kobun Heat said:
Read more carefully. The last two paragraphs are about the 1999 bill. Bush signed it because even though it wasn't what he wanted it was an improvement over the existing situation and represented more options and help for patients.

I read just fine, what I'm saying is that '99 Bush isn't '05 Bush, apparently, who has a very apparent "My way, or the highway" approach to politics. Him signing off on it is implication - and implication is enough - that he was at least OK with the idea of plug-pulling and tube cutting.
 

border

Member
Can someone explain what was unconstitutional about "Terri's Law" in Florida? And what is unconstitutional about the current legislation passed by the US Congress?
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
border said:
Can someone explain what was unconstitutional about "Terri's Law" in Florida? And what is unconstitutional about the current legislation passed by the US Congress?

I'm not sure if what just passed in Congress is actually unconstitutional, but it's almost insulting in its transparency and cynicism.

Regarding Terri's Law in Florida:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...oridaMetro/MGBG5EXQKYD.html+Terri's+Law&hl=en

The courts found it unconstitutional for many of the same reasons: That it was an apparent usurping of judicial authority, that it gave the governor too much authority and not enough checks in these cases, and likewise, the state could indefinitely put a court's ruling on these issues hold, not only disrupting the seperation of powers, but completely destroying the ability for this to remain a private matter without the state government weighing in on the issue.
 

Dilbert

Member
border said:
Can someone explain what was unconstitutional about "Terri's Law" in Florida? And what is unconstitutional about the current legislation passed by the US Congress?
The Constitutional question is based on the Bill of Rights:

Amendment X said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Our federal government is an "explicit rights" system -- if the Constitution doesn't specifically give a right or power to the federal government, then that right or power belongs to the states. In this case, since there was no existing national law, and the state had executed its judicial power according to its laws, Congress' action seems to be a clear violation of Amendment X. Even worse, the Florida Supreme Court chose not to review the case, which is an indication that they were satisified with the arguments and process...making the Congressional action even that much more over the line.
 
Right. Let's say I had two puppies, one in each hand. I tell you that I'm going to kill both of them. But, I say, if you sign this paper I'll only kill one of them. Wanting to improve the general situation for puppies, you do so. Then one puppy goes in the woodchipper.

Is it fair to say that you are in favor, then, of killing some puppies?

Bush signed a law that improved the standard of care and gave patients on life support more options than they had under the status quo. Under the circumstances, it was the only improvement he could make.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom