Redstate

Of reading to do, and thinking to do, and writing to do, and opinionating to do, and punditry to do, and pontificating to do, and hand-wringing to do.  And this is going to become another 200 post thread that will fade into the aether, sound and fury signifying nothing.

To grasp the breadth of this debate, you have to read about medical ethics, secular vs. nonsecular readings of law, Jewish law vs. Christian law vs. Muslim law vs. Other Religious Interpretations, understand the theoretical political and legal issues, the constitutional basis and precedents, etc., etc., and then throw in your own personal biases, political spin, subjective readings about the motives of the husband and family, then put it all into some kind of weighted average, press the button, and attempt to reach a conclusion.  Which everyone else will then debate and comment on and critique.

So this thread is sure to become one enormous time sink, like the abortion threads.  

Do I have an opinion about this case?  Heck Yeah, I do.  But I'm not going to tell anyone what it is in a free-for-all forum, because I am absolutely brain-dead (which Schiavo is apparently not) weary of seeing this case on the front page of newspapers and every single cable-news program, radio program, and fuzzy soft-light, tear-jerking retrospective on Oprah.  Call me a meanie.

You meanie.

But that was a pretty adroit comment in a lot of ways.

While I would not suffer a vegetable to live, Schiavo doesn't appear to be in a persistent vegetative state. She responds to stimuli, and displays recognition of individuals.

There is a darker side to this issue which 'the media' has predictably failed to cover with any semblence of depth; the abusive past of the husband. While Schiavo's current condition is attributed to a series of medical conditions sequent to bulimia, there is also ample evidence of severe abuse. Schiavo's husband, some speculate, is attempting to bury evidence that his wifes condition is at the very least the result of negligence, and possibly a direct result of some kind of physical abuse.

If that's true, then removing the feeding tube would be a tremendous injustice. Schiavo would not be a burden upon society, since ample resources have been offered for her care from family and interested third parties.

What we have here is an interesting test case to bridge the separate debates of the death-penalty, abortion, and right-to-die. It all comes down to this: which is more important, life or quality of life?

I admit, I don't know her state well enough to comment on her life but...

You sound as if you know something.  She's been in a coma (of sorts) for 15 years.  What kind of abuse can you possibly see now?

It's a terrible decision to have to make.  That's why we make living wills w/ DNR statements.

For myself, I wouldn't want to stay alive in that condition.

From commenting on this, and I'm far from an expert myself.  I have an opinion, but I am growing weary of the case.  I am willing to wager that more words have been spent discussing Terry Schiavo than have been spent discussing the relations between the United States and Europe.  

I think there have been a number of authoritative commentators who have made very eloquent and penetrating analyses of the Schiavo case.  When I decide to lobby my legislators, I will collect those opinions and use them, along with my own.  This is purely my feeling about this -- please, others feel free to differ and talk about it all you want.  I don't want to stop anyone.

But I will say that this sentence, from a commentary by Daniel Eisenberg, M.D. at the Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia, looking at the Schiavo case from the perspective of Jewish Law, is one of the wisest statements I've read:

The key to analyzing any situation is to realize that good ethics start with good facts. One must provide the posek (halachic decisor) with an accurate, honest, and thorough assessment of the patient's medical condition. Only then can a halachically valid and ethically proper decision be made.

For myself, I will say that I hope everyone making comments on this case, from any perspective, try to live up to that standard of integrity.  And that's it for me on this one, folks.

There's good argument on either side of this case. What would Terri have wanted? How much credence to give to various experts? How much does she respond to stimuli? Lots of other good issues.

However the case can be made without attempts to demonize Michael Schiavo. There's no evidence anywhere of abuse. Just because "some speculate" doesn't make it true. Some speculate that George Bush was receiving radio signals from Karl Rove during the presidential debates. That doesn't mean that it happened.

Two separate trials have looked at the issues around this case. Both came out for the "abuser". His guarardianship has received more oversight than any in history. Lawyers, judges, state politicians, and law enforcement have continually looked over what happened when. And not a single verifiable incident of abuse has been found.

Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true.

After Terri collapsed Michael and her parents (they were still friends then) filed suit against her doctors for failing to diagnose her bulimia. They had her medical records, and examined her extensively before the trial. In the end they lost a million dollar verdict. If there was the slightest sign of abuse they had a huge incentive to bring that up. But not a word was spoken of abuse in the malpractice trial. There may be a reason for that.

And knew what the word "irrelevant" means.

Accusing a person of spousal abuse -- even murder -- is just something that I think is not taken seriously enough. If you are going to make such a serious accusation then the burden is on you to provide the evidence. In olden times that would get you challenged to a duel. Now it's just considered part of passing conversation.

So what specific piece of information did the defense want excluded? Which trial -- the malpractice or one of the 2 about Michael's guardianship? Why was it excluded? Why have law enforcement not picked up on the excluded evidence for a criminal prosecution?

Or is that just another internet story you're trying to start? I guess it's the Dan Rather Syndrome -- verifying anything that supports my beliefs would be redundant and therefore unnecessary.

I'll also admit that my first, selfish reaction was that, depending on to whom the case is assigned, it may further delay a Markman ruling on which I'm waiting.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0347,hentoff,48738,6.html

I was addressing how and why the question of spousal abuse was not addressed in the medical malpractice case. "Guardianship trials" are not quite what you seem to think they are. Read up on them, then come back.

In the old days, Schiavo's second would have told him to lay off and listen to the exact statement, because he could be hanged for challenging me for that statement.

In the old days, village idiots weren't entitled misread brief comments and expound tangentially and slanderously on them at length without being beaten. For the sake of your bodily integrity, be glad you were born after 1800.

Is that all you can do? When stumped it's immediately to the grade school level personal attacks. I would expect more than that, even from you. But, it would seem that's all you're capable of.

I would hope you could last at least a few comments before resorting your nasty little digs.

If you wish to turn this into a series of personal attacks then so be it. However I will not put up with anymore of your snotty remarks. If you can't address issues being discussed then don't bother responding to my posts.

I will respond 1 for 1.

Your snotty comments aren't appreciated. If you prefer the personal attack route then lets do it. But your style of sh-t heaving is more appreciated at other sites:

www.dkos.com

www.democraticunderground.com

www.freerepublic.com

But if turning this site into such a site is your goal then let's do it.

but geez, I kinda got the impression, just ever so slightly, that you thought there might be evidence of abuse that simply wasn't presented. I was sort of looking forward to hearing that evidence. Somehow, I don't think I'll be getting any further insight from this subthread.

I found the link posted by jannelson interesting and informative -- it's given me something to think about, and I think I'll do a little more research on this topic. I also appreciated Kowalskis comments.

It's a bit dated, in 2003. That was about the time the appeals court was reviewing Greer's decision on allowing the bone scans in as evidence.

Several questions about the scans would have to be answered.

If they were taken in 1991 why were they not mentioned until 2002? Eleven years is a long time to hold something like this.

Why have no law enforcement officials been interested?

Why haven't they been released so they could be interpreted by medical personnel that aren't part of the dispute?

That doesn't mean they don't present the evidence just as the family says. However questions have to be answered before they're used to accuse someone of abuse.

It's all I was interested in offering.

Two remaining points:

(1) I was making a point about relevance of evidence. Nothing more. That you insisted on seeing something more suggests interesting things about you, that we'll leave to the side for right now. Suffice it to say that even were I aware of such evidence, I wouldn't have time to walk through it right now. I simply meant to say that insofar as it exists, it wouldn't "come out" in a trial on medical malpractice, because it would be irrelevant.

(2) One warning: Profanity. I give it regardless of personal views. You've gotten your free warning. Next time means you walk.

All it was meant for was the simple proposition that not all evidence is relevant, and irrelevant evidence doesn't come out in a trial, if the judge knows what he's doing. That's all.

Actually your need to make a personal attack at every possible point says a lot about you.

I didn't call you an idiot. You are the one who started with the personal stuff.

My point above was that it's very easy to accuse of murder with no evidence. You seemed to say you knew of some. That's no reason to start with the insults.

Great News!!!  If we stick around for a few more rounds, Terri may already be dead and we won't have to deal with it anymore.

 I can't believe I stayed for the entire bout.

Spohn

Or is that just another internet story you're trying to start? I guess it's the Dan Rather Syndrome -- verifying anything that supports my beliefs would be redundant and therefore unnecessary.

I am, to say the least, intrigued how one does not find two slanders in that little tossaway. And I leave the bit about duels to the side.

This little return to kindergarten has been fun, but I'm off. If you feel the need to continue, by all means, do so.

Are you litigating in the Middle District?

I'm just asking where it came from. A website? A story heard? It's much easier to accept stories that support existing beliefs. Ask Dan about that.

That's one of the big issues in this debate. Relying on websites for documentation is a real problem.  

By the way...slander is spoken. Libel is written...but you knew that, didn't you.

I see nowhere that I said anything of the sort. I said something about admissibility. Try again.

Actually, the slander/libel thing is an interesting distinction when dealing with comments on a published post.

Unfortunately, I'm out of time to deal with it.

... beat us to the Courthouse.  (They're based in the Orlando area.)  

To stray further off topic (and further unload):  someone has to improve the service at the restaurant in Orlando's Westin (Le Boheme or somesuch).  Slow, slow, slow.

Hit Universal. Awesome restaurants. Some good places along International, too.

This'll go to the Tampa Division. Orlando's reach doesn't cover Clearwater.

I think it's The Bohemian, but I've only been there once.

By intervening on behalf of Schiavo's parents, the Republicans in Congress are trying to prolong the poor woman's suffering. One wonders what the poor woman did in her previous life to deserve a sentence of 15 years with a feeding tube. But that's not a problem for Republicans.

But that's not surprising: the GOP is on record for believing in torture. It's part of compassion for Conservatives to promote pain; enduring torture is redemptive and prepares the victim for the Rapture.

You've just been banned! From stating that the GOP is on record for "believing in torture" to a quick host of slurs on conservatives in a single sentence, you've won the grand prize!

Bye-ee, cretin.

I'm not a lawyer but based on the time frame of Michael's revolation that Terri wanted death;I think there is something unusual with this case.

First,I think our Judges are really overstepping their intended role and prefer to legislate rather than inturpate our Constitution.It is becomming dangerously close to Rule by a Monarch.

My concern is from something I learned way back in High School.

If you place your 2 thumbs on the arteries in the neck,supplying the brain with blood,and apply a slight pressure,you will pass out.However,if you do that to yourself;You regain conscienceness very quickly.

If it is done by someone else and they keep the pressure on the arteries for an extended period;Is it possible to starve the brain of blood,thereby causing a heart attack,etc.,that mimics bulimia?

If this is possible and Michael has her done away with AND creamates her body;POOF.There goes the evidence.

Explain this.

Michael Schiavo allegedly knew before she was injured that Terri did not want to live under constant hospitalization, or whatever the line is. Ok. Take that as a given.

He sued the doctor allegedly responsible for, among other things, the cost to care for Terri for the rest of her projected life. The money that came from the suit was structured for that very purpose.

To get this money, this way, Michael had to make certain positive statements to the court, including that Terri would be cared for, for that length of time.

So: Fraud on the court? Or a later desire not to be burdened? Both are morally reprehensible.

by now that you usually mean exactly what you say. While it's certainly my responsibility to read more carefully, it might be useful for you to realize lots of the time I (and possibly others) don't... and perhaps take our lack of precision into account when structuring your remarks.

But I should note that I would've held my powder dry if the original response hadn't been so insulting.

If you're in the region, I'll let you know the next time I'm down.  Maybe we can grab lunch.  

Drop me a line. Any excuse to get out of the office.

I have not followed this completely but it is my understanding that she is not "feeling" anything.

Therefore there is no "promotion of pain."

How do you conclude the "GOP is on record for believing in torture?"

Your leaps in logic escapes me.