Poll: No Role for Government in Schiavo Case

70% call it inappropriate...

March 21, 2005 -- Americans broadly and strongly disapprove of federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, with sizable majorities saying Congress is overstepping its bounds for political gain.

The public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case. Congress passed such legislation and President Bush signed it early today.

That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more — 70 percent — call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.

This ABC News poll also finds that the Schiavo case has prompted an enormous level of personal discussion: Half of Americans say that as a direct result of hearing about this case, they've spoken with friends or family members about what they'd want done if they were in a similar condition. Nearly eight in 10 would not want to be kept alive.
<snip>
more...


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=599622&page=1

but I also think the point of this is to help Bush with the religious conservatives who supported his "reelection" and are angry he is isn't pushing the gay marraige issue. It's throwing them a piece of meat, essentially.

It appears less and less likely.

If they get their fundie base all riled up for '06, they could be the most motivated to come out and vote.

pony show about this cause (and Cheney did the same).

Mar 21, 2005 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans broadly and strongly disapprove of the intervention by Congress in the case of Terri Schiavo and most believe lawmakers are using her case for political gain, according to an ABC News poll published on Monday.

Seventy percent deemed the congressional intervention inappropriate, while 67 percent said they believe lawmakers became involved in the Schiavo case for political advantage rather than the principles involved.

The telephone poll of 501 adults was taken on Sunday and has a 4.5 point error margin.

President Bush early on Monday signed emergency legislation aimed at reversing the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube ordered by a state court on Friday. The measure, which sent the case to federal court, was approved during an extraordinary weekend session of the Republican-led Congress.

Sixty-three percent of those surveyed in the ABC poll said they support the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube.
<snip>

more....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=600654

with people's private lives.

Damn - I am actually in shock over the behavior of Congress on this matter. Senate subpoenas - Tom Delay - BUSH - whoa -

The way the Repugs are going, they may lose both houses in Congress next year.

have our voices heard???

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/21/schiavo/index.html

Look on the side of the page.

As of now, 68% say her husband should decide.

Who should decide Terri Schiavo's fate?

Politicians 1% 822 votes

Judges 5% 6,416 votes

Her parents 22% 31,437 votes

Her husband 72% 101,342 votes

Total: 140,017 votes

Thanks to spineless idiotic Democrats we've lost some credibility and traction on this issue. If the party have found its backbone this would be golden chance to take it the Repub's, especially if the had been more vocal in the outrage over those memos. The House vote will be our undoing not so much now as this is viewed I think mainly a Republican doing, but the Dem's could've gained so much more out this now if we had been as unified the Repub's in opposition to the bill.
The real fallout from our weakness will be in 2006 elections any political gains we try make out of this issue will diluted ,just as in the Iraq war resolution vote, because the Repub's will bring up the fact how supportive the party was of the bill. I still think this good issue for 2006 and voters when reminded will give us some seat gains, but they may be more hesitant about it because our very weak opposition

Sure, the democrats in the senate should have filibustered this , huh? We have to pick our battles there, and this was NOT one of them. The SCLM would have had a field day with stalling tactics, and that's all we could enforce (Democrats filibuster while patient starves to death)
No, what they needed to do, and did do, was to be united in voting against this idiocy, but let the republicans win. The republicans didn't win any points with the american people, and, to be honest, the whole issue is not worth fighting over in an individual case. In general, the republicans are shooting themselves in the foot with this one, because it's really not one of thier big issues, and everyone's already getting pissed about social security and this just puts more wood on the fire.
If they just keep this crap up until 2006...

And a hellofa lot to loose. 70% of the country is looking at what the Republicans just did and shaking their heads. Sounds like it worked out pretty well to me! :)

I'm not so sure. I think if the recent Judge's ruling is upheld the Dems will come off looking calm and "Above the Fray" while the repubs were scurrying around on some hapless sideshow that didn't make any difference in the end anyway. They look frenzied and out of control.

The Dems aren't soiled by the debate because they didn't have one. They can now say they weren't worried about the outcome because the law was misguided and unenforceable. Let the kids play.

Polls show an overwhelming majority that Congress should mind their own house.

junior is losing big time on this one. Another bin Laden video will be coming out soon.

because they're too intimidated by the MSM and the Republicans. Even when the damn polls are on their side, the Dems still go along with whatever the Repukes want.

Spineless bunch of f*cks all of them are.

This is a loosing issue - maybe the smartest thing they could have done is to avoid it. Afterall, that seems to be the biggest complaint, that Congress has made a personal tragidy into a political issue for partisan gains. What's the saying: Never interupt your enemy when he is making a mistake?

Not saying that the Dems havent been a bunch of spinless bastards, mind you. Just that they may have stumbled onto the only way not to get burned by this.

The most noticable thing about that poll is how many people think the Republicans are doing this for political gain. If the Dems start attacking they'll just seem like opportunists.

Hell, not just seem, they'll be opportunists.

retain a bit of sanity. Dems should hit the press with this is what happens when the Repubs control the House, Senate, and Presidency. Then go on the offensive about how Dems are better at governing. If Dems controlled the House of Senate, then this wouldn't happen. I think if we push this correctly and then play the anti-fillibuster the same way, then we can take back the House and possibly the Senate. I hope.

that they don't even know when they have a winning hand.

No cheering from this quarter, their behavior is that of any coward

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/155253.htm

March 20, 2005

Who is Funding the Schiavo Court Battle?
Millions of dollars have been spent by conservative political organizations that are using the Terri Schiavo case as a means to further their political agenda. This list of players comes from The American Journal of Bioethics :

According to the AJB article, the Schiavo lawyer, Pat Anderson
"was paid directly" by the anti-abortion Life Legal Defense Foundation, which "has already spent over $300,000 on this case,' according to the foundation's Web site."

<snip>

According to Media Transparency, "FRC was a division of James Dobson's Focus on the Family from 1988 until October 1992, when IRS concerns about the group's lobbying led to an amicable administrative separation."

<snip>

... a collection of foundations that have funded conservative causes ranging from abolition of Social Security to anti-tax crusades and United Nations conspiracy theories. The Roundtable members' founders include scions of America's wealthiest families, including Richard Mellon Scaife (heir to the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune), Harry Bradley (electronics), Joseph Coors (beer), and the Smith Richardson family (pharmaceutical products).

...more at link...

plus really good links imbedded in the article

They are throwing their money away. The money they waste on this, they won't be able to spend on something else. (The silver lining in the cloud?)

that her frontal cortex is destroyed. Many people don't realize that she doesn't have her entire brain. These people believe she is simply in a coma and thru some miracle she may wake up and be Terry again but without a cortex there will never be a Terry, period.

The dems are letting repukes completely define the issue. In a case like this the the only thing every Dem should say is "look at the MRI".

/sarcasm

Who in the world are the people representing?

Definitely not their constituents - they are wasting taxpayer time and money with their dog and pony shows - they refuse to deal with the messes that they have created and they show their disdain for common sense with every move they make.

:argh:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002213728_memo20.html

excerpt:

The one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators by party leaders, called the debate over Schiavo legislation "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who is up for re-election next year.

"This is an important moral issue, and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a co-sponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."

...a bit more at link...

Bill Nelson will switch!!

pay the price in 2006.

by its propper name... FASCIST.

DUCKS!! And one of them is Bill Nelson!

Is cited as being AGAINST allowing the feed tube to be put back in.

The repukes are saying.. goody goody an issue we can tar and feather him with!.. We can tell the whole FL community that Nelson is a killer like all of those other Democrats.

This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a co-sponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."


Note the word Refused!

refusing to co sponsor the bill. That's a good thing.


perhaps you 4 read it right, and i'm wrong, but it's how I interuppted this short memo. Nothing more then another wedge issue.

more...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/216872_suicide21.html

He was hospitalized for about a month in his last day's. Anyway, I wont go into all the details, but he was pretty uncomfortable towards the end. The doctor was really good and tried his best to alleviate his pain but just wasn't able to. After many day's of watching our dad suffer, we asked the doctor to do something. He just said something like "if I give him any more pain medication, he may die" and we all said that would be fine with us and the doc did and my dad passed away peacefully that night.

I never regretted it in the least bit.

every single family must confront eventually.

I'm sorry to hear your difficult personal experience.

We must frame it in those terms - - as "would you want a bunch of Washington politicians intruding on your decision and overriding your family judgment if they didn't agree with your conclusion?"

I'm sorry for the loss of your father.

Cause if any member of congress who voted to re-insert the feeding tube ever finds themselves or a family member in that position, we need to file court action to demand they jump through every friggin hoop for years on end.

If they already had a living will, their actions now say they have thought better of it and no longer wish to invoke their own living will.

Just as many of us over the past several days have said in conversations with friends......."I wouldn't want to be kept alive in such a way. YOU ARE MY WITNESS." We'll, I've seen those yahoos on C-Span, I've read their words. I AM THEIR WITNESS!

though they are solidly Repuke, most people do not want the Talibush in their private life. The next step is gonna be on the abortion issue, of course, as this is what this whole experiment is about. Hopefully this will push that effort back in the Rove closet for a while....

...which can't seem to pander fast enough to this extremist minority splinter.

Don't get me wrong. I have always believed that everyone should have the choice to die with dignity if the circumstances arise, and this case certainly fits. However,... what kind of death?

Simply removing the feeding tube will kill Terry, but she will die from dehydration over a period of about two weeks. I wouldn't do that to a dog! This is the spineless Pontius Pilate excuse of "I didn't kill her, she died a natural death". Pushing her out of a 10th floor window would also make her die a "natural" death and would be vastly preferable to death by dehydration. An increasing dose of morphine would make her pass into a coma and die painlessly.

If we value life enough to let people die with dignity then we must follow our responsibility right through to the end.

that's been posted here and linked to? ANY of it? It's not considered painful, and on the off-chance it is, drugs are administered; people who are dying often do this themselves as a natural part of the death process. This woman is not sentient in any case, as that part of her brain which registers feeling is now liquified--gone.

The question "what kind of death" has been answered here umpteen times over the last couple of days--it is a peaceful one.

I am not looking for a fight, and I hope I am as informed as you are, and I certainly wish I were as confident as you that the process is painless (cf the dispute about "painless" lethal injections used on prisoners, using drugs that have been banned for veterinary use ...).

I still stick to the view that it is a moral fudge to take an action in the full knowledge of it resulting in someone's death, then to pretend they are dying of "natural" causes. _IF_ we are make such moral decisions of life and death then at least let us be _honest_ about our actions, and carry them out rationally.

The fact that the "woman is not sentient in any case" is all the more reason to put an end to her life without the salve to _our_ conscience of letting dehydrate.

Again, I'm not looking for a fight here, I just believe that in this matter we have to follow "moral logic" rigorously through to its conclusion.

The woman cannot eat on her own; she has lost the ability to swallow. the feeding tube is a man-made intervention into what would otherwise be a natural process. I imagine loved ones in the days before feeding tubes felt helpless, but they never could question that what was happening was anything but natural.

I base my view on the process being painless from the many health workers who have posted here their firsthand experiences observing the death of their patients; also the numerous links to medical literature which explains the prevailing medical professional view on the subject.

I don't understand the relevance of lethal injections on prisoners to this issue.

My first post was obviously unclear. When I said it was immoral to remove the feeding tube, I meant exactly that. I did not meant to imply that it would be immoral to kill Terry. On the contrary, I am advocating "actively assisted" death.

My view is that removing the feeding tube and pretending that we are not killing her but letting "nature" take the responsibility is in itself immoral behavior since the choice of the method of her death is ours, and this choice of method is not for the benefit of the patient but for our own conscience. If we make the choice that patience like Terry will die, then we should be honest about our actions, and give her a swift death. Anything else is hypocritical and so is immoral.

Sorry if you missed my reference to lethal injection, as on second reading it might look as though I am arguing the opposite view than I intended. Death by lethal injection consists of a cocktail of drugs that paralyzes then kills. Precisely this combination has been discredited by vets when they discovered that the animals were often dying in excruciating pain, but gave the impression of being tranquil. I only wanted to point out that even though someone might appear tranquil when dying of dehydration, I am not as confident as you that this is really the case.

I think that you are mistaken in thinking that removal of the feeding tube and the ensuing nutrional depletion resulting in death is not "natural".

What is not "natural" is the artificial prolonging of life. Most times, this is beneficial. For instance, the asthmatic who requires a ventilator to get over an exacerbation of her illness. Other times, it is not beneficial. In the case of Schiavo it clearly is not benefitting her--for there is no "her" left.

Organisms, in nature, often die secondary to malnutrition. It is not unnatural in any way. In fact, it is likely the most natural way death occurs. It has happenened for millenna and continues to happen in impoverished nations.

I am not saying the letting nature take its course is the best action in medical decision making. In fact, my job is to not let nature take its course. My point is that removal of an inserted feeding tube is not against nature.

If nature had taken its course Terry would have been dead many years ago. Modern medicine is the reason I am glad to be alive in this century, and not 100 years ago. However, once we intervene then we should not use "nature" as an excuse to hide from the results of our actions. We have a choice to prolong life, and that is good. We cannot avoid the fact that this also gives us the moral duty of terminating life under certain circumstances. That is euthanasia, no matter how you want to wrap it up. Once we decide that Terry should die, then at least let us make it humane. I believe that a lethal dose of morphine is more humane than letting someone dehydrate. Just removing the feeding tube is a cop-out. We take an action that we know will kill, then pretend it is the responsibility of nature. If we are to be truly civilized, then let us at least be open and honest about our choices and the results of our actions.

I've gotten personal attacks trying to say the exact same thing.

:yourock:

Euthanasia is an active process, removing the tube should not be classified in this category.

Removing the tube is stopping an artificial means of life support. It is undoing something that does not exist in the natural "state of nature" of a human.It is clearly not the same as actively pushing a lethal dose of morphine.

how in the heck could a vet determine that a dog was in excruciating pain if the dog was tranquil -- esp? brain wave activity or something? The time between the paralysis and the kill has to be like a second or two. Not being smart here -- just curious as I am an animal lover. My understanding is that morphine is being given to Terri.

I do not want to get side-tracked here. This was just an example. My point is...

Someone tells me that dying of dehydration is "painless". I am skeptical. A better example is the case of a friend of my daughter. A few years ago she had pretty major surgery. She was under anesthetic, but she felt every cut of the knife. It left her severely traumatized. Later, she repeated back to the doctor some of the comments he had made during the operation. This shocked him profoundly as he would have sworn that the operation was "painless" for the patient. So, I am skeptical about dehydration.

To quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected. I would urge you to read the next paragraph regarding giving medication to ease ease suffering of the terminally ill. http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm accessed 1:09 PM CST 3/21/2005

My father didn't want to eat or drink during his final illness. He seemed not to feel either hunger or thirst and he was lucid until his final moments of life. I appreciate your concern but you need to inform yourself about this woman's condition as well as the process of death of the severely ill.

Mom had Living Will. I was her Health Proxy. In a CATHOLIC hospital, I was allowed to pull the plug according to her wishes. She is buried in a Catholic Cemetery.

My uncle refused an operation which they said would kill him if he didn't have. He put on his clothes, signed a waver, and left the hospital never to return. He died 6 months later at home. He, too, is buried in a Catholic Cemetery.

Apparently, they don't practice what they now preaching.

anyway. Oh, Terri was a devout Catholic and so would never go against the church -- she didn't attend church according to Michael, not on any regular basis. Now we find out it isn't even against church teaching -- Brother! I swear, the parents are after Terri's SSI check. Bring her home, get the check.

We have a problem here in that we first have to decide what basis of "morality" we are using. You quote the Catholic Church, and I respect your personal belief, but as an atheist, I obviously have a different starting point to you.

"Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted." For me, there is no moral difference between these two. An action results in a death. It should be recognized as such. Though I can see how someone's religious belief would make them wish to see a nuance here, I personally feel it is ultimately a way of avoiding responsibility.

I am glad that your father had such a peaceful death. I have seen at first hand the decline and death of my own father-in-law over a period of seventeen years. That has undoubtedly given me a different viewpoint to you on this matter.

indefinitely, with no ability whatsoever, just to spare him what you believe to be a painful (albeit short) experience? I understand what you are saying about the whole euthanasia issue ... but it is not an option. Starvation/dehydration, though cruel sounding, is a very natural progression.

Perhaps my post was not clear. I find it immoral to take an action that we know will result in a death and then to _pretend_ that we are not responsible. I am advocating exactly the opposite of what you imply I meant. We should act, but act rationally and effectively without disguising the process as "natural".

Obviously the only reason Terry is alive is because of a MANMADE feeding tube. You take that away and you're letting nature take its course.

I don't see anything immoral about that. In fact, it seems MORE moral than trying to prolong the agony of someone that clearly isn't there.

I am certainly not trying to prolong the agony of the patient. On the contrary. If we decide that someone is to die then we should be swift in our actions. However, letting someone dehydrate is not swift, it is prolonging their suffering, and it is not for _their_ benefit but for _our_ conscience. That is what I mean by it being immoral to remove Terry's feeding tube. We decide she is to die, then pretend that it is not our responsibility. It is like a child who says "the vase broke" as a way of pretending that we are not responsible for our actions. If Terry is brain dead then let her die now. If we make moral choices then let us face consequences of our decisions.

I have heard this called "inducing a coma" in end stage cancer patients, once morphine is no longer controlling the pain. It isn't referred to as euthanasia, but it sure seems like it to me.

The tools are available, they are actively being used (and have been used for many, many years), it _is_ euthanasia, but it is _clandestine_. It is the same problem with legislating against abortion. Regardless of the "moral" considerations, banning abortion just increases back-street abortions etc. The suffering is hidden and we have a clean conscience. If we are to be morally responsible in regards to life and death then let us at least be honest and open, and not pretend that we are "letting nature take its course". Terry is brain dead. To aid her death is the morally correct decision. However, simply removing her feeding tube and letting her dehydrate is _not_ helping her, it is salving our own conscience. That is why it is an "immoral" action. "Nature" is used as a fig leaf to hide our own problems guilt.

Everyone is just careful to give it a different name and interpretation. I am not so sure whether a bit of hypocrisy isn't OK in certain areas of life though. As death approaches and is inevitable, and pain becomes unbearable, it may be best to pretend that the morphine overdose is accidental.

This may be one area where practice and principle can diverge comfortably for the vast majority of people. But it is a hard point to argue rationally. I suppose it amounts to one of Plato's "noble lies". The vast bulk of the population gets to pretend there is no euthanasia, but pointless and terrible suffering is alleviated anyway.

to try and trump nature. From what I understand, you claim that we should beat nature to its cruel punch, that we are somehow above it and more humane. I disagree. We should leave playing God to the fundies who love to spout off about heaven - yet deny what could be interpreted as God's will. To euthanize someone who is incapable of feeling pain is pointless. I'm not sure what "responsibility" is necessary. Just because we can sustain life does not mean that we should, but euthanizing an unresponsive human (non-suffering) amounts to murder ... there is no mercy, just hubris at having beaten nature by a nose.

I am sorry if you cannot come to terms with the moral responsibility of taking someone's life away. However, to play the game of "passive" executioner is simply to fool yourself. Let us be honest and open about our actions.

If I worked in a garage and purposefully disconnected the brake cable of a client's car, then I cannot pretend that the accident that subsequently kills them is in any way a "natural" death. I made a decision, took an action and knowingly arranged for someone to die.

If we are going to make life and death decision for helpless people, then let us not invoke "God" or say "it is pretty arrogant to try and trump nature", when we really mean that it is a difficult and unpleasant decision to come to terms with. Removing Terry's feeding tube is an act of euthanasia. To allow her to die passively when there are valid alternative ways to end her life is ultimately a selfish act to salve _our_ own conscience.

He survived long enough to make his wishes known, though for a while the issue was up in the air. His heart was failing, and the family opted for "comfort care" which consisted of oxygen, morphine and anti-anxiety medication. In his last hours, his morphine dose was incrementally increased to the point of potentially inducing respiratory arrest. I was aware of this, though not present, and frankly it made me incredibly uncomfortable. He was not in pain, so I do not feel that there was need to speed the inevitable. My stepdad was with his father when he peacefully passed, and he accepts the outcome with no regret ... which is all I can ask for, though I do feel that the care perhaps crossed some ethical borders. This was my personal experience. I believe that euthanasia is 100% acceptable if the person chooses it as a means. I just don't see where this applies here. From what I understand, Terri is incapable of feeling pain - but even were it not the case, she would most likely be given morphine to make the transition more comfortable. I'm not sure where the nobility lies in actively facilitating another's death, whereas a passive death reflects selfishness. I don't think that it is about appeasing (or salving) my own conscience ... I simply don't feel that it is my place to dictate whether one lives or dies. By this I mean that, as a caregiver/guardian, my primary concern should be the wishes of the dependent - and if they choose not to prolong their life by artificial means ... I execute their wishes (not them). I do not believe that it is "selfish" to leave the power of the decision with the dying person (or at least their body). I keep reading these dog references, and while I get the gist of it ... I am not a dog and I don't need to be put to sleep. I can die on my own, I don't need someone taking my last moments to spare me the perceived suffering. It seems to me that your argument is quite contrary and unless explicitly stated otherwise, it is presumptous to take one's death out of their hands.

I am glad to hear that your stepfather's father could make his wishes known at the end. It eases the inevitable end for the patient and helps the family come to terms with the loss. It was his right to choose while he was able, and undoubtedly helped him feel that he was in control of his fate right up to the end.

Also, I can understand your qualms about crossing an ethical barrier. Morality is not black and white, but many shades of gray. That is the only motivation I have for pushing this issue so hard. I wish there were simple answers, but there aren't, so all I can hope for is an honest assessment of our actions.

My "dog references" are not meant to degrade human life, on the contrary. All I know is that I could never justify purposefully letting a dog die of dehydration when the responsibility is mine and I have other alternate choices (i.e. actively prolong life or actively shorten life). Either I am responsible or I am not, and pretending that "nature ran its course" is just ducking the real issue at hand. Why should I treat human life less seriously?

I just wanted to clarify why I'm uncomfortable with the issue. I don't mean to be confrontational, when I essentially agree with you ... I just feel that in a situation like this, there is a huge tendency to project. I've read the dog reference a number of times (I didn't mean to single you out) and find it appropriate most of the time, but it works better when arguing at a lower, less specific level. It's kind of funny how I butt my head against the notion that we are above animals (we are animals), yet I have to offer a distinction when it comes to this.

to allow someone to end their suffering and go Home to God.

My family was faced with this decision in 2000. My grandfather had gone to the hospital with heart problems. The doctors told him that he had a 50/50 percent chance of surving. He took it anyways and during the surgery he had several small strokes that rendered him into a coma. My mother, uncle and Grandma allowed him 1 month to live however the prognosis was poor and they have decided to end life support for him. They brought him home and he died four days later. I must tell you that I haven't seen him suffer and I am glad that he has mad it to The Other Side with no problems. My grandfather has told my mother and grandmother in the past that if he ended up in a situation where he didn't have any faculties whatsoever, then they were to end his life for him or else he would find a way to commit suicide.

I have an uncle on my stepdad's side of the family who passed away on the thirteen of March. He suffered a stroke and has been on a feeding tube for several years. Although I beleive that if one is suffering they should be allowed to go, I certainly cannot judge my aunt's decision to keep him alive this long and I am certainly glad ( and she is too) that he has passed over.

My mother suffered a heart attack this weekend at the above said uncle's funeral, although she is still alive and well, I am aware of the fact that she does have a Living Will through her dialysis center and that they have to honor her wishes.

As for Terry Schiavo, she is long gone and already on the Other Side. Her parents are just basically keeping her corpse alive. It's like having a car and not driving it but keeping it running and feeding gas into it. The car is running and burning gas but there is no one driving it.

Just my two cents
Dee

care at the moment isn't she?

My father-in-law went through 17 years of declining illness.

The poll had a little blurb stating the following:
Conservatives and evangelicals hold these views even though most people in both groups — 73 percent and 68 percent, respectively — say that if they personally were in this condition, they would not want to be kept alive.

Do unto others before it's done to you is their new (not-so)Golden Rule

They push for unpopular Congressional intervention into medical decisions governed by state law and rulings.

The case itself is a tragic one that should have had the benefit of being a private tragedy. A young woman's brain is dead, is in a permanent vegetative state. Her husband states that she had expressed a wish not to be kept alive on machines, but he has no independent proof; some doubt his integrity. Her parents, as would many parents, don't want to give her up for dead. The medical evidence is that she is indeed in a permanent vegetative state. Medical resources that have already been wasted to keep the dead alive might again be wasted by fiat of the U.S. Congress. State pols had already used the issue in hopes of political gain and been overruled by state courts; so national pols get involved. It's a personal tragedy that has become a political circus; and now it turns out that the public doesn't like Congress' circus act. I just hope the electorate remembers that on election day 2006.

And none of that takes away the tragedy that it was for a young woman, and is for parents and spouse alike.

...and did Republicans forget that we all have family too, and would not want them legislating from our families bedsides....?

NO support and even outright condemnation from the pro-Bushies over their party's actions on this one.

Driving home today, I was floored to hear THE SAME ARGUMENTS spouting from Ed Schultz on AAR and the RW nut job on the other radio station about the Congressional actions in this case. This is very encouraging. Americans are in agreement on one issue for the first time in years ... the Congress has no business in this case, or any personal cases already ruled on through a state court.

If the Righties are willing to see where Congress is wrong here, maybe they will be able to see more areas where Congress is also wrong.

First good news in weeks.

...because one day that could be us - just like Terry Shiavo. And somewhere out there a relative will turn fundie and use our braindead existance in order to promote their warped cause.

This is such a private and personal matter. The goverment has no business at all intervening or even making an opinion.

Are these new reporter types born blind like albino mice?

(snip)

Rather than incurring the cost of flying back to Washington on Air Force One -- pegged in 1999 at $34,000 an hour -- Bush could have signed the bill in Texas a few hours later without significantly endangering Schiavo's life, critics said. Not only had doctors estimated that she could live for up to two weeks without the feeding tube, but a federal judge was not expected to hear the case until today.

"Obviously, Bush could have signed the bill in Texas," said Dan Bartlett, a senior counselor to Bush. But, he added, despite the estimates of how long Schiavo could live without her feeding tube, "it would be very hard for anyone to live with themselves" if Schiavo died because of a delay in the signing of the bill into law.

(snip)

The new law appears to conflict with a Texas law Bush signed as governor, according to lawyers familiar with the legislation. The 1999 Advance Directives Act in Texas allows a patient's surrogate to make end-of-life decisions and spells out how to proceed if a health provider disagrees with a decision to maintain or halt life-sustaining treatment.

Thomas Mayo, an associate law professor at Southern Methodist University who helped draft the Texas law, told the Associated Press that if the Schiavo case had happened in Texas, the husband would have been her surrogate decision maker. Because both he and her doctors were in agreement, life support would have been discontinued, he said.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55214-2005Mar21.html

And now they are out of step? That's news to me.

they weren't elected in the first place. :grr:

I now know why they call them the red-necks from red-states. It's from too many embarrassing moments and all that cherry kool-aid they drink!

In Farenheit 911 remember what he said on the ranch when a reporter asked him how could he get anything done on the ranch...
"You'd be surprised what work we can get done with faxes and all.."

Yeah... he was closer to Florida and coule have signed the bill and still had time to go visit Teri.

WTF though?
He flew from the ranch to the WH and then signed it.
Pretty unprecedented, I'd say.

March 21, 2005

Dear Members and Supporters of The Interfaith Alliance:

Over the past several hours many of you have been kind enough to share with us your thoughtful reflections and questions regarding the tragic situation involving Theresa Marie Schiavo. Several of you have inquired as to whether or not The Interfaith Alliance has taken a position on the end-of-life issues swirling around Mrs. Schiavo or on the involvement of the United States government in this case by way of votes in the United States Senate and in the United States House of Representatives on Sunday evening and early Monday morning respectively.

The Board of Directors of The Interfaith Alliance has not adopted a position on end-of-life issues or directed the staff of The Interfaith Alliance to give attention to these issues either in our policy work or our educational efforts. I cannot speak for them or for the organization on these issues. However, I am astonished, appalled, and grieved by the actions of the two houses of the United States Congress and the White House that have prompted me to write this personal letter.

The life-and-death issues brought into focus by Mrs. Schiavo’s sad condition involve medical questions and legal considerations far too complex for me to address without more information. I might add that, in my opinion, members of the United States Congress would have been well advised to adopt a posture of humility and compassion related to these issues as they impact Mrs. Schiavo and her family. Neither Members of Congress nor any of us have any business seeking to dictate procedures for members of a grieving family and numerous doctors, lawyers, and courts that already have considered the familial, medical, legal and personal issues involved in this situation and attempted to address them with fundamental moral, medical, and legal values.

As a pastor for many years, I repeatedly have stood with troubled families grappling with the issues that surround Mrs. Schiavo’s bedside. Those experiences have taught me the myths that often get perpetrated as facts in public debates regarding circumstances like those involving Mrs. Schiavo. No perspective regarding a resolution for such a difficult situation has all of the weight of compassion and wisdom behind it

Alongside my concern for the family of Mrs. Schiavo stands my concern for our nation. A family’s grief over the loss of a loved one is being compounded by pontifical posturing among politicians and religious leaders who know too little about the situation even to comment on it much less to attempt to control it. A tragic situation is being made more tragic by the insensitive intrusion into it by Washington politicians seeking yet another venue for speaking to their partisan constituencies and for strengthening their political “base.” For Congress and the White House to jump into this tragic situation at the last minute, after years of court proceedings, and to take a position on the value of life so inconsistent with, if not contradictory to, many of their other decisions, represent unconscionable meddling in the private decision of an American family—a family who needs our thoughts and prayers, not our spirit of blatant judgment and our not-too-subtle politicization.

Profound questions disturb me. Are there no limits on the intrusive reach of this government? Where will Washington go next? Do claims of both religious and political authority give a government the right to invade the spheres of personal autonomy and religious independence? How long will the American public wait for such questions to be answered.

Dear friends, all of us would do well to step back from the bedside of a woman caught somewhere between death and life, divorce our political initiatives from this realm of personal and familial pain, pray for the peace of Terri Schiavo and her family, and after taking a hard look at how we feel about politicians who are willing to manipulate even personal pain in an effort aimed at political gain, decide what we are going to do about our democracy.

Sincerely,
Rev. C. Welton Gaddy
President, The Interfaith Alliance

And a very loud AMEN too.

I'm sending that to my local paper. Thank you for posting it.

Also, do you have a link for the letter? That would really help.

letter from the interfaith alliance. But I'm sure it would be posted on their website. I'll go and see if I can find it.

Edit: here it is http://www.interfaithalliance.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=8dJIIWMCE&b=408843&content_id={40727741-18EF-4D0B-91FA-C01D437C4E14}¬oc=1

and that is a very short list he's on.

wonderful letter and perspective.

...'no shit, Sherlock, what was your 1st clue?'

self deleted post.

That should be our outcry. Let the courts decide about Terri. But the GOP should be ashamed of its brazen religious grandstanding.

It should be obvious to all that these Republican politicians shamelessly manipulate the feelings of decent Americans for selfish political gain.

The result: The Constitutional crisis we are presently witnessing.

(On a related note: Does that now mean that DLC Democrats are more or less out of step with the American people? The GOP is their muse, after all.)

(apart of repeating the obvious) does this signal a small revolt with the so heroic stenography corp? I am serious here folks... have they received enough crap already where they are going, ok, we'd better start reporting news now.

Zero credibility.

Return with us now to those Thrilling Days of Yesteryear--early 1999. TWO-THIRDS of the American Public did not want Bill "Lawfully Elected" Clinton impeached for lying about a blow job, yet the GOP goose-stepped into the Senate will their Solemn List Of High Crimes. Yes, that would be the same Senate which had told them that their case was dead on arrival.

Like the Grab Oil Party gives Shit One what the Public thinks!

doesn't agree with this stupidity.

Which makes one wonder --- SURPRISE...how DID * get elected.
Boys and girls...can you say.... FRAUD?

I always read him for his input on the Middle East. It's interesting that he has linked these two issues.

The Schiavo Case and the Islamization of the Republican Party

The cynical use by the US Republican Party of the Terri Schiavo case repeats, whether deliberately or accidentally, the tactics of Muslim fundamentalists and theocrats in places like Egypt and Pakistan. These tactics involve a disturbing tendency to make private, intimate decisions matters of public interest and then to bring the courts and the legislature to bear on them. President George W. Bush and Republican congressional leaders like Tom Delay have taken us one step closer to theocracy on the Muslim Brotherhood model.

more here.....

http://www.juancole.com/

Wow!!!

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/42920.htm

When the NY Post agrees with us, you know the repubs' hubris has taken effect.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-01-air-force-one_x.htm

I know it's slightly off subject but does Bush really use Air Force One to travel to his vacation ranch? Wouldn't this be a four hour flight each way? Based on the USAtoday article, that means it costs taxpayers $450,000 for his airfare.

Doesn't anybody else find this incredible?

I seem to recall a lot of outrage when Bill Clinton got a $200 haircut on Air Force One once. Even at that price, you can get a lot of haircuts for $450K.

Sorry for the shameless plug, but it's a brand-new web site that I recently created as a way to share what's on my mind and get my writing out to the world. Venting helps my blood pressure, it's therapeutic.

Please have a look at the site. I've been concentrating on the Newsblog and getting some content in the Analysis section. I'll fill out the Creativity section over the coming weeks. Thanks!

http://www.BillsBrain.com

They have money and they are well-organized. Plus they are ruthless and will do or say ANYTHING to get elected. Plus the dem leadership is too cowardly to stand up to them for fear of being labeled "too liberal". Add a media who eats up thier lying points (Bush had made us safer, etc.) and you get a party that will win elections.
The funny thing about this is the repukes have been claiming that America supports the GOP agenda and that the liberals are out of step. So clearly not only is the GOP out of step with the public, but they are out of step with reality.

I'm not sure exactly what I think about the Schiavo case, but this is about much more than just this one case, it's the precedent that's been set here. If Congresss can interfere in this state family matter, what's to stop it from interfering in whatever other state matter it wants to?

simply because they don't like the results. The huge issue here is if they are successful, the courts, who are there to protect individuals rights mainly, will be less relevant and any court case they don't like they can just over rule it.

This is a direct threat to all of us.

This is the strangest, most incoherent thing this creepy group has done yet. Unbelievable--what prompted them to do it? This issue doesn't even lend itself to simple-minded manipulation. They really are in their own little cult world now, and we just watch it from far off. I have never witnessed the like of it, except that now--Social Security, this, etc.--their anti-American club is finally reaping the results of its censorship of our opinions. They don't know where they are anymore, what our opinions are on anything, and they are slipping, and so publicly too, with this and Social Security! It is as if God is telling us, "Wait; your time will soon come again."

This situation was way too complicated to fuck around with the way Republicans have done here. I have been hearing opinions on this, and as with all complex issues, they are very well thought out and all over the map. People who are pro-choice want her kept on the feeding tube; people who are ordinarily anti-feminist think her husband is a bastard and should not decide; and if you notice, Democrats are all over the place, on both sides of the issue. It all hinges on whether you believe this was her wish, the impression I have been getting. Even Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa--one of the greatest people ever to serve in Congress--sided with Repubs against pulling the tube. This is way too complicated and real to lend itself to the kind of cynical manipulation the devil has done here, which is why this is so bizarre, so creepy, that it is fabulous!

The entire issue--if you can recall--is the crucial need to have a Living Will so people will know what you want, and people of all political opinions are on all sides of this painful question. How did these assholes think they were going to line this all up neatly--and against us? What fucking assholes! My Mom, as is the case with most older people, did not want any "heroic measures," as they called it, to prolong her life. When she had her final heart failure and slipped into a coma, thank God it was only about an hour of them working to save her, and then she died. I still miss her and wonder what I would have done; I'm glad it was not up to me. How can any group of demons use this issue to score political points and slander an opponent with? Bastards!

By the way that was a fabulous letter by Rev. C. Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance (reply #77).

And a few other things. If they think Bush isn't doing everything he can, the Bush regime is done.

It's literally that important, why else would that thug cut short his vacation and get up in the middle of the night to sign the law?

Actually it's one of the things I admire about them. They just don't give a fuck and do what they want. They ain't backing down and I predict the feeding tube will be restored and the media will hail Bush and the GOP as saviors - and the polls will then turn around because people love a winner and the GOP knows how to win. Got to give them credit - they use their power and they ain't scared of what the pundits say (although it's much easier to wield power when the media is in the tank for you).

I hope we still have a conscience, as a people, and we will rebel at what is clearly wrong. I hope.

it will be a big political win the GOP. They will be seen as saving her life. The details of their hypocrisy won't matter.

What would make you rethink it?

but they win. I'd like to see the Dems fights as hard and not give two shits what Russert or the WaPo has to say but they are too cowed to do so. The GOP is running roughshod all over this country, they have been wrong about and failed at everything they've done - yet their power persists and indeed grows. After a while you tip your hat and try to get on with your life. Protect your own interests and livelihood and family because the Democrats certianly aren't going to.

I misspoke by saying it's "one" of the things admire about them. It's the only thing I admire about them - and I'm not quite sure "admire" is the proper term.

I get so frustrated lately at their running roughshod over this country and the Dems doing nothing about it, that I think about protecting my own interests and livelihood and family so I just try to get on with it.

And you're right, admire is not the proper term because their winning is all due to deception and cheating and corruption. I have no admiration for that.

I think bluemandude is admiring the GOP's ruthless ability to stay in power. The Democrats really could use a few pointers from the GOP on their strategies.

It's the same feeling for me when I watch Nancy Grace on TV and I realize that she must be a wildly successful prosecutor.

remember how he admired the pureness of the Alien's evil?

(these quotes are from the Internet Movie DataBase http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/quotes)

Ripley: How do we kill it Ash? There got to be a way of killing it, how - HOW do we do it?
Ash: You can't.
Parker: That's bullshit.
Ash: You still don't understand what you're dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.
Lambert: You admire it.
Ash: I admire its purity. A survivor... unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

Doesn't this remind you of the far right-wing Republicans? Even the morality thing is true--they really have no delusions of morality, they just talk the talk.

Just tell 3 of the 7 that they, in fact, think otherwise.

King George needs to lose his court.

<snip> Polling Data

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday. What’s your opinion on this case—do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo’s feeding tube?

Strongly support 42%
Somewhat support 21%
Somewhat oppose 8%
Strongly oppose 21%

Source: TNS / ABC News
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 501 American adults, conducted on Mar. 20, 2005. Margin of error is 4.5 per cent.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=6438

He's got alzheimer's, so he's barely compus mentus, but he definitely let us know earlier that he didn't want feeding tubes going down his nose to his stomach. He's eating some food and thickened liquid now, but not enough to keep him alive for very much longer at his current rate of eating. He's losing about 10 pounds every week or so now and is already way underweight.

My mom has power of attorney, and I have power of attorney for her in case something should happen to her now too. With all of this crap where they want state and federal powers to usurp the power of those close to a patient's right to decide their future, I wonder if my Mom and I should do some defensive measures now and get dad to record a taped message that he doesn't want to be kept alive by feeding tubes in case he should slip into a coma soon and the Rethugs come in to "save" him and throw feeding tubes in him after he loses consciousness. What do you all think, worth doing? Or will it cause more strain for him to try and do this and they probably would dismiss it in court anyway based on his mental condition as not being valid.

In addition to putting more strain us mentally, putting feeding tubes in him if he were to slip into a coma would probably break us financially too now, since medicare won't cover us now with hospice working with him.

Seeing this story in the news each day makes me that much more ill about this situation! It really sucks!

Everybody I know says it's really important to get personal wishes documented.

Hey, right to life: If you don't send me enough money, I'll kill myself next week. I think $500,000 should be enough to convince me not to do it.

Randi said today that Delay's website is collecting money to buy Shiavo's divorce, so the parents can take custody and prolong this failure of a political smokescreen. Meanwhile, Senator nelson of Florida is thinking, "Oh, for god's sakes. You people are too stupid to deserve representation. I'm moving to canada. bye."

And the vultures move in on delay. It's not Terri's life that's in dire consequences, it's the Roach King's political life. Say goodnight, Tommy. Even the red states don't want to be in the same state with you anymore. The roach king's checkin out.

PRESENTING THE PEOPLE?

If they keep reminding people of how the GOP really is, then they have a chance of taking back Congress.I don't see how the GOP can spin this, and the Dems can put them on the defensive. IMHO if the repukes succeed in keeping the feeding tube in, they'll lose in the long run as people will see it like it is - GOP trying to force thier beliefs on people.

...by overwelming margins...





In presenting the results of a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, CNN.com used a visually distorted graph* that falsely conveyed the impression that Democrats far outnumber Republicans and Independents in thinking the Florida state court was right to order Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed. In fact, a majority of all three groups agrees with the court's decision, and the gap between Democrats on one hand and Republicans and Independents on the other is within the poll's margin of error.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220005

From Statistics 101, or the classic layperson's book How to Lie with Statistics.

More than half or Republicans and more than half of independents agree that Michael Schiavo's decision to remove the tube should stand.