Asked RW radio talk show host about Terri Schiavo

My question to him was how Terri Schiavo has been denied her due process as many of the Republicans were claiming in the house debate last night.

I pointed out that this case has been through several of the state courts and they have ruled that Terri’s feeding tube should be removed. One of the state courts had even appointed a guardian ad-litem to represent Terri’s interest in front of the court. That this case has been submitted to at least one federal court that rejected it. It was submitted to the Supreme Court, and they refused to hear it and so I asked him to explain how Terri’s rights of due process have been denied from a legal point of view.

In fairness to the shows host, Greg Garrison on WIBC in Indianapolis, who is an attorney best know for prosecuting Mike Tyson, he admitted that he was not real sure of that either, but that he would put the question to his upcoming guest Mike Pence, district 6 congressman for Indiana, who is also an attorney.

Greg did in fact present the question to Mike who basically hemmed and hawed around about it, and made some reference to America is a culture of life but never put forth a legal argument as to how Terri had been denied her constitutionally guaranteed due process. I can only conclude that Mike did not put forth any kind of legal argument because there is not an argument to be put forth.

It would therefore seem that all legal remedies have been exercised in this case and the Republican lead evangelical congress did not like the outcome and decided last night to usurp the state courts ruling through unconstitutional legislative means.

This should be of concern to all freedom loving Americans who think that our country should be operated under the principles of a constitutional republic, which is what America was founded as not a democracy as unfortunately many believe, instead of a religious fanatics based mobocracy which is currently the group that holds the reins of power in America.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thanks Spooky3!

Didn't get all the way through that mess, (WTF?!?!?!) but kept thinking "please tell me someone will delete this!"

other nurse's aid who wrote a similar one and who continues to provide propaganda for the cause.

I had never read it before - it does come to mind that I would be interested in knowing if the nurse ever saw or cared for cases where she thought that dnr would be appropriate or not. Sometimes such strict ideology can seriously color one's interpretation of events.

Terri cannot speak - at all.
She can grunt and make sounds that may SOUND like words, but she cannot speak. She has no cerebral cortex.

I would presume that at least one court considered it (and the credibility of the speaker) along with all of the other evidence relevant to the case, and came to the decision that the OP described.

You can pick one piece of evidence that is contrary to all of the prior court decisions, and ignore all the rest. But with only that, you are not going to persuade reasonable people that the courts were wrong.

another "nurse." The second nurse was an LPN who was fired from her job after getting involved in all of this.

with no cerebral cortex? Oh wait, she DIDN'T.

Or was that before she could cash it?

I'd demand a certified check . . .

This was completely discredited in court.

Go poison some other well.

I've seen those "affidavits" online and they have neither a signature nor notarization.

In other words, they are worthless, and complete fabrications as far as I know.

But you knew that, didn't you Freeper?

Just's a snip from one of the approximately 5000 right-wing boards that are pushing this "evidence"

During the period in which she daily cared for Terri there was no publicity. “Just Michael trying to accelerate her death,” she said. Iyer explained that she would often sneak Terri’s parents, the Schindlers, into see her and that Michael refused to allow therapy of any kind. In fact, he was physically intimidating and would very loudly command the nurses “this is my order and you’re going to follow it.”


No publicity? What a stroke of luck it's her word alone to be relied upon! Hey "Nurse Carla", did you think to make a video or at least audio tape of these words as you were sneaking her parents in?

And like you Anti, I didn't come across one version of this "affidavitt" that was signed or notarized in any way. Although if that's the level of proof the bush*base needs, I think I have an "affidavitt" from bush* admitting to war crimes around here somewhere.

when one considers that the independent person said he say no such responsiveness occurred and that the nurse's testimony was suspect.

It's a sad thing that people are putting this much effort, time and money... not to mention putting their professional reputation on the line.

As a note, for a hospital to delete a nurse's reports like that, last time I checked, was HIGHLY illegal and if that allegation itself is true, the hospital is open for a huge investigation

Also - If they had documented him referring to her as a bitch and such that a good attorney would have brought in witness after witness talking about the verbal abuse he had about her to show an emotionally abusive attitude toward this severely brain damaged woman.

and nice place to get some folks listening to it to think... to hear the hemming and hawing - and perhaps start wondering a little more if this wasn't just a PR opportunity stunt.

I don't listen to WIBC, but if they are willing to give fair airing to questions that are not in line with repub views - and do so without mockery - then perhaps I will start listening. Thanks for the heads up.

As I stated he did not have a good answer to the question so I then began to raise the issue of standing on the part of Terri's parents, although I was not able to get the part in where they apparently are on record stating that even if removal of the tube had been Terri's wishes, they would not support it. That would be real incriminating as to demonstrating that the issue for these people is not Terri's wishes, but what their wishes are.

Greg real quickly went to a commercial break as he is a sharp guy and I am sure he could see that if he let me continue that I would eventually wind into a separation of powers and bill of attainder argument and certainly that is not where he wanted to go. One does have to keep in mind that his job is to promote the right agenda and that is how he makes a living. However, he was in fact respectful and handled the call professionally.

I frequently listen to right wing talk shows and read many of their papers as I operate from a perspective of “know thy enemy”. Or, as it was eloquently presented in “The Godfather,” “keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.” I want to know how these people think and what their potential plan of attack is.

Unfortunately, I underestimated the potential for the Terri Schiavo case as I originally interpreted it as nothing more than fodder to keep the religious right hooked in. To really argue this matter I would have to play a lot of catch up but thought I would give it an on the fly call anyway.

reading up on issues for the same reason.

Have you ever thought about coming to a DU Indy meet-up? Its a small, but growing, group - and there are great discussions. I won't be able to make it this month - but should be able to in April. Check out the Indiana forum - and Hippichick's tagline if you are interested in learning more.

usurp their authority or to scream out "activist judges" every time a ruling goes against a RePug group. Hopefully, the judges will start to see more need to reign in this out of control group. There has to be a backlash

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

poor on life support law in Texas?

Says that Hospital can pull the plug against family wishes - and one of the considerations is ability to pay.

To think that right to life itself signed off on this at the request of the Texas Hospital Corporations - and that George W Bush signed the very first version of this right to kill bill into LAW! :-)

Texas Health & Safety Code - Chapter 166

§ 166.046. PROCEDURE IF NOT EFFECTUATING A DIRECTIVE OR
TREATMENT DECISION. (a) If an attending physician refuses to
honor a patient's advance directive or a health care or treatment
decision made by or on behalf of a patient, the physician's refusal
shall be reviewed by an ethics<0> or medical committee. The attending
physician may not be a member of that committee. The patient shall
be given life<0>-sustaining treatment during the review.
(b) The patient or the person responsible for the health
care decisions of the individual who has made the decision
regarding the directive or treatment decision:
(1) may be given a written description of the ethics<0> or
medical committee review process and any other policies and
procedures related to this section adopted by the health care
facility;
(2) shall be informed of the committee review process
not less than 48 hours before the meeting called to discuss the
patient's directive, unless the time period is waived by mutual
agreement;
(3) at the time of being so informed, shall be
provided:
(A) a copy of the appropriate statement set forth
in Section 166.052; and
(B) a copy of the registry list of health care
providers and referral groups that have volunteered their readiness
to consider accepting transfer or to assist in locating a provider
willing to accept transfer that is posted on the website maintained
by the Texas Health Care Information Council under Section 166.053;
and
(4) is entitled to:
(A) attend the meeting; and
(B) receive a written explanation of the decision
reached during the review process.
(c) The written explanation required by Subsection
(b)(2)(B) must be included in the patient's medical record.
(d) If the attending physician, the patient, or the person
responsible for the health care decisions of the individual does
not agree with the decision reached during the review process under
Subsection (b), the physician shall make a reasonable effort to
transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to comply with
the directive. If the patient is a patient in a health care
facility, the facility's personnel shall assist the physician in
arranging the patient's transfer to:
(1) another physician;
(2) an alternative care setting within that facility;
or
(3) another facility.
(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health
care decisions of the patient is requesting life<0>-sustaining
treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review
process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall
be given available life<0>-sustaining treatment pending transfer
under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs
incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The
physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide
life<0>-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written
decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient
or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the
patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).
(e-1) If during a previous admission to a facility a
patient's attending physician and the review process under
Subsection (b) have determined that life<0>-sustaining treatment is
inappropriate, and the patient is readmitted to the same facility
within six months from the date of the decision reached during the
review process conducted upon the previous admission, Subsections
(b) through (e) need not be followed if the patient's attending
physician and a consulting physician who is a member of the ethics<0>
or medical committee of the facility document on the patient's
readmission that the patient's condition either has not improved or
has deteriorated since the review process was conducted.
(f) Life<0>-sustaining treatment under this section may not be
entered in the patient's medical record as medically unnecessary
treatment until the time period provided under Subsection (e) has
expired.
(g) At the request of the patient or the person responsible
for the health care decisions of the patient, the appropriate
district or county court shall extend the time period provided
under Subsection (e) only if the court finds, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that there is a reasonable expectation that a
physician or health care facility that will honor the patient's
directive will be found if the time extension is granted.
(h) This section may not be construed to impose an
obligation on a facility or a home and community support services
agency licensed under Chapter 142 or similar organization that is
beyond the scope of the services or resources of the facility or
agency. This section does not apply to hospice services provided by
a home and community support services agency licensed under Chapter
142.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 450, § 1.03, eff. Sept. 1,
1999. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1228, § 3, 4, eff.
June 20, 2003

Unfortunatly it is more likely that judges will start to be intimidated by these types of tactics by the government and could start to more tow the line.

if anything, America in 2005 epitomizes the culture of death . . . death to Iraqis, death of US servicemen and women, death penalty laws which fall most heavily on minorities, death of the environment and the planet itself . . . calling America a culture of life is like calling Bush an intellectual . . . it defies all available evidence . . .

Since it became politically expedient.

But fear not, when we start to invade Iran to take control of their oil fields we will once again become a culture of death.

Garrison and Pence together are a tool squared.

I went to college with Pence, he was a smug self-rightious little creep then too.