Conversation with a Freeper re: Schiavo

(Note: This particular Freeper works on Capitol Hill. No I will absolutely not reveal for whom.)

Freeper: Michael Schiavo says that his wife, who left no instructions about whether to keep her alive in such a situation, once told him that she would not want to be kept alive artificially.

Schiavo is still his wife's legal guardian and is no longer allowing her parents to see her.


Freeper: not letting her parents see her dude. that's just plain wrong.
Me: Again, a family dispute.
Me: The government has no business in a family dispute.
Me: Oh and another little fact: It is no longer Michael Schiavo's decision to make.
Me: The dispute went to a trial court in which both his and Terri's parents sides of the argument were presented. The trial court applied the highest standard possible, the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, and still found that the evidence showed Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.
Me: The trial judge DID NOT invoke guardian ad litem, as you incorrectly argued previously.
Me: I quote the decision: Under these circumstances, the two parties, as adversaries, present their evidence to the trial court. The trial court determines whether the evidence is sufficient to allow it to make the decision for the ward to discontinue life support. In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the ward's guardian. Although we do not rule out the occasional need for a guardian in this type of proceeding, a guardian ad litem would tend to duplicate the function of the judge, would add little of value to this process, and might cause the process to be influenced by hearsay or matters outside the record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's discretionary decision in this case to proceed without a guardian ad litem.
Me: Appeals found the decision of the trial court to be valid, even under the pre-text that they are, by law, forced to err on the side of life.
Freeper: judicial supremacy dude
Freeper: like fucking nazis
Freeper: appointed for life
Freeper: fearing nothing
Me: The only nazis are the ones serving as the majority in congress.
Freeper: don't ever call my boss a nazi again dude
Me: Why your boss and not the judges?
Me: Why is your boss exempt, but not someone else's?
Freeper: because my boss serves at the will of the people and will stand before them for their vote again
Freeper: different standard from a judge
Me: AS WELL IT WAS INTENDED
Freeper: congress didn't act outside it's authority
Me: Neither did the judges
Freeper: i think it did the right thing
Me: After NINETEEN APPEALS
Freeper: if you think it's alright for a person to starve to death
Freeper: if you HONESTLY BELIEVE that that is OK
Me: Again, that is NOT the issue
Freeper: it is
Freeper: because that's what will happen
Me: I honestly believe it's wrong to force someone to live in pain.
Freeper: the law is not above life
Freeper: it is supposed to secure life and liberty
Freeper: that's the purpose it serves
Me: I honestly believe that someone should have to option to die humanely.
Me: The right to life does not mean someone should be forced to live against their will.
Freeper: SHE'S NOT IN PAIN!!!!!!!!! FIND ME ANYTHING, ANY DOCTOR, ANY COURT THAT SAYS SHE IS!
Me: If she's not in any pain, why does this differ from every other do not resuscitate order?
Freeper: she's not in pain now
Freeper: but she will be
Freeper: guaranteed
Freeper: if you starve her to death
Freeper: brb - phone
Me: Oh really? Find me where it says she'll be in pain.
Me: You expect me to cite where she's in pain, you cite for me where it says she'll be in pain.
Me: And if there were assisted suicide laws in place, starvation would not be the issue.
Me: But the people who are forcing Terri to continue to live in pain are the very same people in Congress that fight against the right to die with a modicum of dignity.
Me: So are you going to change your position on assisted suicide now?
Me: And don't give me "the people of Florida could decide that if they wanted to" line, because Congress felt the need to intervene on the jurisdiction of the state of Florida already.
Freeper: do you believe that there is a constitutional rights issue?
Freeper: in this case?
Me: Only once Congress intervened. It was handled, according to law, by the book.
Me: I think Congress trampled separation of powers and states rights.
Freeper: the supreme court does not believe in a constitutional right to assisted suicide. therefore, the legislature should be the branch in control. Florida's court system tried to trump the will of the legislature, so the national legislature intervened
Me: Florida's legislature dictates that there is no difference between the feeding tube and any other life support machine
Me: Therefore, removing the feeding tube is no different from any other do not resuscitate order.
Freeper: i think what they should have done instead is that florida's legislature should have not allowed the florida courts to hear the case that would allow the feeding tube removed
Freeper: which they can do
Freeper: it IS different
Freeper: she's not in pain now
Me: Not under Florida law it's not
Freeper: but she will be when her organs are failing
Me: And you're all about legislature and state's rights
Me: The court system did not go anywhere outside of its boundaries on this case.
Freeper: lol - if you are willing and prepared to back every INTERPRETATION by every judge on every state law
Me: Mr. Schiavo went to the courts as a form of arbitration, because he did not want to make the decision against Terri's family.
Freeper: that would be entertaining
Freeper: i know you have railed against justices interpretations before
Freeper: so don't throw that hypicracy my way
Me: What are you talking about? Backing every interpretation? Are you kidding me?
Me: There's no hypocrisy involved. It's not even an interpretation in this case. It's in black and white.
Freeper: clearly they have not had a case involving starvation before
Freeper: that's why there is a statutory question that has arisen from this case
Me: Florida law states EXPLICITLY the feeding tube is no different from other life support machines.
Me: Quoting the actual law: The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care.
Me: "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.
Me: So are the judges still nazis? Or is it the Florida legislature now?
Me: By the way, that was Florida State Code 765.102(3)
Me: just for your reference.
Me: CLEARLY, you've received some misinformation regarding this case.
Freeper: i wonder if that was enacted by democrats
Me: In case you still don't believe those are Florida laws: http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0765/SEC102.HTM&Title=-%3E2003-%3ECh0765-%3ESection%20102
Me: and http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0765/SEC101.HTM&Title=-%3E2003-%3ECh0765-%3ESection%20101
Me: what does that matter? It was the WILL OF THE PEOPLE
Me: the same will which you brazenly claim your boss represents.
Freeper: if that is your argument, than i will just say that the will of the people just changed
Freeper: and that you have no basis for argument
Me: No basis? I have THE LAW
Me: as it was passed by FLORIDA LEGISLATURE
Me: and confirmed by both state and federal judges
Freeper: maybe congress should also not step in when mississippi enacts a law that violates a constitutional right
Freeper: lol
Freeper: maybe the national legislature should NEVER step in
Freeper: wow you are quite a proponent of states rights
Freeper: i had no idea
Me: You're the state's rights guy
Freeper: you are more fanatical about it than i am
Freeper: amazing
Me: Fanatical? No. Just using your own words against you.
Freeper: lol - i never claimed that state's rights was the end all be all
Freeper: certainly not with someone's life on the line
Freeper: besides, i'm against the death penalty too
Freeper: and i'm against assisted suicide
Freeper: and abortion
Freeper: the government should always protect life
Freeper: ALWAYS
Freeper: never allow death
Me: At least you're not the hypocrite most of your peers are.
Freeper: period
Me: I respect that
Freeper: thanks i appreciate that
Freeper: i feel consistent in that stance
Freeper: look it's a shitty situation
Freeper: and i know it looks bad intervening in a "family" decision
Freeper: but to me, starvation is the primary issue
Me: I agree it’s a shitty situation. And I think we can ALL agree the last thing Terri Schiavo would have wanted, one way or another, is to become the political circus sideshow that she's become.
Freeper: i would not have advocated congress stepping in if it were just going to pull the plug on whatever kept her heart beating
Freeper: that's the truth
Me: Again though, are you joining the new Hunger Caucus that Jim McGovern is forming?
Freeper: because i do respect states rights
Freeper: baghdad jim? :-P
Me: Because there are plenty of perfectly healthy people in our country that are on poverty and don't get proper nutrition. No one cares about them starving to death.
Freeper: he is probably advocating that the government feed people (both here and abroad probably)
Freeper: this doesn't require that
Freeper: the parents are willing to care for her without taking a taxpayer dime
Freeper: if you were her husband, what is the harm in turning her over to her parents?
Me: You do see the legal implications beyond this case though, don't you?
Me: What if no one had the money to sustain her?
Me: Thanks to the new bankruptcy laws without protections for medical care, someone would be going broke in all of this.
Freeper: i think the florida legislature should pass a law saying that (since they have the death penalty there) the death penalty will be administered by starvation instead of the chair or lethal injection
Freeper: from now on
Freeper: when that case goes to the florida supreme court
Freeper: and it is ruled cruel and unusual punishment
Freeper: a precedent would be set
Freeper: not allowing government sanctioned starvation
Freeper: if you see where i'm going with that
Freeper: then they can resolve their own problem
Freeper: because i think the way their law is is a problem
Freeper: at present
Me: Instead of jumping through those hoops, why not just have the Florida legislature change the definiton of "life sustaining equipment"
Me: ?
Me: seems to be a much easier way to me
Freeper: lol - that would also work
Me: And it would actually be constitutional on top of it all! Unlike just about everything the Republicans cry about when they claim "judicial activism". It's not very active if what they're striking down had no chance of being constitutional to begin with.
Freeper: can they change it retroactively?
Me: Probably not
Me: But it would at least change future problems.
Freeper: i can't believe the wrote the law that way in the first place
Freeper: it's just so barbaric
Me: Well, don't blame the judges! Their job is to enforce the law. Period.
Me: The problem with making it retroactive is that it could have all SORTS of implications on any number of other cases. Then you'd wind up trying someone for murder when it was perfectly fine to take action when it was legal.
Freeper: alright fine maybe i shouldn't have blamed the judges... i am just glad that someone stopped in and stopped a sanctioned starving
Me: It would absolutely be horrible. No two ways about it.
Me: But there were better options on the table.
Me: And turning into the great political issue your peers in the Senate claimed it was CERTAINLY was a tasteless thing to do.
Freeper: hey that's the senate for you
Freeper: the House tried to pass comprehensive legislation preventing this kind of thing from happening
Me: no, that's today's GOP for you.
Freeper: but the senate rejected us
Freeper: lol
Me: the house version was WAY too sweeping
Me: It would've affected every such case and probably would have absolutely no chance of surviving a constitutionality challenge.
Me: Not that the Senate version has a much greater chance.

YOUR BOSS IS A NAZI, YOUR BOSS IS A NAZI,YOUR BOSS IS A NAZI,YOUR BOSS IS A NAZI!!!!!!!

And a big ol' FUCK YOU for good measure!

lol

nazi

Though I still think this was all just a test case for Congress stepping in to protect the life of a fetus at some point.

governor of Texas allowing hospitals to remove feeding tubes and the like against the families wishes?

You support what the administration is all about: power and corruption. You say whatever it takes to support what they do, however contradictory and inconsistent it is. What makes something true for them is if this administration says it's true.

Here's a link talking about George signing the law in 1999. Your acquaintance will find some way to rationalize it.

Thanks for the post.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_03_13_atrios_archive.html#111128106206105854

And here is thread on this at DU. A direct result of George's law is the death of Sun Hudson. Her mother is poor and black and didn't want her baby off life support. He didn't have much to say about that, now did he? (There's a picture.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3314690

Specifically, that Terri will feel pain, because her missing cerebral cortex ensures she's lacking the equipment needed to process pain signals.

That's the big thing every news piece I've seen seems to dance around: SHE HAS NO CEREBRAL CORTEX. She is just a shell now (or, for believers, a shell with a soul, trapped inside a body whose brain will NEVER, EVER, EVER recover).

Though you're right, I could've cited that fact myself, I didn't have time in the context of the discussion.

BTW, Trigun rocks.

But why do we have these conversations with Freepers? Is it to one up them? If you chat with them and then post it, do they know it? Did you tell them that you would post the conversation? It just smacks of the crazy political big brother world we live in. I am just wondering because I hate it when people do that. The reprinting of any opinion seems to lead to much speculation. I have always hated when Freepers take what is posted here and post it and then misconstrue it. Talk to the person and see for yourself.

One, to help people out when they have their own arguments. Seeing what one person encounters will help you better prepare for a discussion with someone else. Like it or not, we're all interconnected, us Democrats, and when one of us looks bad, it does have an impact on all of us.

For another, I'm not the government, so I don't see how it's "political big brother".

Thirdly, I'm not sure what people are going to speculate on. It's not like we're talking about someone that's famous or actually in office here. We're talking about one person's opinion.

can be the stuff that legend is made of in this day and age. LOL. My point with the big brother comment is really just in the definition of what it means. Someone keeping tabs on what you do or say. I do not think that you are someone aligned with the government. It can really be anyone. You were speaking about Terri Shiavo in your posts with a Freeper. As you should. As we all should. Terri Shiavo has become a controversial icon, we wouldn't be having the posts here if her name and political debate meant nothing. Her plight certainly applies to many of us. But you still didn't answer the question if the person that you engaged with in your conversation knew that you could or would post their comments. That was my point more than anything. I wouldn't for one want that kind of debate. I know that what I say here will be for all to see. I have no issues with that. Did they? See my point?

but everyone's anonymity has been observed. No one will ever know who made those statements. No one knows me here, and thus, no one could ever possibly link it to him. I don't see how this is a problem at all.

Judge George Greer, who has been handling the case for several years, Is: One, A Republican.

Two: He is elected, not appointed. And this past November, was re-elected by a very wide margin, despite having Terri's feeding tube removed twice previously.

The freeper made a comment about judges not being accountable due to lifetime appointments.

Apparently Mr. Freeper is not from the South. State judges here are elected, so they do have that democratic legitimacy the wingnuts always complains that the Supreme Court lacks.

Is it just me or does anyone else find it ironic that he denounces lifetime appointments (a federal characteristic) yet is in favor of federal judges reviewing the case?

Maybe that nimrod, who claims to like states' rights, should do himself a favor and actually learn something about the damn states.

Rant over.

that's the part i can't understand.

he is my friend, and quite a good one at that. We just disagree about politics, but it makes for some rather lively discussion. Both being professionals in the field, we can disagree, hell, even fight rather viciously about the issues, and still walk away friends. I know most people won't be able to understand that, but that's how it is.