Ralph Nader: "Save Terri"

Ralph Nader weighs in. (And in an article from Christian News Service (quoted in NewsMax.com.))


"Consumer advocate Ralph Nader says a "profound injustice is being inflicted on Terri Schiavo," and he is urging the Florida courts, Gov. Jeb Bush and concerned citizens to take any legal action available to let the brain-damaged woman live.

In a joint statement, Nader and Wesley J. Smith, author of the book "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America," enumerated what they see as the many injustices in the Schiavo case."



...."Terri swallows her own saliva," Nader and Smith said. "Spoon-feeding is not medical treatment. This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, it has ordered her to be made dead," Nader and Smith said.

They also noted that experts are split on whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state or whether she can improve with therapy. "There is only one way to know for sure - permit the therapy," they said..."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/25/133507.shtml

Why was this made into a political football?

Takes the public's attention off the tanking dollar and increasing gas prices?

Give her a glass of watter, and if she can't hould it up to her mouth and drink it, Oh well, Survival of the fittest. in nature she would have died 15 years ago. too bad she didn't mark the doner box on her drivers licence. then at least the living part of her might live on and give life to others.

Christopher Reeve would have been denied food and water. Is "survival of the fittest" what we are all working for?

I think that, the doctors and the husband should be brought up on murder charges.

And is the same thing being said about Senator Tom Harkin and most Congressional Black Caucas members who voted for the legislation?

then I'll listen to what Ralph has to say on the subject.

Where did he get his medical degree?

is a doctor now. :eyes:

powers and the careful job Judge Greer has done in this case over the years. Could it be that he's doing a "dare you, double dare you" on Jeb?

n/t

Right. That's why Kerry lost the election. Nader did it. Kerry was a terrific anti-war candidate who really pounded Bush on the Iraq war, civil liberties, women's rights, NAFTA, blah, blah, blah and blah.

his state campaigns, donate large sums of cash and gather petitions in blatant hope that he would play the spoiler again?

Fuck Nader. Whatever positive legacy he might have had has been utterly eradicated in the past several years. He's an asshole.

...knows no bounds. He carries the guilt of deceiving the nation in 2000 and is the chief reason we continue to regress through the 50s and back to the 19th century. Go eff yourself Ralph, you and the horse you rode in on.

Someone please send Nader this link:

From "Science Friday" on NPR
Health & Science
Assessing Awareness

Talk of the Nation, March 25, 2005 · As Terri Schiavo remains in hospice care and without a feeding tube, new questions are being raised about her level of awareness. How is a "persistent vegetative state" different from a "minimally conscious state," and how do neurologists diagnose the difference?

Guests:

James Bernat, professor of neurology, Dartmouth Medical School

Timothy E. Quill, professor of medicine, psychiatry and medical humanities. Director, Center for Palliative Care and Clinical Ethics, University of Rochester Medical Center

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4561170

Ralph Nader's exchanges with Republican House member David Dreier on CNN's Crossfire broadcast this Monday, March 21st were not bad at all. Here are some excerpts from that transcript:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

NOVAK: Who should decide whether Terri Schiavo will have a feeding tube or be sentenced to death by starvation?

Joining us today to debate that issue, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, and Congressman David Dreier, Republican of California, the powerful chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee.

DREIER: Chris, I totally concur with your initial assertion, that we should not be the ones to decide.

We are not trying to be the ones to decide. What we did in the middle of the night was not decide. All we did was say that there should in fact be, in federal court, an opportunity for these parent, who seem to get a smile on her face and an enthusiastic look in her eye when they go into that room, we just want to create an opportunity for a federal court to make that determination as to whether...

NADER: Let me interject. Let me interject here. Taking off from what you said, Congressman Dreier, are you prepared to do one of two things? Are you prepared to press for legislation every time a similar case to Terri Schiavo comes up? Or are you prepared to press for omnibus legislation that will give all future Terri Schiavos and their family's situation the right to go from state to federal court? In other words, are you going to go ad hoc from now on or omnibus?

DREIER: OK, I'll answer both of your questions.

And let me say, I happen to believe that what we should do is, we should be allowing a federal court in this instance to make a decision. One of the things that we've learned from this, Ralph, is very clear. Every single person should have a living will, so that no one is...

NADER: Wait a minute. You're dodging the question.

DREIER: No, no, I'm not dodging the question. What I'm telling you is that I want to create a scenario where it's not going to be necessary, Ralph.

NADER: Let me finish here. What are you going to -- answer. What are you going to do in future...

DREIER: Could we tell the audience that they should have a living will?

NADER: Fine. Fine. All, have living wills.

DREIER: Good. OK. Thank you. Thank you.

NADER: What are you going to do -- what are you going to do -- let's -- time is running short, really. Don't filibuster, please. One, if 20 more Terri Schiavos comes, same situation, are you willing to pass 20 more bills to give them...

DREIER: I hope that we don't have to. The answer is, I hope we don't have to.

NADER: That's not -- I'm asking, yes or no?

DREIER: The answer is, no, I don't want to do that. I don't want to do that, OK? NADER: All right. So, this is a single case, right?

NADER: All right. Now, would you pass omnibus legislation to let people go from state to federal court?

DREIER: We have a very unique situation here. We have a very unique situation, the likes of which we've never seen before.

VAN HOLLEN: This is not a -- this is not a unique situation. Families across America struggle with these kind of decisions every day. Why should...

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

DREIER: Of course they do.

VAN HOLLEN: And who -- no. And who are -- who are 535 people, who know nothing about the facts of the case, who..

DREIER: To simply say it should be heard in court. We're not making the decision, Chris.

VAN HOLLEN: No, to over -- to overrule the decision properly made.

DREIER: We're not overruling anything. We're not overruling anything. We're simply saying -- we're simply saying the parents should have an opportunity...

VAN HOLLEN: This is jumping in, in one case, when -- when we should not be jumping in like this in a private matter.

NADER: Congressman Dreier, Republican speeches yesterday on the House floor were full of compassion for human life.

Americans almost never hear such Republican words on behalf of hundreds of thousands wrongfully injured patients in hospitals, workers killed or disabled through on-the-job hazards.

(APPLAUSE)

NADER: Or other people -- or other people or other...
Wait. No -- or other people other suffering -- suffering from the violence of toxic pollutants or raw poverty every year.

Here's the question. Are we witnessing the beginning, perhaps, of a Terri Schiavo-induced epiphany by the corporate-controlled Republican Party in Congress to recognize some key priorities for regulatory law and order to stop these preventable losses of life and health in America?

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

DREIER: That's a great question, Ralph.

Let me say that I totally disagree with your characterization. I will tell that you Republicans are very concerned about people who face challenges in every single walk of life. And we have evidence that we can point to. I mean, we disagree with your conclusion that, somehow, we want to plunder the environment, we want to jeopardize the lives of people.

NADER: So you're going to push for a stronger OSHA and EPA?

DREIER: We're -- we are -- we're strongly supporting of doing everything that we can to improve our environmental quality and the standard of living for people in this country.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/21/cf.01.ht ...

------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I wish that Democratic party leaders would speak as loudly, strongly and clearly and against the Bush governments right-wing appointments and policies as Ralph Nader has. At least top Democrats shouldn't vote for Bush's right-wing appointments and policies. Don't you agree?

"Here's the question. Are we witnessing the beginning, perhaps, of a Terri Schiavo-induced epiphany by the corporate-controlled Republican Party in Congress to recognize some key priorities for regulatory law and order to stop these preventable losses of life and health in America?"

Is he equating Schiavo with others who have been made ill or worse by corporations? I don't see the connection here.

and half the people here become totally brain dead.

Do we need to give them "life support" or just hope a little therapy will enable them to recover their senses?

I think time can heal old wounds and bring some common sense back to a lot of liberals and progressives.

You are right. I don't become brain dead when it comes to Nader, I become brain enraged because the whole 2000 thing comes rushing back. Credit due, however. He took Dreier to task and I'm pleased.

As an aside, I believe Dreier is one of the hypocrites Mike Rogers is trying to out. Rogers is a gay advocate for outing hypocritical gay bashing Repubs who are closeted.

Thanks. When corporate America owns both parties, it makes me feel really good that we have good souls who stand up and fight no matter what the odds.

In some cases the help we recieved from the ABBers was more negative than positive. If you can only tell why a person should vote AGAINST a candidate without being about to say why a person should vote FOR a candidate, then often the negativity doesn't help.

I'd rather people didn't "Dole" my candidate next time. I hope the next election is more sane without all the wedge issue so that the other side doesn't feel so compelled to counteract our "anti" vote with their own "pro" vote.

Support who you support, not who you don't support, regardless of the opposing candidate. I think we saw in this election that it just doesn't work to run against the opposition without believing in the guy on your side. The Right tried that with Clinton, and it didn't work then either. At least Kerry came closer than Dole, only because I think he had some strengths, like the way he gets when he's angry, and his foreign policy savy.

So yeah, go ahead and vote for whoever is the next Nader, or the Green candidate or whoever. Don't do my candidate any favors. It just doesn't work that way apparently. Negative energy sucks.

NADER: I must say, I don't see a government interest in denying the parents their desire to take care of Terri. I don't see a government interest.

I think that shifting the guardianship from Michael to the mother and father of Terri is the way to resolve this. Nobody knows what Terri would say. She was alleged to have said something, hearsay, to the side of the family of her husband. She didn't talk about feeding tubes. She doesn't have a ventilator. She doesn't have a heart pump. I don't see the government interest.

So, this puts me on a different political spectrum than Eleanor Holmes Norton. And so, let me put it this way. The Democrats usually are very compassionate about preventing occupational diseases and air pollution and medical malpractice deaths and so on. And, on this, they seem to be in the harsh arena. Apart from all the quibbles about jurisdiction, we're getting right down to who should be the guardian here.

And, on the other hand, the Republicans were so vocal with their compassionate statements on Sunday about this one person. And they are about as cruel as I have seen a political party on hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths on the job, in the environment, and in hospital malpractice. Can you bridge that gap?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/23/cf.01.html
______________

Nader is saying that it is alright with him to flaunt the "rule of law." The legal question is whether Terri Schiavo has the right under the Florida statutes to have her end of life decisions honored.

Nader's comments regarding guadianship have no bearing in this case. Nader knows better. Michael Schiavo is Terri's legal husband and guardian.

...is to steer them back on topic. The topic is: Did this woman wish to be on life support or not? The courts are on topic and seem to think she did not wish to be on life support.

There is no other topic relevant here.

He's irrelevant on any subject.

Sad. :(

... Larry Gelbart (producer of M*A*S*H and others) is said to have responded: "Nader's wheels have finally fallen off. If he was a Chevy, he'd definitely have to be recalled."

n/t

You pathetic opportunist...

said these things?

Much as I love piling on Ralph, I'm not willing to do so on the basis of a Newsmax story.

Other than that it is full of shit.

But I will look around and see if there is another source for this. The original source on the article is Christian Broadcasting. When I worked for the pro-choice movement a decade ago, the activists kept an eye on Christian Broadcasting, because they often reported anti-abortion news (from their warped perspective, granted) that wasn't covered anywhere else. I never rule out a site based on its political slant--sometimes there is information that is valuable.

Also, re: Nader, Look at the second transcript in this thread where he, more or less, trashes Dems and reveals his side in this.

to win slander and libel suits in the US, because the law treats them different from the non-famous.

As for sources, the question is not simply one of political bias; it's also a question of whether the source is a reputable one for getting a story straight and reporting facts.

This is why we have to be very careful not to believe everything we read, particularly not about famous people, and we shouldn't repeat it if it hasn't been confirmed by a reliable journalistic outlet.

I did a quick Yahoo search and I did not find anything like this in a credible outlet.

That gives some support for the newsmax article. Nader does seem to be saying that Terry should be transferred to her parents' care and that the courts were wrong in their decision.

"NADER: I must say, I don't see a government interest in denying the parents their desire to take care of Terri. I don't see a government interest.

I think that shifting the guardianship from Michael to the mother and father of Terri is the way to resolve this. Nobody knows what Terri would say. She was alleged to have said something, hearsay, to the side of the family of her husband. She didn't talk about feeding tubes. She doesn't have a ventilator. She doesn't have a heart pump. I don't see the government interest."

See the actual post for the complete quote.

Also, as I said before, I don't simply dismiss a site because of its slant. Some are better than others, of course.

from the Newsmax story and what is in the CNN transcript. The only apparent relationship is that in both statements, there is a pro-parents and anti-husband viewpoint.

I disagree with all of the statements, as you probably do too. But that's not the point.

No one is suggesting that you should dismiss a site because of its slant. But I am suggesting that you may not want to quote from such a site that is not reputable, without independent corroboration.

Also, I'd be careful about discounting something simply because it comes from a source you don't like. I personally think newsmax.com is heavily opinionated and hysterical, but you can usually pick out some facts. And facts are the gems, the roadmap that keeps us on track.

Where do I sign up for telepathic medical care and do I need insurance to use it?

Hasn't she already had a lot of therapy? And during that time, continued to deteriorate? (Does therapy make brain tissue grow back?)

but I do.

I wasn't aware she was being spoon fed. I thought she was being fed through a feeding tube. If she could be spoon fed, why aren't her parents feeding her now? Why don't they sneak her some Ensure while nobody's looking?

The courts have decided. This certainly wasn't a decision made in haste. It's over. It's been over. There's nothing more going on here than political opportunism. And all that's doing is preventing the Schindlers from getting on with their grieving process.

should be prohibited here.

As I said above, the original source on the article is Christian Broadcasting. When I worked for the pro-choice movement a decade ago, the activists kept an eye on Christian Broadcasting, because they often reported anti-abortion news (from their warped perspective, granted) that wasn't covered anywhere else. I never rule out a site based on its political slant--sometimes there is information that is valuable.

Newsmax is about as believable as Rush Limbaugh.

On one side, there are the doctors who have examined her personally, and all of those doctors say that she is in a persistent vegitative state. On the other side, there are those "doctors" whose opinion is reliant only on this videotape, and they say that she might not be in a PVS.

Whose side are you on, Ralph?

and it's painful to watch.

TC

Nader is an ass....underground repug

Nader, as quoted in this article, is consistent with the newsmax.com story.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/schiavo.passion/index.html

The Terri Schiavo passion

"...On Monday night, Ralph Nader was substituting as left-wing host on CNN's "Crossfire" and seemed uncomfortable grilling Republican Rep. David Dreier of California.

After the show, the old reformer noted to me that it was illegal to starve a dog to death but it was being done to Terri Schiavo..."

All the way to the SCOTUS, the verdict is, let Terri die.
So STFU everybody else.

n/t

Just watch.

Fucking useless, self-aggrandizing whore. Go home, Ralph.

is what I heard medical people on TV say. True? Not true?

2. Experts are not "split" on whether she's in a PVS. Most experts agree that she is. Not only Judge Greer, but the appellate judges (who I heard reviewed the medical evidence in detail and even viewed the videotapes) agreed with them. There were, and usu. are, a couple of "experts" who disagree.

Most importantly, the expert or experts who were hired by the Court (instead of by the parties) stated she was in a PVS. That's my understanding. If I'm incorrect, feel free to correct me!

is BS too. From what I read, her mouth was too dry to have it dissolve anyway.