Should Congress invervene in the Schiavo case?

Euthanasia/Right to Die Forum

Should Congress intervene in the Terri Schiavo case?

Congress has absolutely no business intervening in this situation!!!! I can't believe that the same lawmakers purporting to protect the sanctity of marriage are also trying everything they can to stick their noses into a decision that should be handled between and man and his wife, PERIOD!

While I can feel for her parents in this situation this decision is not theirs, either.

Until recently my wife was the only person that I had communicated with what my desire would be if in the same situation. That doesn't mean that her and I didn't have the conversation it just means that she was the only person I felt it necessary to have it with since I felt it would be up to her to make such a decision, not my parents!

CNN having live coverage right now in house debate.

absolutely not

Ive been waching these proceedings...I dont think Congress should intervene in this..they are overstepping the line here!

But maybe someone can help me understand one of the issues here...

How can all these religious groups state that her husband is acting like God in wanting to remove her feeding tube...

Isnt the placement of that tube originally acting Godly?

I mean..she would have died long ago had that tube not been placed there.

Anyhow..her family (parents, brothers, sisters) also stated that even if she did make the wishes that she be taken off medical intervention such as this..they wouldnt grant her wishes.

So..it seems as if Congress has intervened in this and given her parents the right to keep her alive even though many other family and friends stated that she had told them she would never want to be kept alive artificially.

Amendment One


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Bad Congress!

I think lethal injection would be more humane than dying of thirst over two weeks.

Just how much is she worth...I mean her insurance policy...how much does the husband stand to get?

I have to wonder...who are these people voting YES in this thread?

Dont people understand how this governement works?

Balance of powers is there for a reason.

Congress shouldnt be intervening in judiciary processes.

This type of act is gonna put the Constitution in some sort of horrible crisis.

It's a very tough issue.
I know when my Mom died she signed paperwork that said she didn't want any life support.
And if there is nothing in writing in this case...we can only trust that these people are telling the truth...that she didn't want life support in any way.
And the parents claim that she would have wanted the feeding tube.

As far as the question about whether the feeding tube was acting Godly or not...
Don't doctors act in that capacity in some way every day anyway or isn't that their job...?
I mean in the case of a heart attack...would electric shock to the heart and an injection straight to the heart be given in order to prolong someone's life?

The question really is when do we stop giving life sustaining treatment, feeding tubes...is it our decision? Do we do it when she is officially brain dead, no brain wave activity?

It's a very tough call. Especially when her wishes weren't written down.
Maybe we all should have the opportunity to make that decision known when we fill out drivers licenses...like the organ donor option.

Congress should have nothing to do with this. I only know the basics of the case as it has only started to filter through to our press in the last couple of days. But it should definately be the decision of the family, if not the whole family agreeing together, then whoever is "in charge" has the final say.

My family had a similar situation about with PEG feeding tube in my grandfather about ten years ago and my mother will have one eventually and it will be up to me to decide if and when it will ever be removed once her quality of life deteriorates.

It is not an easy decision to make and I doubt her husband has made the decision flippantly or without long hard thought. The Government would make wide-sweeping generalised laws that apply to the entire population and that will try and please everyone, which is stupid. Her husband knows what's best for HER.

I would like to know this...

WHO would WANT to live on artificial means?

I mean seriously...who would really choose this way to live?

I dont know of anyone who would actually WANT to live this way.

That's why it's so important that you talk to your loved ones about these kinds of issues.

My mother and I have talked it over and she has said that she doesn't want to live on artificial means for a long time. If she has reasonable quality of life, but needs to the tube, then I'll have it put in, but if her quality of life is not improved by the tube, we won't put it. If we don't put the tube in, she might die, but this is what she wants.

The whole family agonised over my grandfather's tube for so long, because he had never given anyone instructions on what to do in that situation. We wanted him to live because we loved him, but at the same time, the surgery was somewhat risky, it may only prolong his life a few months and then it would be in pain recovering from the surgery and not being able to lie and sleep comfortably, etc.

TELL YOUR FAMILY WHAT YOU WANT. If you can, write in a living will, that saves everyone a lot of heartbreak if the unthinkable actually happens.

I certainly agree with you...no doubt.

I guess Im trying to rationalize this particular case. All these people keep fighing for her right to live...and I understand that...but it isnt a life..she will never get better..and her husband has the right to decide, not the gov't.

I guess Im asking anyone who agrees with the intervention if this is what they would choose if they were her. I guess it doesnt matter, because I wouldnt buy that someone would choose to live 15 years in a state like this...but I thought Id ask anyways.

I think a lot of people are of the "what if .. " metality. What if she wants to live? What if she's changed her mind about not being kept alive? What if she's not brain dead? What if they discover a cure in two years? etc etc.

But you can't live your life on "what if.. "?

This is what happens when you get one party predominant on the hill. Republicans are generally very religious and somehow collectively believe they are the moral fortitude of this nation. I agree with them on many moral issues but clearly this is more than overstepping the line, it’s an abuse of power.

I’m not sure if I disagree with how they feel but I know that this is an issue to be settled by the immediate family, which is her husband, not her parents. Far too often we believe we want what’s best for our loved ones when instead it is about what we want best for ourselves. Though I do feel for the parents in this case in knowing their motivations may be out of love, still it’s a selfish love.

At the risk of sounding insensitive, Terri died long ago. The shell in which we all see is not their daughter any longer. Sometimes it’s hard for family to accept this by rejecting any notion of anything contradicting.

I believe Congress is setting a dangerous precedent here. First we have the steroid issue with MLB and now this. It’s getting out of hand and where then will it stop if this is allowed to continue? When will it be your or my turn when we’re faced with deciding highly sensitive and private issues not just about our loved ones but other areas as well?

Lastly, what is life about anyway? I believe life is about more than simply having a pulse. It’s about living to its fullness the way God intended it to be. Being able to experience and appreciate the things that God has given us to enjoy like our loved ones, smell & taste, nature and the splendor of enjoying the magnitude and vigor of life itself. When this is no longer the case, is it then called “life”?

Respectfully answering your position Sayzak ask yourself this question. If the Florida State Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the parents, would Congress be in there chambers @ 12am deciding to make legislation to overturn it?

Republicans has long been advocates of the state judicial system. Now that it hasn’t ruled to their liking, a bunch of lawmakers choose to subvert the judicial process and step in on this very private family issue and it’s not government’s place to do so.

However to answer further more of your question, why is it that we believe we know what a person would want in that particular situation of quality of life? Especially if they expressed that they wouldn’t want to live in that situation?

What I find funny is that these are the same lawmakers that support capital punishment despite the fact that there are a too many people dying innocently with this process? Certainly they have no reluctance in deciding their fate even of a few innocent to get the guilty.

We don’t have to agree with it and in fact I can understand if someone didn’t. What I don’t understand is how government is deciding such a private and painful issue as this one for the Schiavo family.

Her husband knows what his wife told him and he’s trying to honor her wishes. It is only those that selfishly want to keep the shell of Terri alive because they cannot let go of their love for someone who is already gone.

In any case, it is not the position of Congress to decide judicial matters. Nineteen Judges heard this case and all of them have ruled in favor of Terri’s husband. Who are our government leaders to subvert it because they simply don’t agree?

Bread and circus.

The most repugnant aspect of this is that the grandstanding politicians don't give a rat's a** about Terri Schiavo or her family. They are capitalizing on the opportunity to create a wedge issue and to rally the support of their religious-right base. This is just another smoke screen designed to distract us from more pertinent issues like education funding, universal health care, Iraq etc. One of the great ironies in this is that the very same pro death penalty, "culture of life", anti-choice Republicans recently made it almost impossible for families like the Schiavos to declare bankruptcy due to medical catastrophy. She is a pawn to them...nothing more. This is about dividing Americans and strengthening the resolve of their base. They are concerned about the midterm elections; not Terri Schiavo.

Like I said in the Vatican thread.... once again, it's just another case of religion, and gov't, getting involved where they DONT BELONG!!! I'm sick of both!!

Mystic--

Exactly right. These guys are shameless careerists. If, to gain reelection, they have to trot out people in a vegetative state or photos of fetuses or Iraqis with inky fingers or pre-packaged "news", they will surely do so. Oops, I almost left out boldfaced lies and the race card.
Frankly, I think they are sensing a degree of disenchantment from their base. Many who voted for this second term are not terribly thrilled with what they've seen so far (ie: Social Security, bankruptcy law, ANWR drilling, etc.). They are egregiously exploiting this "opportunity" to anoint themselves with the oil of righteousness. It's disgusting....and I haven't even touched on state's rights or Constitutionality.

PS: Where is Jack Kevorkian in all of this?

Kris said:

To which I say AMEN!

Me too... I'm tired of the gov't, and religion, thinking that they can just push a piece of paper around, and say... THIS IS HOW IT IS. You have no rights... we will choose how you do everything... what you eat, when you sleep... hell... who you sleep with! Deal with it, boys and girls... WE RUN THE SHOW!!!

To which I say... to both.... *flips up both hands giving the bird* ENOUGH SAID!

After the hearing last night...people were calling into C-span and telling what they thought of the issue and whether they agree or not.

There was this one lady who called...she was a Republican...and even she was outraged by what she was seeing...she stated that this will make her change parties.

I am also a Republican..for many reasons..but not all.....but today, Ive been shamed by that party as well.

I, too, have decided to look into changing my party. I dont think Ill be voting Republican anymore after this fiasco. Im not a full fledged Dem either though I do agree with some things, as I agree with some on the Repub side...anyhow..

Im thinking the Independent Party is sounding good after this.

Mystic--

As a life-long Independent I stand to salute you. Not only for considering restating your affiliation but for having the courage to post it. We're simply not getting served by our gov't in it's current form. A choice for the lesser of two evils is no choice at all.

I think in a situation such as this where a life hangs in the balance, then yes, they should and Im the last person that would say something like that.

Part of the problem of this whole debate is the "right to life no matter what" ethic that is fueling it.

First off, no one involved in this debate really, truly believes that all life deserves all efforts to sustain it and every possible heroic measure to prolong it. I think it's safe to say that all of us sustain our own existence by eating things that used to be alive, be they plant or animal. If you have a bacterial infection, you probably don't refuse to take antibiotics on the grounds that you're taking the life of an innocent bacterium. None of us mourns the flies on the windshield. More seriously, there are probably people who believe just as fervently that Terri Schiavo's body should be sustained until it finally dies some years hence as they believe that execution is right and proper, or that going to war - which inevitably results in lots of people dying - is sometimes the right thing to do. (I'm not saying where I stand on these topics - just pointing out that "right to life" is not, by anyone who utters the words, a blanket belief in the right of any and every living thing to live.)

Thus stated, I will accept the "right to life" platitude only from someone who protests the taking of _any_ life, not just human life, and not just lives of people that meet the speaker's standard of being sufficiently good and worthy of such rights.

Having ruled out pretty much everyone in the United States who wraps themselves in the blanket of "right to life," let's more closely examine the typical demographic that stakes claim to it, which is to say the current-day incarnation of the Christian religion.

I say current-day, because the ideology behind the judaeo-christian religions is not necessarily one that equates life=good and death=bad. Historically, over the millennia, this is a religious thought that has been especially popular with the downtrodden for the simple reason that it teaches that life is ephemeral and that something better awaits the true believer. I quote in brief: "Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him." The righteous person does not fear death, which is treated as a transition from brief earthly life to eternal life with Christ the saviour; and even if heroic means of preserving life were available at the times these religious works were penned, pursuing them would puzzle the true believer. Why would you struggle to delay meeting your eternal gift of life everlasting?

Life wasn't terribly pleasant for most in those faraway days. There was no golden age. People died early of disease, lacked for food; early civilizations often had featured social structures that led to a small number of privileged and a vast number of suffering. For many, life was all about suffering, something to which the bible directly speaks, as in "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." Indeed, to put it succinctly, the bible manages to condemn just about everything that might make actual life either pleasant or enjoyable. Such pleasures and enjoyments impede your growth in Christ; they also make you more likely to want more time in this life and to treat death as something to be feared and delayed if possible.

There's a tremendous quote in a recent MSNBC item by a Jesuit bioethicist, speaking about earlier writings by theologian Richard McCormick: "He [McCormick] said there are two great heresies in our age (and heresy is a strong word in theology—these are false doctrines). One is that life is an absolute good and the other is that death is an absolute evil. We believe that life was created and is a good, but a limited good. Therefore the obligation to sustain it is a limited one. The parameters that mark off those limits are your capacities to function as a human."

He thus refers to the switch that has occurred in the relatively modern day to the ascendency of "right to life" from teachings that life, as we know it, is little more than means to eternity, as nothing short of heresy.

It's not really intended to be heresy - it's political convenience for the religious right. "Right to life" has evolved as a means to condemn undesirable practices and behaviors. In order to roundly condemn abortion, for example, they must be equally vociferous and unbending on the other end, lest they introduce any wiggle room for debate. If it's alive and it's human, whether it's a fetus or someone who's been in a coma for 25 years, its life must be defended at all costs. As soon as you start introducing complications - does it have consciousness, is it suffering, etc - the foundation is shaken; therefore, all human life must be sacred.

Now, many of the people standing around protesting the Terri Schiavo situation may, as individuals, not be a party to this whole line of thought. It's appealing to worry about the so-called "slippery slope" effect: today, people in comas and PVS states, tomorrow Downs' Syndrome children. Or, for some who believe the quackery and nonsense that has been circulating, there's the good-intentioned worry of "What if she's locked in there, not wanting to die?" I don't doubt the sincerity of Terri's parents, who probably really believe this stuff because all they have to hold onto is that belief. (After all, they have lived in denial of her death for the 15 years that Terri, the person, has really been gone - what's going to happen when her body finally follows her long-gone spirit?) But the well-organized backing of this whole show is perpetrated by political elements that don't have the remotest interest in championing life.

I would have more sympathy for the cause of the religio-conservative right if they actually cared more about life, rather than seeming only to be interested in foisting it upon people. They are all for the rights of every unwanted fetus to become a baby, but absent when it comes time to educate, house, feed and provide medical needs for it. They are usually in the forefront of movements to prevent euthanasia on reasoned and sound-minded request.

But then, I suppose they harken to the primitive roots of their belief that life itself was never guaranteed to be pleasant. "Right to life - no matter what."

I have a few thoughts about this, let me add my 3 cents. If this lady, Shiavo, is in vegetative state and literally doesnt have the ability to think, and will never get better as stated by every doctor who examined her, why was she kept alive all this time - 15 years? I mean, why would they keep her alive all this time? Whats gonna happen if everybody will decide to be kept alive artificially? I dont wanna sound devilish but people have to die, sooner or later. If she suffered irreversible brain damage, there is no point keeping her alive.

Sometimes old people who are disabled physically, like those who cant walk or see or hear properly, get the treatment they need - like nurse who helps them do things, etc. Difference is, these elder or disabled persons still think and want to live - i mean, anybody whos able to think wants to live. But since Shiavo is NOT able to think, she does NOT have a mind, WHY would she live? I dont think it's even proper to call it "living" - her body exists, but without a mind, it's useless. I, for one, would prefer to have my brains and not my body than the other way around - and i would NOT want to "live" - or more properly, "stay alive" - on the expense of others in either case.

This is a tough question for the religion too. Since Shiavo's mind is not in her body, where is it? And if her body is still alive, is it possible that her soul went up to the heavens? Where is it anyways? Is she alive or dead in religious terms? Someone enlighten me on this because im not getting it too well.

Never thought I'd see the day.

Good points Mr Juko. I believe that after centuries of existence, humans still haven't come to grips with death. Death is a part of life and because we don't understand it we believe that it's better to sustain it under any conditions for as long as current medical technology can do so.

I agree, what Terri was doing was existing not living. She expressed her desires and it is only those who refuse to accept it that are making the most noise.

What they all don't know is that even though they want Terri to live, they all don't have the same reasons why, just a common results of desired outcome.

I also concur. I may be liberal, but that doesnt mean that I am in favor of big government, which, by encouraging or permitting congress to pass laws on cases like this, is what we are, essentially, enabling. Do we really want government regulating how and when we can die? Beware the slippery slope...
As far as Shiavo herself...Let nature take it's course. It's not unnatural or unholy to let her die by not feeding her, its unnatural and unholy to surgically insert a tube into her body so that you can prolong her dying for another 15 years.