Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder - Euthanasia/Right to Die

Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder

Euthanasia/Right to Die Forum

Pages:  1Original Forum    Popular Forums    Search

Posted by: sordidmesh

Her crime was being disabled, voiceless, and at the disposal of our media.

For all the world to see, a 41-year-old woman, who has committed no crime, will die of dehydration and starvation in the longest public execution in American history.

She is not brain-dead or comatose, and breathes naturally on her own. Although brain-damaged, she is not in a persistent vegetative state, according to an increasing number of radiologists and neurologists.

Among many other violations of her due process rights, Terri Schiavo has never been allowed by the primary judge in her case—Florida Circuit Judge George Greer, whose conclusions have been robotically upheld by all the courts above him—to have her own lawyer represent her.

Greer has declared Terri Schiavo to be in a persistent vegetative state, but he has never gone to see her. His eyesight is very poor, but surely he could have visited her along with another member of his staff. Unlike people in a persistent vegetative state, Terri Schiavo is indeed responsive beyond mere reflexes.

While lawyers and judges have engaged in a minuet of death, the American Civil Liberties Union, which would be passionately criticizing state court decisions and demanding due process if Terri were a convict on death row, has shamefully served as co-counsel for her husband, Michael Schiavo, in his insistent desire to have her die.

Months ago, in discussing this case with ACLU executive director Anthony Romero, and later reading ACLU statements, I saw no sign that this bastion of the Bill of Rights has ever examined the facts concerning the egregious conflicts of interest of her husband and guardian Michael Schiavo, who has been living with another woman for years, with whom he has two children, and has violated a long list of his legal responsibilities as her guardian, some of them directly preventing her chances for improvement. Judge Greer has ignored all of them.

In February, Florida's Department of Children and Families presented Judge Greer with a 34-page document listing charges of neglect, abuse, and exploitation of Terri by her husband, with a request for 60 days to fully investigate the charges. Judge Greer, soon to remove Terri's feeding tube for the third time, rejected the 60-day extension. (The media have ignored these charges, and much of what follows in this article.)

Michael Schiavo, who says he loves and continues to be devoted to Terri, has provided no therapy or rehabilitation for his wife (the legal one) since 1993. He did have her tested for a time, but stopped all testing in 1993. He insists she once told him she didn't want to survive by artificial means, but he didn't mention her alleged wishes for years after her brain damage, while saying he would care for her for the rest of his life.

Terri Schiavo has never had an MRI or a PET scan, nor a thorough neurological examination. Republican Senate leader Bill Frist, a specialist in heart-lung transplant surgery, has, as The New York Times reported on March 23, "certified [in his practice] that patients were brain dead so that their organs could be transplanted." He is not just "playing doctor" on this case.

During a speech on the Senate floor on March 17, Frist, speaking of Judge Greer's denial of a request for new testing and examinations of Terri, said reasonably, "I would think you would want a complete neurological exam" before determining she must die.

Frist added: "The attorneys for Terri's parents have submitted 33 affidavits from doctors and other medical professionals,all of whom say that Terri should be re-evaluated."

In death penalty cases, defense counsel for retarded and otherwise mentally disabled clients submit extensive medical tests. Ignoring the absence of complete neurological exams, supporters of the deadly decisions by Judge Greer and the trail of appellate jurists keep reminding us how extensive the litigation in this case has been—19 judges in six courts is the mantra. And more have been added. So too in many death penalty cases, but increasingly, close to execution, inmates have been saved by DNA.

As David Gibbs, the lawyer for Terri's parents, has pointed out, there has been a manifest need for a new federal, Fourteenth Amendment review of the case because Terri's death sentence has been based on seven years of "fatally flawed" state court findings—all based on the invincible neglect of elementary due process by Judge George Greer.

I will be returning to the legacy of Terri Schiavo in the weeks ahead because there will certainly be long-term reverberations from this case and its fracturing of the rule of law in the Florida courts and then the federal courts—as well as the disgracefully ignorant coverage of the case by the great majority of the media, including such pillars of the trade as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Miami Herald, and the Los Angeles Times as they copied each other's misinformation, like Terri Schiavo being "in a persistent vegetative state."

Do you know that nearly every major disability rights organization in the country has filed a legal brief in support of Terri's right to live?

But before I go back to other Liberty Beats—the CIA's torture renditions and the whitewashing of the landmark ACLU and Human Rights First's lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld for his accountability in the widespread abuse of detainees, including evidence of torture—I must correct the media and various "qualified experts" on how a person dies of dehydration if he or she is sentient, as Terri Schiavo demonstrably is.

On March 15's Nightline, in an appallingly one-sided, distorted account of the Schiavo case, Terri's husband, Michael—who'd like to marry the woman he's now living with—said that once Terri's feeding tube is removed at his insistent command, Terri "will drift off into a nice little sleep and eventually pass on and be with God."

As an atheist, I cannot speak to what he describes as his abandoned wife's ultimate destination, but I can tell how Wesley Smith (consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture)—whom I often consult on these bitterly controversial cases because of his carefully researched books and articles—describes death by dehydration.

In his book Forced Exit (Times Books), Wesley quotes neurologist William Burke: "A conscious person would feel it [dehydration] just as you and I would. . . . Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucous membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining.

"They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water! . . . It is an extremely agonizing death."

On March 23, outside the hospice where Terri Schiavo was growing steadily weaker, her mother, Mary, said to the courts and to anyone who would listen and maybe somehow save her daughter:

"Please stop this cruelty!"

While this cruelty was going on in the hospice, Michael Schiavo's serpentine lawyer, George Felos, said to one and all: "Terri is stable, peaceful, and calm. . . . She looked beautiful."

During the March 21 hearing before Federal Judge James D. Whittemore, who was soon to be another accomplice in the dehydration of Terri, the relentless Mr. Felos, anticipating the end of the deathwatch, said to the judge:

"Yes, life is sacred, but so is liberty, your honor, especially in this country."

It would be useless, but nonetheless, I would like to inform George Felos that, as Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said: "The history of liberty is the history of due process"—fundamental fairness.

Contrary to what you've read and seen in most of the media, due process has been lethally absent in Terri Schiavo's long merciless journey through the American court system.

"As to legal concerns," writes William Anderson—a senior psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and a lecturer at Harvard University—"a guardian may refuse any medical treatment, but drinking water is not such a procedure. It is not within the power of a guardian to withhold, and not in the power of a rational court to prohibit."

Ralph Nader agrees. In a statement on March 24, he and Wesley Smith (author of, among other books, Culture of Death: The Assault of Medical Ethics in America) said: "The court is imposing process over justice. After the first trial [before Judge Greer], much evidence has been produced that should allow for a new trial—which was the point of the hasty federal legislation.

"If this were a death penalty case, this evidence would demand reconsideration. Yet, an innocent, disabled woman is receiving less justice. . . . This case is rife with doubt. Justice demands that Terri be permitted to live." (Emphasis added.)

But the polls around the country cried out that a considerable majority of Americans wanted her to die without Congress butting in.

A March 20 ABC poll showed that 60 percent of the 501 adults consulted opposed the ultimately unsuccessful federal legislation, and only 35 percent approved. Moreover, 70 percent felt strongly that it was wrong for Congress to get into such personal, private matters—and interfere with what some advocates of euthanasia call "death with dignity." (So much for the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process and equal protection of the laws.)

But, as Cathy Cleaver Ruse of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops pointed out:

"The poll [questions] say she's 'on life support,' which is not true [since all she needs is water], and that she has 'no consciousness,' which her family and dozens of doctors dispute in sworn affidavits."

Many readers of this column are pro-choice, pro-abortion rights. But what choice did Terri Schiavo have under our vaunted rule of law—which the president is eagerly trying to export to the rest of the world? She had not left a living will or a durable power of attorney, and so could not speak for herself. But the American system of justice would not slake her thirst as she, on television, was dying in front of us all.

What kind of a nation are we becoming? The CIA outsources torture—in violation of American and international law—in the name of the freedoms we are fighting to protect against terrorism. And we have watched as this woman, whose only crime is that she is disabled, is tortured to death by judges, all the way to the Supreme Court.

And keep in mind from the Ralph Nader-Wesley Smith report: "The courts . . . have [also] ordered that no attempts be made to provide her water or food by mouth. Terri swallows her own saliva. Spoon feeding is not medical treatment. This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, they have ordered her to be made dead."

In this country, even condemned serial killers are not executed in this way.

by Nat Hentoff
March 29th, 2005 10:59 AM
http://www.villagevoice.com/

Reply To this Message

Posted by: fuscia

Increasing number of Pro-life doctors have found her not in PSV What a shock! Hardly credible. Independent doctors have concluded that she is in PSV. The right is using this poor woman to push their anti-abortion agenda.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
Although brain-damaged, she is not in a persistent vegetative state, according to an increasing number of radiologists and neurologists.


Why dont you tell Nat Hentoff to come on here and talk about the doctors that DO say she is...after all, the only ones that agree that she isnt this way are the ones bought and paid for by the Schindler's and the church groups that funded them.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: sordidmesh

And the freaks and perverts are pushing their culture of death agenda.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
sordidmesh said this in post #4 :
And the freaks and perverts are pushing their culture of death agenda.


Wow...is that another "fact" bought and paid for as well?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: sordidmesh

mystic, why do you side with this woman being starved until she dies rather than being in the care of her parents who created her?

Reply To this Message

Posted by: fuscia

quote:
sordidmesh said this in post #4 :
And the freaks and perverts are pushing their culture of death agenda.


It is not a culture of death. It is letting her husband decide and carry out what her wish was. None of us has the right to decide what she wanted. The courts found the evidence that she wanted to be taken off life-support credible. The facts of life are that we all are born, and we all will die one day.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: nikiTa

People are born and people die.
That's not a death agenda. It's a part of life.
Can you honestly say Terry is living...just because her organs minus brain are functioning?
She has no clue what's going on around her.

The only freaks and perverts in this case are those who want to keep a woman alive through artificial means just for their own political purposes and selfish needs.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
sordidmesh said this in post #6 :
mystic, why do you side with this woman being starved until she dies rather than being in the care of her parents who created her?



I believe that her husband knew what she wanted. Im married, I would never expect my husband to abandon my wishes and give me back to my parents, who would state that they would never allow me to have that wish, even if they knew about it. (which after them making that comment, leads me to believe that she did tell them that).
Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #8 :
The only freaks and perverts in this case are those who want to keep a woman alive through artificial means just for their own political purposes and selfish needs.


Exactly!!
Reply To this Message

Posted by: sordidmesh

quote:
mystic said this in post #9 :



I believe that her husband knew what she wanted. Im married, I would never expect my husband to abandon my wishes and give me back to my parents, who would state that they would never allow me to have that wish, even if they knew about it. (which after them making that comment, leads me to believe that she did tell them that).


Her wishes are unknown and only hearsay. There is no written proof. It is unbelievable. Judge Greer has made up his mind for her and chosen to let her die by starvation.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
sordidmesh said this in post #11 :


Her wishes are unknown and only hearsay. There is no written proof. It is unbelievable. Judge Greer has made up his mind for her and chosen to let her die by starvation.


Okay, well this argument is old already...

She has friends and other family members (of her own family) that stated she wanted this...

As opposed to parents who wouldnt give her this wish even if she had told them.

Gee, and who is being selfish here?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: sordidmesh

I do not care what is "SAID" IT IS NOT WRITTEN AND CERTIFIED THAT SHE WISHED TO BE ALLOWED TO DIE IF IN THIS STATE. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
sordidmesh said this in post #13 :
I do not care what is "SAID" IT IS NOT WRITTEN AND CERTIFIED THAT SHE WISHED TO BE ALLOWED TO DIE IF IN THIS STATE. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?


I think my robotronic's card is out of sync...

You'll have to contact my doctor to find out....

Im still looking for the screwdriver to open up myself and fix it...I cant seem to find one.

But when I do, Ill let you know what the problem was.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: nikiTa

I am trained in electronic repair. I can help. And I do have certs.
Email your problem to

fixarobotandhavetools@aoll.com

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #15 :
I am trained in electronic repair. I can help. And I do have certs.
Email your problem to

fixarobotandhavetools@aoll.com


Ill get right on it!
Reply To this Message

Posted by: lickety_split

I have no political purposes, nor am I a religious "freak" but I do think it is wrong for them to starve her to death.

Some doctors say she is not in a PVS state, some say that she is in PVS. Who are you going to believe? Do you have complete faith and trust in only doctors to which you agree with? Is one side presenting a better argument than the other, or are some people imposing their beliefs to justify what happens to a person who cannot speak and did not speak their will?

I'm just as tired of listening to the people on here who say..." I wouldn't want to live like that....and I want my life ended if I was in her condition..." etc trying to present an argument that they have no say in. Just like they are tired of me and a few others saying that
perhaps she should not be starved, and that since there is no real tangible proof other than a hearsay conversation over 15 years ago, they have the right to make a decision for her when there is clearly family and supporters willing to care for her and provide maintenance for her life.

How can you knock people who have a different view than yours.

Yes, right to lifers and other religious people can get pretty pious and use whatever causes to bring their fight to light, but I don't think that is the cause of the Shindler family.

I know Michael Shiavo received approximately $30O, 000 for his own compensation for the malpractice suit filed on Terri's behalf, and lawyers ate up most of the funds.

I guess that makes some of you a freak and a pervert because you want a woman do die to satisfy your own selfish needs as well.

Think about it.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
lickety_split said this in post #17 :
I have no political purposes, nor am I a religious "freak" but I do think it is wrong for them to starve her to death.

Some doctors say she is not in a PVS state, some say that she is in PVS. Who are you going to believe? Do you have complete faith and trust in only doctors to which you agree with? Is one side presenting a better argument than the other, or are some people imposing their beliefs to justify what happens to a person who cannot speak and did not speak their will?

I'm just as tired of listening to the people on here who say..." I wouldn't want to live like that....and I want my life ended if I was in her condition..." etc trying to present an argument that they have no say in. Just like they are tired of me and a few others saying that
perhaps she should not be starved, and that since there is no real tangible proof other than a hearsay conversation over 15 years ago, they have the right to make a decision for her when there is clearly family and supporters willing to care for her and provide maintenance for her life.

How can you knock people who have a different view than yours.

Yes, right to lifers and other religious people can get pretty pious and use whatever causes to bring their fight to light, but I don't think that is the cause of the Shindler family.

I know Michael Shiavo received approximately $30O, 000 for his own compensation for the malpractice suit filed on Terri's behalf, and lawyers ate up most of the funds.

I guess that makes some of you a freak and a pervert because you want a woman do die to satisfy your own selfish needs as well.

Think about it.


I think about it everytime you come on and give this lecture.

Im not saying you shouldnt state your opinion...because you know that I enjoy reading your posts and I respect your opinion in this matter.

But you ask this question:

Some doctors say she is not in a PVS state, some say that she is in PVS. Who are you going to believe?

I am going to believe the ones with the least bias...that would be the court doctors.

Do you have complete faith and trust in only doctors to which you agree with?

No..like I said..I go with the ones least likely to be bias, and the ones that arent paid for their opinion, such as Schiavo's doctors and the Schindler's doctors, who are known to be members of religious organizations and right to life organizations...

Is one side presenting a better argument than the other, or are some people imposing their beliefs to justify what happens to a person who cannot speak and did not speak their will?

Personally, I go by her family members and her best friend that stated this was her wish and again, I go by the court doctors that examined her...for they are the least likely to have bias.

As for the money...I think its a moot point. If all the man wanted was money, he could have gotten that from the the one company that offered him 10 million to give up guardianship. He spent the $300,000 on attorney fees..plus some. People keep bringing this up, but it seems pretty obvious that money is not what he was searching for.

Her best friend, and her other family members have nothing to gain by stating what her wishes were.

Now...let me ask you...

IF you knew that she had told her parents her wishes and they still fought it anyways...would you agree with them doing that?

Because you do know that they stated that even if this were her wish, they would never have let that happen.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: lickety_split

quote:
IF you knew that she had told her parents her wishes and they still fought it anyways...would you agree with them doing that?

No, if I KNEW she had told her parents and/or left a living will. I would not agree with her parents.

Well, if her parents said that they would go against her wishes in any matter of her death, then they would be wrong, and the courts could use their jurisdiction to enforce Terri's wishes - if that be the case.
Reply To this Message

Pages:  1 Free Forums    Chat Forum

Euthanasia/Right to Die Forum: Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder

Forum Forum Forum