How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The Terry Schiavo Legacy   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The Terry Schiavo Legacy

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


25 posted 04-09-2005 07:08 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Aldous and I were old drinking buddies


A precedent to guide the judge? Well, I may be missing something but I see these facts (1) doctors testified that the woman had no life-threatening condition (2) she was placed in hospice (3) her living will states clearly NOT to have food or nourishment withheld if not in a coma or vegetative state (4) food and nourishment is being withheld.

The judge needs a precedent? It would seem to me a seeing-eye dog could not guide this judge. So much for the "where there's a will there's a way" theory...unless those words are followed by "to get around it."
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


26 posted 04-09-2005 07:13 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

But Deer.. that's why juries aren't allowed to read newspapers!  We don't know what we really know about this case and we certainly don't know what we don't know.

My response re: Federal Precedence was in regard to your statement;

quote:

I would also be surprised if the judge's ruling in the second case was not influenced by the decisions in the first case and the fact that no court, including the Superior, overturned them.

LoveBug
Deputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 01-08-2000
Posts 5015


27 posted 04-09-2005 07:22 PM       View Profile for LoveBug   Email LoveBug   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LoveBug

Geez... animals are more kind to their infirm than we are...

I told my boyfriend and parents they had better not pull any feeding tube out of me.. hopefully they will respect that...

Love's a lovely lad
His bringing up is beauty
Who loves him not is mad
For I must pay him duty
-Anonymous

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


28 posted 04-09-2005 08:54 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

We don't know what we really know and we don't know what we don't know...that's way too deep for me, LR! Anyway I never referred to juries at all...

Lovebug, I'm sorry but talking to a bugman about letting you survive just won't make it, I'm afraid!!
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


29 posted 04-09-2005 10:29 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

L.R., The question to the Federal Courts was not and never was what role do the Federal Courts have in family disputes regarding these issues.

The issue was only and always about the granting of a de novo hearing due to all the hotly disputed issues, and diametrically opposed medical opinions in this case, all the evidence of corruption, bias, perjury, violations of existing Florida statutes regarding treatment of the disabled and regarding enforcement of guardianship provisions on the part of the judge, refusal on the part of law enforcement and the Attorney General's office and the DCF to investigate numerous complaints of abuse, neglect and corruption dating back years. With an order for death imposed, and with so many evidences of impropriety, the point was that this case cried out for a review of the findings of fact, to see if a fresh set of eyes would come to the same conclusions before someone's life was taken.

The Senate version of the bill used the word "shall" grant the petitioners a de novo hearing. The House bill was held up because the majority of the Democrats would not sign it unless the wording was changed to "may". That gave the Federal courts the 'out' that they needed, and that is what sealed Terri's fate.

Lots of people had a hand in killing Terri. And not a damn one of them cares anything about justice. Oh, they care about things like politics and backbiting and jockeying for power and pontificating about the 'rule of law'. But they don't care about truth and justice, not even for the weakest and most vulnerable among us. That should be a sobering revelation and a barometer of the kind of country that we have become.
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


30 posted 04-09-2005 10:40 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

I think the point was not htis is another terrie, but this stuff is happening, and if you don't believe it some nurces gave my grampa morphine when he was having breathing problems. He wasn't in pain. He just had like a heart attack.  He had breathing problems.  (he smoked alot when he was young.) He was really sick and dieing, but he was recovering and probably would of lived six months longer.  What the nurse did was wrong.  My mother and grand father (who was talking and was very sharp) both asked for no morphine.  

Just a thought. Maybe poeple don't have the right to take life away period.  

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


31 posted 04-09-2005 11:31 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

You're right, Juju, they don't have that right. And it has to stop.


'Grandma' airlifed to medical center
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43723

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


32 posted 04-09-2005 11:37 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Exactly Denise -- that was never the question put to the Supreme Court -- but it should have been.  The powers to the three branches are enumerated very clearly.  The courts can't tell Congress how to set budgets, nor tell the President to send one soldier into combat.  And, they can't tell the courts to conduct a de novo hearing -- which is why the word would have been changed.  They can't merely tell the courts to take a mulligan because they don't like the outcome of a decision.

What they had to do, and failed to do, was take a different approach.

Had the Congress used it's Constitutional authority to make this a question of jurisdiction, and not making an ex post facto law, they would have had their way into the courts which would have opened the door to the questions you've enumerated.

They are all smart enough to know that (well some of them are).
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


33 posted 04-09-2005 11:54 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Just FYI

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature."  U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965)

Anybody in the Beltway knows that.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


34 posted 04-10-2005 12:11 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

So, what you are saying is that Congress should have first asked if a situation like Terri's could possibly, in the judiciary's opinion, qualify for Federal court review?

I'm not really understanding any of this. What about the 1st and 14th Amendment? Don't they give the Federal government jurisdiction?
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


35 posted 04-10-2005 01:10 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

No.  BUt what congress can do is do what they are best at.  Pass a law saying wrtten word is as much as law.  I am completly against congress messing with checks and balences. Congress should fight with what the got.

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


36 posted 04-10-2005 02:10 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well there are many approaches Denise, but let's just look at what Judge Birch (a staunch conservative appointed by Bush 41 who recently upheld Florida laws on gay marriage bans) said in his concurring opinion to deny the en banc rehearing of the Schiavo case:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/33005ca11rhrng2.pdf

quote:

I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc in this case because any further action by our court or the district court, would be improper, as I explain below.

An axiom in the study of law is that “hard facts make bad law.” The tragic events that have afflicted Mrs. Schiavo and that have been compounded by the resulting passionate inter-family struggle and media focus certainly qualify as “hard facts.” And, while the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate discharge of duty.

A popular epithet directed by some members of society, including some members of Congress, toward the judiciary involves the denunciation of “activist judges.” Generally, the definition of an “activist judge” is one who decides the outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, even one sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution. In resolving the Schiavo controversy it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers’ blueprint for the governance of a free people — our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing en banc. I conclude that Pub. L.109-3 (“the Act”) is unconstitutional and, therefore, this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case [FOOTNOTE 1] under that special Act and should refuse to exercise any jurisdiction that we may otherwise have in this case. Under the first amended complaint in this case (the initial complaint was improperly grounded on habeas corpus) a basis for jurisdiction was Pub. L. 109-3.[FOOTNOTE 2] The second amended complaint adopted other, independent grounds for jurisdiction, including the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), The Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973. We have held that the Rooker-Feldman [FOOTNOTE 3] doctrine is jurisdictional. Clearly, application of that doctrine should have been made in this case, the effect of which would have been to decline to exercise any jurisdiction that we or the district court did have under the ADA, the Civil Rights Act or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

(emphasis mine)



So the judges (not just Birch -- this is the concurring opinion) found Terri's Law unconstitutional because of it's approach -- remember Denise -- these are the same people who were smart enough to figure out how to land the 2000 Florida presidential election in the Supreme Court in an expeditious manner and attain the judgement they sought.  And he rebukes the conservatives in congress for doing exactly what they claim the courts do all the time.

He continues;

quote:

It is axiomatic that the Framers established a constitutional design based on the principles of separation of powers. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176 (1803) (noting that separation of powers is one of the governmental principles “on which the whole American fabric has been erected”). The Framers established three coequal but separate branches of government, each with the ability to exercise checks and balances on the two others. And to preserve this dynamic, the “Constitution mandates that ‘each of the three general departments of government [must remain] entirely free from the control or coercive influence, direct or indirect, of either of the others.’” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 380, 109 S. Ct. 647, 659 (1989) (quoting Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 629, 55 S. Ct. 869, 874 (1935)). Because of the important constitutional role assigned to the judiciary by the Framers in safeguarding the Constitution and the rights of individuals, see Federalist No. 78 (A. Hamilton), the execution of this constitutional mandate is particularly important when legislative acts encroach upon the independence of the judiciary. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 961, 103 S. Ct. 2764, 2789 (1983) (Powell, J. concurring) (citing Federalist No. 48 for the proposition that the Framers enshrined in the Constitution separation of powers principles because of past legislative interference with the judiciary); Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipeline Co., 458 U.S. 50, 60, 102 S. Ct. 2858, 2866 (1982) (“[T]he independence of the judiciary [must] be jealously guarded.”). Accordingly, we risk imperiling our constitutional design if we do not inquire as to whether Pub. L. 109-3 infringes on the independence of the judiciary guaranteed by Article III of the United States Constitution.



And then;

quote:

Against these most elementary of constitutional principles, Section 1 of Pub. L. 109-3—which states that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear a suit regarding alleged violations of rights held by Mrs. Schiavo “under the Constitution or laws of the United States”—is not facially unconstitutional. If the Act only provided for jurisdiction consistent with Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Act would not be in violation of the principles of separation of powers. The Act, however, goes further. Section 2 of the Act provides that the district court: (1) shall engage in “de novo” review of Mrs. Schiavo’s constitutional and federal claims; (2) shall not consider whether these claims were previously “raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings”; (3) shall not engage in “abstention in favor of State court proceedings”; and (4) shall not decide the case on the basis of “whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.” Pub. L. 109-3, § 2. Because these provisions constitute legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions (known as a “rule of decision”), the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle.

(emphasis mine)



The emphasized statement; " If the Act only provided for jurisdiction consistent with Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Act would not be in violation of the principles of separation of powers." -- is to what I refer Denise -- but the Congress (and President) simply could not restrain themselves -- the opportunity to grandstand was too great.

And he concludes;

quote:

The separation of powers implicit in our constitutional design was created “to assure, as nearly as possible, that each branch of government would confine itself to its assigned responsibility.” INS, 462 U.S. at 951, 103 S. Ct. at 2784. But when the fervor of political passions moves the Executive and the Legislative branches to act in ways inimical to basic constitutional principles, it is the duty of the judiciary to intervene. If sacrifices to the independence of the judiciary are permitted today, precedent is established for the constitutional transgressions of tomorrow. See New York, 505 U.S. at 187, 112 S. Ct. at 2434. Accordingly, we must conscientiously guard the independence of our judiciary and safeguard the Constitution, even in the face of the unfathomable human tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo and her family and the recent events related to her plight which have troubled the consciences of many. Realizing this duty, I conclude that Pub. L. 109-3 is an unconstitutional infringement on core tenets underlying our constitutional system. Had Congress or the Florida legislature, in their legislative capacities, been able to constitutionally amend applicable law, we would have been constrained to apply that law. See Robertson v. Seattle Audobon Soc’y, 503 U.S. 429, 441, 112 S. Ct. 1407, 1414 (1992). By opting to pass Pub. L. 109-3 instead, however, Congress chose to overstep constitutional boundaries into the province of the judiciary. Such an Act cannot be countenanced. Moreover, we are bound by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine not to exercise any other jurisdictional bases to override a final state judgment. Should the citizens of Florida determine that its law should be changed, it should be done legislatively. Were the courts to change the law, as the petitioners and Congress invite us to do, an “activist judge” criticism would be valid.



So there you have it Denise -- Terri's Law actually sabotaged the Federal review of that case.

The congress could have passed laws regarding evidence -- they could have put an automatic stay into the law to require all feeding tubes to be kept in any incapacitated patient where family members disagreed on treatment until final law could have been worked out -- or they could have simply granted jurisdiction without dictating to the courts what they had to do -- but, they had to grandstand and grab for power.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


37 posted 04-10-2005 03:32 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I'm sorry, I meant to write gay adoption ban  not gay marriage ban.

Birch's work:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1104759344046

I apologize for the error.
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


38 posted 04-10-2005 06:15 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

Danny Daniel of LaGrange, the attorney for Gaddy and another grandchild, said doctors made the decision to admit Magourik into hospice.

Gaddy has been taking care of her grandmother for 10 years, he said.
“They’re following the doctors’ recommendations and they want to do what’s in the best interests of their grandmother,” Daniel said, adding that hospice is providing “excellent care” for Magourik, a widow with no children.

Gaddy could not be reached for comment.

“The doctors can make her very comfortable again and give her a normal life,” Mullinax said. “That’s all we want for Aunt Mae ... My aunt can’t live much longer without substantial fluids or nourishment.
“I want the world to know that at Hospice LaGrange you have people who are not terminal being denied nourishment as a matter of course. This national debate has reared its head in Troup County, Georgia. It’s the damndest thing I’ve ever seen.”

****welll,
Am I the only one who wants to know how a childless widow has a grand daughter? The amount of misinformation and emotional spitting attached to this story is unreal. I, for one, think hospice care should be for anyone dying, by 'choice' or from a terminal illness. The patient needs care that the family cannot always provide. If I choose to have NO  food or extreme measures used to keep me 'alive'????  I would hope my wishes (preferably via a living will) would be honored. Likewise, if my will should happen to read "FEED and HYDRATE ME, PLEASE"...well, you damn well better do it or it IS a form of murder, and somewhere, I believe, you shall answer to a higher power.
I believe in euthanasia. But to forcefully feed or not feed without clearcut input from the patient? TSK TSK TSK, we are really stooping far too low, no matter who the 'loving' family/partner is that is requesting to 'terminate' the patient because they "KNOW" that's what the patient wants. How many of you would be willing to pull the plug, even when asked? How many of you can say you really know what another soul's wishes are when it comes to life/death issues?

http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum92/HTML/001672.html
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


39 posted 04-10-2005 07:51 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I'm not inclined to support euthanasia.  

You may recall the German story a few years back of a man who responded to an Internet ad that was seeking someone willing to be killed and eaten.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-01-30-cannible_x.htm

quote:

His defense argued that since victim Brandes, 43, had volunteered to be killed and eaten, the crime should be classified as a mercy killing carrying a five-year maximum penalty.

Meiwes, who had confessed to the crime, had no "base motives," the state court said.

His primary motive was "the wish to make another man part of himself," Muetze said. "Meiwes reached this bonding experience through the consumption of the flesh."

Explaining the verdict, Muetze said perpetrator and victim used each other as means to an "ultimate climax."

A German victims' rights organization, White Ring, condemned the ruling, saying it could encourage others to carry out homicidal fantasies.



Euthanasia is not a slippery slope.  It is a hole to a bottomless pit.

But I'm all for a patient's right to choose what medical care they will receive -- and I'm in favor of the social justice position that if a person has a right to life -- they have a right to treatment.

LoveBug
Deputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 01-08-2000
Posts 5015


40 posted 04-10-2005 07:58 PM       View Profile for LoveBug   Email LoveBug   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LoveBug

Deer--bugman? ??? hmm :P

Love's a lovely lad
His bringing up is beauty
Who loves him not is mad
For I must pay him duty
-Anonymous

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


41 posted 04-10-2005 08:51 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

Reb, under certain circumstances...I am in favor of euthanasia. I DO remember that bizarre story, and do NOT include this kind of death request in my acceptance of euthanasia.
A terminally ill and suffering-in-pain patient should be allowed control over his final moments. That is what motivates me to support a mercy-"killing" agenda. And yet, I don't support most suicides or the death penalty. Perhaps, my own take on this is not maintream.  I have no problem with my position.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


42 posted 04-10-2005 09:22 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:
The congress could have passed laws regarding evidence -- they could have put an automatic stay into the law to require all feeding tubes to be kept in any incapacitated patient where family members disagreed on treatment until final law could have been worked out -- or they could have simply granted jurisdiction without dictating to the courts what they had to do -- but, they had to grandstand and grab for power.


From my understanding, L.R., they did try to do just that, but the votes weren't there, mostly on the Democratic side of the aisle, in the Senate or the House. It was the majority of the Democrats who insisted it be narrowed to apply only to Terri and only to her particular circumstances. And to my understanding, the Senate's wording of the bill was also watered down from "shall" to "may" before the House would pass it.

I just find it so terribly sad that none of these people could put aside their politicking and crossing of t's and dotting of i's interpretation of the Constitution, when their actions directly related to the life or death of an innocent disabled person. It is appalling. Since the right to life is the foundational right, without which all the other rights become moot, somebody, anybody, should have found a way to protect that right. The supposed goal of the law, namely justice, was totally lacking.

In the end, there was no one to stand in the gap and stand up for her right to life. That became a secondary issue. Now Congress can say they "tried", the Executive branch can say their hands were tied, and the courts can feel like they won a pissing match with the Executive and Legislative branches...and life goes on...well, except for Terri's.

I didn't miss it Kacy. I mentioned earlier that Gaddy's lawyer misspoke in saying that Mae had no children. He should have said she was a widow with no living children. She had a son.

I read another article that stated that the two doctors who treated Mae in the hospital recommended hospice to Gaddy because her aortic dissection could possibly one day lead to the development of an anuerysm which could rupture one day and cause sudden death. So I guess to avoid that tragedy of a possible "sudden death" somewhere down the road some day, if at all, a sooner death by starvation and dehydration seemed preferable? Where is the logic in that? I find that as assanine as the people defending Greer's refusal to allow Terri to be fed by mouth because she might CHOKE TO DEATH!

The hospital was also at fault for not verifying Gaddy's power of attorney, which was financial only (she handled her grandmother's finances due to the grandmother's glaucoma). When the brother and siter found out that Gaddy had put their sister in hospice with the order of no food and hydration, they contacted the hospice lawyer who checked Mae's file and found out that the power of attorney was not medical, and that Mae did indeed have a living will, specifically requesting food and hydration except if she were in an irreversible coma, or in a vegetative state.

When it became clear that Gaddy could not act to authorize medical directives for her grandmother, she was advised by someone at the hospital or hospice to seek a temporary court order granting her guardianship, as she did, unbeknownst to the brother, sister and nephew, as they were at that same time sitting in the office trying to arrange air transport for Mae to a medical facility that was better capable to take care of her dissection, since the one she was in was not up to that level of cardiac care.

The judge's order was temporary and restrictive in that it called for Gaddy to provide food, clothing, care and nursing home care, as appropriate (maybe he didn't know that Gaddy had already put her in hospice if he mentioned putting her in a nursing home.)

The issue seems to be the level of food given. Gaddy said she was giving her grandmother jello and ice chips, but apparently refused her being given a nasal feeding tube and IV hydration. And the hospice staff said they 'offered' Mae food, but she didn't want it (maybe due to the morphine and atavan that was being pumped into her?). The brother, sister and nephew argued that she wasn't getting sufficient levels of food, and no hydration, and this was a direct violation of her living will, and they wanted her to be given IV fluids and a nasal feeding tube until they could arrange her transport. And then when the granddaughter took it to court and got the judge involved who ordered a 3 doctor panel to recommend the level of care that would be appropriate for Mae, the brother, sister and nephew argued for IV fluids and a feeding tube while the doctors were making their decision, which took 4 days. The granddaughter refused, and Mae was getting weaker and more dehydrated with each passing day, so that is when the brother, sister and nephew sought help from the media and Terri's bloggers in an effort to save their sister from dying while the doctors were discussing the situation. This time it seems that sanity prevailed and the doctors concluded that Mae should not be in hospice and should be airlifted to the other hospital. Of course this time there wasn't a corrupt judge ordering someone's death.

I think there should be a law requiring food and hydration be given to everyone. I don't see it as a 'medical treatment'. It's a basic human need, without which everyone will die. If someone has to be starved and dehydrated in order to die, then they aren't immenently terminal, and I can't see it as anything but a form of suicide or murder, depending upon who is requesting it. And it's euthanasia just as surely as a lethal injection is.
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


43 posted 04-10-2005 09:40 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Denise's comment:
quote:
A terminally ill and suffering-in-pain patient should be allowed control over his final moments.

Amen.

What follows is not a decision one way or the other.  Just some food for thought.

Denise, I could not agree with the above  more. Especially since, and for in the most part, "terminally ill and suffering in pain" patients can very well know what they are talking about. Yet, the law dictates that they are "cognizant and knowing" of what they say. Pain will dictate things you never meant to say to begin with.

Remember childbirth? I do. As I am sure you do.

Pain is subjective; we get through it, our brain lets us "forget" how bad it truly was.

And this is akin to what I lived through, what my mother lived through, with my father's pain during attacks of severe emphysema. Call us jealous of death, yes, we were not ready to have the man go. Tirades against death, of a sort and not to the extreme that Terri or the others cited above, gave him a number of future years to know his family-in-birth; that being, all of his grandchildren.

As I look back on it, I can see that I, perhaps all of us, were terribly jealous of death, knowing that a man that young was not deserving of the scythe until much later. And yet, at his age, 65, it was still much too soon, given some mens' years.

I worked to keep my father alive, as did my family. He, fortunately, passed away with family surrounding him; in his home, among the ones he loved.

My father was terminally ill; he was suffering. We should have let him go sooner, perhaps; but somehow I believe he was glad we loved him so much that we tried to make his remaining days as good as possible.

There was a time when he was having one of his earlier emphysema attacks [about 15 years before he died] that I literally witnessed my mother argue with him, when he was begging for his shotgun so he could end his misery, that she argued with him that, by God, if he chose to go, she would go too!

And there I was, pregnant with my first child.  Between my father's attack, and the fact that I was more than some-what pregnant, my mother risked a semi-thought calculated maneuver, and it worked. [She feared her response would put me into labor...]

It was a risky moment. It once again brought WILL power into play. Dad fought to overcome the attack...and he fought hard to fight his disease. My father had, if nothing else, a tremendous will power.

So what is "control" over our final moment? So many people have been documented to come through terrible times and live to tell about it. And so many people that we never hear about live vegetative lives because they were not thoughtful as how to conduct the remainder of their lives, if something untoward should happen to them.

I am trying to stay on topic here. It is hard when I know that there are ways, and physicians, who will "help" us get over the edge, easily enough.

Suffice to say, it is not comforting to me to know that I was found to be allergic to morphine after surgery a few years ago, which is one of the ways physicians can help one "edge" over to the other side.  Conscious, I know well the pain I experienced with the side-effects of morphine. To not be able to speak, and be given "morphine" as an assist is, to me, pure hell on earth.

Ah, one might say, perhaps the "other pain" of whatever I was dying from might be even more.  Perhaps, but I wouldn't want to count on it.

My directives are specific. I am thinking, however, that there will be a day, soon enough, that the laws will dictate, "bring in all of your significant others, husband[s], mother, father, grandparents, children, cousins, aunts and uncles" to get them to witness my decisions on paper, regardless that they are notarized, sent before a court, and printed in stone.

Yes, yes, yes, I work with "them" but it doesn't mean I don't like what they do all of the time....

A never-ending conundrum, I leave this discussion slightly disposed to finding an alternative way.
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


44 posted 04-10-2005 09:48 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Denise, it looks as if we were thinking/typing/proposing at the same time. I am sorry if what I said doesn't match your comments now, but I still stand beside what I had to offer.

Thanks.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


45 posted 04-10-2005 10:04 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I didn't say that, Karilea, Kacy did.

But I do believe that patients should control their end of life decisions. I just don't believe that denying food and hydration should be one of those options, any more than lethal injections should be allowed. And we can see how easily it can be abused by guardians denying life through denying treatment, even feeding. And the judges and lawyers seem to have turned the existing laws on their heads by making people think they have to prove that they do want to live instead of making guardians prove that you want to die. And then we seem to have some doctors with a god-complex and order hospice regardless of a person's written instructions. Crazy world.

I do remember childbirth. If I had known beforehand what was in store, pain-wise at childbirth, I may have opted not to experience the blessing of children. So I'm glad I didn't know beforehand.  

And you don't have to be sorry for expressing your own views.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


46 posted 04-10-2005 10:21 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

I really don't want to wonder what's next, though I know I will wonder all the same.  Morbid curiosity.  As mentioned above and known from others, childbirth can be intensely painful unless some form of painkiller/blocker is used.  Infants can be and are a 'burden' on their parents in all senses of the word, but most will gladly take on that burden.  The intensely injured may not be able to speak for themselves, and are not extremely socially productive during their injury and rehabilitation times.  The elderly slowly begin to lose motor and mental functions, reflexes and reaction times diminishing with age.  There are many without jobs, thereby detracting from their own societal input.  Others are homeless with little to no societal contribution.  And then there are those born with very terminal illnesses/injuries and those who contract very terminal illnesses/injuries.

How long before each of those mentioned groups are put on the black list?  I hope and pray never.  I've been proven wrong before though, and will again.  Like abortion being used as a viable form of birth control, lumped together with condoms and preventative pills.  And more and more, I keep getting reminded of "Logan's Run" and "Soylent Green", especially the parts in that movie about 'crowd control'.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


47 posted 04-10-2005 10:52 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

under certain circumstances



I don't argue KC that in some situations it may be the kind thing -- the problem is in defining those situations.  It's a door best kept closed.

But certainly -- patients should, and do have the right to control their treatment (unless they can't afford it).

Karilea --   (there is synthetic morphine you know)

I know that when the time came for my father (and you may go back and read posts about it they should still be here) I was jealous of death too -- and in other circumstances of my life.  

Hospice was absolutely the most benevolent solution to his end of life arrangement -- and it enabled him to die in his own house looking out his own window at the cranes that came up in his own back yard to feed every day.

Denise -- the Republicans have a supermajority in the House -- a five seat majority in the Senate, the Presidency, and most of the judges.  How can these people keep convincing you that Democrats are responsible for anything?  The ONLY power they have in the Federal government is that of Filibuster -- and the Republicans are rattling the sabres to take that away too -- which is another discussion all together..

Remember DeLay's words,

"We can pass any bill we need to."
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


48 posted 04-10-2005 11:32 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

So they didn't need a single Democratic vote? They could have passed what they wanted to pass, with the wording used by the Senate? Then why all the concessions to the Democratic members? Could a filibuster have been used by the Democrats in this situation?

Ali, anybody who is deemed a 'burden' to society would be on the black list, if that is the direction that we are going to continue to allow this country to go in.

I still think way too many people don't grasp the gravity of the seriousness of what has been done.

Greer ordered that food and hydration (not just the feeding tube) be withheld from a non-terminally ill person until she was dead, in direct violation of Florida statutes. And used the police force to enforce his illegal order, along with the compliance of the hospice staff, who violated the stated hospice mission.

Obeying orders is not an excuse for murder.
http://www.hospicepatients.org/hosp-fl-suncoast-shame/hospice-nurse-says-family-should-thank-hosp-for-killing.html

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The Terry Schiavo Legacy   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors