So, let me get this straight
Honestly, I’m not really familiar with the Schiavo case. My understanding is that she’s been in a coma for about seven years; her friends and husband say she probably wouldn’t want to go on living; and most doctors testify that her reactions to stimuli are random and often can’t be reproduced. All that said, I’m not sure if pulling the plug is warranted or not.
What I am sure of is that this case not a federal issue. Congress and the president rushed to pass a law to let the woman’s parents ask a federal judge to prolong Schiavo’s life by reinserting her feeding tube. Seems to me, they’ve overstepped their bounds on this one. Is this regulating commerce? Providing for defense and general welfare?
That aside, this should serve as a reminder to get your living will in order. A decent lawyer and a few hundred bucks could save you and your family some heartache. I have one and trust the Mrs. to make that decision on my behalf. Of course, I also have a backup plan which consists of one of my friends who agreed to put two 230 grain jacketed slugs into my noggin in the event I’m in a vegetative state. I agreed to do the same for him.
Update: The starving her to death thing seems a bit cruel and painful. Surely, there would be a better way if it comes to that?
March 22nd, 2005 at 1:59 pm
[…] s not as cut and dry as the press would have me believe. Notably, David Codrea informs me that she’s not in a coma; her husband has allegedly […]
March 21st, 2005 at 12:45 pm
They’ve almost certainly overstepped their bounds (at least ethically, if not constitutionally), especially when you consider that this legislation is strictly limited to this particular case. No one else in a similar situation will be allowed to seek federal assistance under this law.
March 21st, 2005 at 2:53 pm
What bugs me is on a personal level.
He has moved on (live-in woman with two of his kids), yet he won’t let go.
I don’t think he can be faulted for starting again, as it were. But why is he holding on?
March 21st, 2005 at 5:11 pm
it bothers me a lot that the feds have stepped in on this and i think making laws about a single person is a really really bad practice, but there are a few things about the case that make me a little suspicious.
terri shiavo has never had an mri or a pet scan even though that’s a standard part of diagnosing brain problems. her husband refused to allow them to be done despite the strong urging of her doctors. and other well-respected neurologists have been appalled to find out that she hasn’t had those tests. one even said it was “criminal” to be considering ending her life without mri and pet scans.
she also hasn’t had any physical therapy since 1992, not even what most neurologists would consider “standard” for someone in her condition.
also, pvs is known to be very difficult to diagnose and requires a lot of time with the patient and can take months to make a confident establishment of pvs, but the doctors that examined her spent one 45-minute and one 30-minute session with her. a 1996 british neurology study found that there was a 43% error rate in diagnosing pvs because not enough time was spent with the patients. a lot of neurologists have said that terri’s condition should be reevaluated and the ones that have spent the most time with her have stated that she’s not pvs and her condition could be improved with therapy.
the whole situation seems fucked up. blah.
March 21st, 2005 at 9:03 pm
She’s not in a coma.
The “husband,” though awarded malpractice $$$, has withheld any kind of therapy–and ordered infections left untreated. Nurses have testified he has asked when the “bitch” will die, that she can swallow on her own, and on Hannity, a Nobel-nominated physician who has examined her says she is aware and would respond to therapy.
Add suspicious fractures in her skull.
Since when is having Constitutional rights violated not a matter for federal courts? If your state wanted to enslave you, would you expect your civil rights to be protected? Didn’t all states sign on that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land”?
What other rights should states be able to violate with impunity? I’d like that explained to me, so I know people who use this argument are at least being consistent.
It’s funny, all the Dems who have discovered “states rights” on this–the same ones who want to dictate how many gallons of water your toilet tank can hold have suddenly found religion.
There is much more to this story than the Establishment press has reported–and that you are still thinking “coma” shows how successful they have been.
test this theory for yourself: do a Google search on the terms “Terri Schiavo” coma (with quotation marks as I have placed them to ensure you’re hitting on the right name.
March 21st, 2005 at 9:15 pm
Uncle, my understanding of the bill is that the bill only grants the federal courts jurisdiction to rule under any existing rights under state or federal law. This could be a problem if there are no federal questions at all, since the other usual basis for federal court jurisdiction – diversity – does not appear to be present (i.e., all interested parties are residents of the same state). Thus, the question of whether Congress has a right to add any substantive law to the mix is irrelevant.
That said, Congress probably does have the authority to pass a broader, more substantive law. Not under the commerce clause or any other part of the original Constitution, mind you, but under the 14th Amendment. The first clause prohibits states from depriving their citizens of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The fifth clause allows Congress to enforce that provision through appropriate legislation.
March 21st, 2005 at 9:16 pm
first clause = first section
fifth clause = fifth section
March 21st, 2005 at 9:21 pm
David Codrea Says:
March 21st, 2005 at 9:22 pm
Sorry, screwed up on the link. URL is:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20400
March 22nd, 2005 at 2:57 am
David..
A few things about Dr. WILLIAM HAMMESFAHR..
his website notes that their mission statement is “God Leaves No One Behind”. Not exactly someone who sounds too scientifically based.
Some court action which notes that Dr. Hammesfahr engages in alternative treatments.
With respect to his Nobel nomination, you’ll note that you aren’t supposed to disclose for 50 years the fact that you were nominated. Hammesfahr is clearly breaking the rules for his own benefit.
And just a question for you…if the Schindlers do get custody of their daughter, who do you think will treat her?