Regarding the Shiavo matter

Expect plenty of disagreement. Just keep it civil.
User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Regarding the Shiavo matter

Postby krabapple » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:17 pm

The whole politicizaiton of the right-to-die thing is mess enough, but something is REALLY bugging me: can someone please explain how the hell the family gets 'SHY-voh' from 'Schiavo'?

At first I thought this was just journalists mispronouncing the name. But apparently it's what the family calls itself.

Where I come from if you pronounced 'Schiavo' any way other than 'SkeeAHvo' or 'SheeAHvo', people would think you're retarded.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
dcooper
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:16 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Postby dcooper » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:38 pm

The family certainly isn't "SHY" about manipulating the pro-life movement to needlessly extend the torture of this poor woman.

Can someone explain to me how the fascists on the Right, who are constantly screaming about States' rights and about getting the federal government out of our lives can say with a straight face that Congress really should attempt to involve the federal courts in this Florida matter?
Dan

The language and concepts contained herein are
guaranteed not to cause eternal torment in the
place where the guy with the horns and pointed
stick conducts his business. - FZ

User avatar
Rob P
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 8:06 am
Location: Godforsakenland

Postby Rob P » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:07 pm

I'm furious at this issue. This is a flagrant abuse of the checks and balances system in the United States, and Congress is mucking around in areas which they have no expertise.

On the Outside Asylum board, someone wrote a great post about all this:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/outsi ... 90142.html

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:08 pm

There is no intellectual consistency on the right anymore. It's all about what plays to the base. For this crowd, concepts such as "principles" are, to put it mildly, quaint.

As far as the Schiavo tempest goes, the whole thing sickens me. The woman's cerebral cortex has turned to *liquid*, people. She isn't going to wake up. There's no "miracle recovery" in the cards. Large parts of her brain simply do not exist.

And the only recourse is to starve her to death. The family dog is allowed to die with more dignity than this. More evidence (as if it were needed) that the pro-life crowd is more concerned with moral narcissism than compassion.

That asylum post is great, great stuff.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:31 pm

House argues Schiavo bill
In late-night session, lawmakers debate intervention in Florida case
By William Neikirk
Tribune senior correspondent

March 21, 2005

WASHINGTON -- In a post-midnight session, Congress prepared to finish work Monday on a bill aimed at prolonging Terri Schiavo's life, elevating a celebrated Florida case into a larger political and legal controversy about American values regarding life and death.

Members of Congress rushed back from Easter recess on Palm Sunday to vote on a measure that would allow a federal court to review a Florida judge's Friday decision ordering removal of the severely brain-damaged woman's feeding tube.

The Senate approved the measure on a voice vote in a nearly empty chamber Sunday. But some House Democrats blocked an immediate voice vote in that chamber, forcing the House Republican leadership to schedule a roll call at 12:01 a.m. Monday to approve the bill.

In the extraordinary political drama, President Bush cut short a stay at his Texas ranch and raced back to the White House so he could sign the bill as soon as it was passed. Bush and other supporters of the bill hoped to get a speedy federal court decision restoring the feeding tube that has kept Schiavo alive for 15 years.

"We ought to err on the side of life in a case like this," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "I think most people recognize that this case involves some extraordinary circumstances."

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said a U.S. District Court in Florida, open 24 hours, had been notified that a petition would be filed as soon as Bush signed the measure.

"Time is not on Terri Schiavo's side," DeLay said. "The few remaining objecting House Democrats have so far cost Mrs. Schiavo two meals already today."

Some Democrats questioned whether Congress should be trying to decide whether to keep Schiavo alive. Her husband, Michael, has fought in court to have the feeding tube removed while her parents have pushed to keep their daughter alive.

"It is particularly hypocritical when you have people who say they advocate on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act who now insert themselves between a husband and his wife," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).

"It's not the place of Congress, in the 11th hour and in the most abusive fashion, to undermine the Florida court system," said Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.).

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) added, "We are seeing, sadly, the manifestation of a constitutional crisis. You will have hundreds of members of Congress making a medical decision about which we know nothing."

Frist doubts precedent set

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said he didn't envision that the legislation would spark many similar cases coming before Congress.

"It is a unique bill passed under unique circumstances that should not serve as a precedent for future legislation," he said.

As the GOP-dominated Congress scrambled to keep Schiavo alive, it was disclosed that a memo distributed to Republican senators described the Schiavo case as a "great political issue" that could help the GOP with Christian conservatives in the 2006 midterm elections.

"This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," according to the memo.
Some GOP lawmakers decried the fact the memo was leaked. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said in a CNN interview the Republican leadership in the House did not want to politicize the issue.

"I hope that we're not making this human tragedy a political issue," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

Rep. James Moran (D-Va.) said Schiavo and her family members had become "political pawns to larger political issues," according to The Associated Press. But Moran added, "I can't say necessarily that I'm speaking for my constituents."

The Schiavo case is a sensitive one for Democrats, smarting over their losses in 2004, when social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage proved to be big factors in presidential and congressional elections. Though some Democrats blocked a voice vote by the House on Sunday, DeLay said the measure had strong bipartisan support.

Political motives denied

The unsigned GOP memo called the Schiavo case "a tough issue for Democrats." But presidential spokesman McClellan disavowed any political motive in the president's support of the legislation.

"The president believes that our society should be based on a culture of life," McClellan told reporters on Air Force One as it headed to Washington.

Schiavo's husband and her parents have been in a long legal struggle.

She has been diagnosed by doctors as being "in a persistent vegetative state" since her heart stopped because of a chemical imbalance. Her husband says she did not want to have her life extended. But there was no written directive or "living will" to that effect.

"There are some congressmen that are trying to stop this bill," said Schiavo's mother, Mary Schindler. "Please don't use my daughter's suffering for your own personal agenda."

According to the AP, the attorney for the Schindlers, Barbara Weller, faxed a letter to the hospice where Schiavo is a patient and said the feeding tube could be reinserted as early as Monday on the basis of congressional action.

In an interview with CNN, Michael Schiavo said, "I am outraged, and I think every American in this country should be outraged, that this government is trampling all over a personal family matter that has been adjudicated in the courts for seven years. I think that the Congress has more important things to discuss."

House and Senate committees issued subpoenas last week seeking to have the feedings continued, but that was rejected by a Florida court.

Leaders in the House scrambled to get members to return to the nation's capital for the vote. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) sent a message to members on their hand-held computers on Friday saying that they should be prepared to return for a Sunday vote on the Schiavo legislation.

A quorum of 218 members is required for a roll-call vote. Because it is an emergency vote, the bill requires a two-thirds vote of those present for passage. The House has 232 Republicans, 202 Democrats and one independent.

- - -

Key facts in the Schiavo life-support controversy

Who she is: Terri Schiavo, now 41, collapsed in her home in 1990. Her heart temporarily stopped, cutting off oxygen to her brain. Her husband, Michael, won more than $1 million from a malpractice suit two years later. The husband's lawyer said her collapse was caused by a potassium imbalance brought on by an eating disorder, although her parents say that's not true.

What the dispute is about: Whether her life should be ended by withdrawing her feeding and hydration tube. The tube was taken out Friday, and her parents want it restored. Schiavo is locked in what some doctors say is a persistent vegetative state. Others, including her parents, insist she is minimally conscious because she smiles and seems to respond in other ways.

Who wants to remove life support: Michael Schiavo, guardian for his wife. Before her collapse, he says, she had expressed the wish not to be kept alive artificially if the situation ever arose.

Who wants to retain life support: Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, who don't believe Michael Schiavo's statements about his wife's wishes. They say their daughter, a Roman Catholic, would not disobey church teachings on the matter.

Why no compromise is likely: The battle between Terri Schiavo's husband and parents has been bitter. The Schindlers argue that Michael Schiavo--who has fathered two children with his fiance in recent years--is an unfit guardian and has a conflict of interest. Michael Schiavo alleges that Bob Schindler sought a share of the malpractice settlement, which he denies. The money is gone, much of it spent on legal bills related to Michael Schiavo's efforts to end life support.

The legal fight: Florida courts have ruled consistently for Michael Schiavo. Florida's Supreme Court last year struck down "Terri's Law," which let Gov. Jeb Bush intervene in the case.

What Congress is doing: Congress' Republican leadership is pushing a bill that would give federal courts jurisdiction regarding the withholding of "food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary" to sustain Terri Schiavo, who is named in the bill.

What happens next: An attorney for Schiavo's parents has filed a request to a federal appeals court to have the tube reinserted once the bill is passed and signed. If no court action is taken, Schiavo could be expected to live one or two weeks after the removal of the tube.

Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Patrick M
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: LukPac Land

Postby Patrick M » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:44 pm

Rspaight wrote:And the only recourse is to starve her to death. The family dog is allowed to die with more dignity than this.

I was wondering about this myself...why does she have to starve to death? Isn't there a more humane way?
Last edited by Patrick M on Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chuck thinks that I look to good to be a computer geek. I think that I know too much about interface design, css, xhtml, php, asp, perl, and ia (too name a few things) to not be one.

User avatar
Rob P
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 8:06 am
Location: Godforsakenland

Postby Rob P » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:58 pm

Right now, I'm grateful I'm not Terri Schiavo. I blame modern medicine for part of this mess, for its ability to keep people alive far beyond what any rational person would consider living.

My co-worker's wife is studying law. She opined: if they really wanted to honor God's will, wouldn't they advocate taking her OFF the life support? Isn't making her remain on life support using the will of man to trump God's will?

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:39 pm

Patrick M wrote:
Rspaight wrote:And the only recourse is to starve her to death. The family dog is allowed to die with more dignity than this.

I was wondering abou this myself...why does she have to starve to death? Isn't there a more humane way?


That would be euthanasia, which is evil and has no place in our President's "culture of life." Apparently, it's more moral to starve her to death than it is to give her a lethal injection.

Paging Dr. Kevorkian...

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
dcooper
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:16 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Postby dcooper » Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:17 pm

Rob P wrote:My co-worker's wife is studying law. She opined: if they really wanted to honor God's will, wouldn't they advocate taking her OFF the life support? Isn't making her remain on life support using the will of man to trump God's will?


As we all know, conservatives pick and choose which parts of the Bible they strictly interpret and which parts they ignore.
Dan



The language and concepts contained herein are

guaranteed not to cause eternal torment in the

place where the guy with the horns and pointed

stick conducts his business. - FZ

User avatar
dudelsack
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:51 pm

Postby dudelsack » Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:23 pm

As though there needed to be a memo reminding everyone that this is a bone-toss to the religious right. EXTREMELY cynical politicking by Congress, even moreso on the heels of that ridiculous steroids hearing.

As to the pronunciation...the first part (sch) plays like German, but the rest goes to hell in a handbasket.

By the way, lost in the sauce is that her chemical imbalance was brought on by an eating disorder. Yahoo for anorexia and bulimia!

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:52 pm

By the way, lost in the sauce is that her chemical imbalance was brought on by an eating disorder. Yahoo for anorexia and bulimia!


I've actually done semi-thorough research about this sordid thing today for the first time.

You'll hear the eating disorder story from those on the right-to-die side. The pro-lifers, on the other hand, will spread dark innuendo about the husband abusing Terri and causing head trauma.

The whole thing is just so toxic and depressing that it sucks up rationality like a black hole. The lifers repulse me especially, because they have the added distinction of being wrong, but both sides have behaved atrociously.

Do I know enough to decide what should happen? No. But all the courts that have consistently ruled in the husband's favor do.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
balthazar
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 11:01 am
Location: Stoughton, WI, USA
Contact:

Postby balthazar » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:07 pm

The family dog is allowed to die with more dignity than this.


A sad testimony. We think enough of our pets to euthanize them, ending their pain and suffering in a life that no longer has any quality, but we don't have the decency to do it to each other.

why does she have to starve to death? Isn't there a more humane way?


To us, yes, but to the law, it would probably be called murder.

My co-worker's wife is studying law. She opined: if they really wanted to honor God's will, wouldn't they advocate taking her OFF the life support? Isn't making her remain on life support using the will of man to trump God's will?


That one would probably leave the fundies scratching their heads.

Do I know enough to decide what should happen? No. But all the courts that have consistently ruled in the husband's favor do.


Presumably, and I think the key is "consistently." The federal government needs to keep their noses out of this one.... To me this is clearly a states' rights or individual rights issue. The feds have no business getting involved in this. Part of me hopes that this thing languishes so long in the courts that she dies before the tube can be reinserted.

If ever there was a story to show the necessity for living wills, this is it. I'm glad my grandfather had one (along with a "do not resuscitate" bracelet) so he could die with some dignity.
"It's great how you can control 60 musicians with one just stick-- I can't control these fuckers with two!" -- Ian Paice

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:11 pm

At the very least there should be a court order to make the family pronounce its name correctly.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:20 pm

My co-worker's wife is studying law. She opined: if they really wanted to honor God's will, wouldn't they advocate taking her OFF the life support? Isn't making her remain on life support using the will of man to trump God's will?


That one would probably leave the fundies scratching their heads.


I heard on the radio this afternoon that the Vatican has weighed in on this question. According to them, the feeding tube is not a form of extraordinary "life support" but instead just the way Terri happens to eat. *Removing it* would, in their eyes, be "playing God" and deciding who lives and dies, not leaving it connected.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
My Avatar Is A Hot Babe
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:52 pm

Postby My Avatar Is A Hot Babe » Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:54 pm

Fuck all of you who disrespect the sanctity of human life. I hope you die. It's too bad Brian Nichols didn't shoot all the judges involved in this case.

The Constitution guarantees the right to a feeding tube, you know. Don't forget that President Bush received a mandate in November, so it's up to him what happens to Terri.

Matt Drudge has an audio clip of Terri responding to her father just last week. Her constant horrifying moans convince me that she is very much alive and could fully recover at any moment.
Every month is "Teabag a Gort" month!