Schiavo case ... a feminist, disability-rights issue?

[Kevin Spidel]

Ok.... so I got this email in my inbox. I do not agree nor disagree on this email. I am posting it for feedback from DU'ers. There are some good points here for arguments sake.

Again... this is not my words, and I am not making a public statement on this email... but thought I would post it for you all to vibe on it a bit and hit me with your thoughts.

peace,
kev


---------------------------------------
An email from a progressive Democrat in Oregon:

"I strongly object to the progressive Democratic characterization of the Schiavo case as a "right-to-die" case or "end-of life" case (she is - or was - not dying). It is a disability-rights case. I am progressive Democrat and a supporter of assisted suicide and the right to die, but those are not the real issues here, despite widespread PR from her husband's attorney to the contrary.

This case is about a person with a brain injury having the rights guaranteed by the ADA. It is also about protecting the rights of battered women.

Facts omitted from national coverage but easily verifiable with brief research include the following: there are allegations of spousal abuse perpetrated by Terri's husband. X-rays show multiple broken bones and internal injuries. The judge who has controlled the evidence in the case (remember, appeals only review facts already established by the prior judge and do not allow new evidence to be introduced) has refused to allow important evidence to be admitted. He has a record of refusing to protect battered women from abusive husbands. One died as a result a few years ago. He has refused to consider the abundant evidence of the unfitness of Michael Schiavo as a guardian for Terri's interests. Domestic violence is a serious issue in this country and its possible role here should not be ignored and kept out of the conversation.

Disability rights advocates are very concerned about this case. Terri Schiavo is not chattel to be discarded by her ex-husband. It is not his decision to make, but hers, and he has done everything possible to ensure that she is unable to speak about her own wishes by denying her therapy. Remember, she was speaking before he terminated her access to rehabilitation.

All the talk about this being a "private family matter" is specious. Michael Schiavo is not committed to her nor to her interests. He has refused her access to rehabilitation necessary (she was talking and moving when receiving rehab), has refused her normal rights such as going outside, diagnostic tests, etc. He was already cheating on her before her injury (and was confronted by her the night before her injury) and is now in a common law marriage with 2 kids with someone else. It is bizarre that the press is talking about the sanctity of marriage and the right to privacy under these sick circumstances.

Leading neurologists state that there is a 30% error rate in diagnosing PVS and the doctors who have examined Terri disagree about whether she in fact is in a vegetative state. Where are her rights?

Why aren't news crews being allowed to see her? Why is this being twisted into a "right to die" or "end of life" case? Terri is not fighting for the right to die, nor was she dying before the tube was removed. This is terribly misleading and confusing to the public. I have no doubt the majority of progressives would support the parents' cause if they were not being told over and over again that this is about the right to die.

Please correct this mischaracterization. Most Oregonians support the right to die. This case is NOT about the right to die nor is about "end of life" and it is a disservice to the public to characterize it as such.

Progressives should be looking beneath the surface of this story. The Schiavo case raises serious feminist and disability-rights issues. Please do Americans a service and investigate these issues more deeply and revise the Democratic response. Progressives can and must do better."

-------------------------------------

ok... so.. now you have it... would love to hear your thoughts?

[Dookus]

1. I vehemently disagree

with considering this a "disability rights" case. Terri is not being discriminated against because she's disabled. Her own wishes for her own self-determination are being carried out, and even disabled people should wish the same right for themselves.

[WindRavenX]

4. agreed

I got hoping mad when someone suggested I was "against" disabled people because of my position on the Terri case.

[FreedomAngel82]

69. Yes

I had a cousin who was disabled and was in a chair etc. and she was more a live then this woman. She couldn't talk and walk but she could eat on her own and she could laugh and move her eyes around etc. This woman can't do any of that. If these people had their facts straight they'd know she's in limbo! Good grief.

[molly]

2. AMEN!!!

finally someone with an ounce of sense!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. And a pound of lies

Schiavo has a guardian ad litem. That person is NOT Michael Schiavo. There is no credible evidence he beat here. That allegation was made years later. There was no evidence of strangulation in the ER records. The fractures they claim were present on bone scan were more likely than not caused by emergent care administered by EMT's.

I think some people will be happier when this woman fractures in her bed simply from being turned since that is the eventuality when one loses 75% of their bone density.

[mondo joe]

25. Yeah - NONsense.

Espcially since it's all lies.

[FreedomAngel82]

70. Yes

I didn't even read half of it after I got past the first part. Just plain and simple b.s.

[prolesunited]

41. You know

All men are NOT two-timing murderous assholes.

[Sandpiper]

3. Sigh...another self-appointed expert on Law and Medicine

n/t

[Avalux]

5. Are you sure this is from a progressive democrat?

I doubt it, considering it's rife with RW talking points.

"Easily verifiable spousal abuse"? I wonder how 20 judges could have overlooked that and ruled over and over in favor of Michael Schiavo.

This is garbage.

[Kevin Spidel]

13. I got it in our [e-mail] account....

not sure.. but thought some points in there would make for good debate in here.. and was curious as to what DU'er would think of it.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kevin Spidel]

32. sadly, this is but one of several emails with similar rhetoric. n/t

[Just Me]

34. I'd characterize the email as a "RW PLANT".

Especially when the content contains RW conspiracy bullshit that has already been vetted and contains a notable absence of the core issues pertaining to the structure of our government and our laws.

Believe me, everytime you see "talking points" consistent with RW rhetoric appealing to emotion, a bzillion red flags should be waving in your head.

[Eloriel]

22. And what would prior spousal abuse have to do with anything?

I can't see where it would even be admissible, let alone part of any legal decision about what should happen to her all these many years hence.

This is the kind of thinking that I think too many DUers are relying on when I can't imagine it has any bearing on the case. In the law, it doesn't matter if a man HATES his wife and wishes her dead, if he's got "the right" to decide what happens to her in such a situation, none of the rest of that is admissible probably, and doesnt count at all. Get it? The law isn't "gets to decide her fate as long as he is a good guy," or anything similar.

Hell, she's not even his wife, except under the most extreme of technicalities. He already has ANOTHER (common law) wife, by whom he has two children. "The law" isn't taking ThAT into account, is it? It's irrelevent to "the right" he supposedly has over Terri's fate. So why would previous spousal abuse enter in? It wouldn't.

[Avalux]

23. No it wouldn't -

but the RWers keep injecting it into the argument. They love to do that sort of thing. One of the reasons that email is not credible.

[FreedomAngel82]

73. They also love

to bring up the new woman and the kids. He made her a promise and he's keeping it. He should be honored not bashed by these idiots who call themselves feminists.

[mondo joe]

24. SHE has the same rights HE has

Spousal rights cut both ways.

It's shameful of you to pretend this is some sort of anti-woman issue.

[ultraist]

26. Spousal abuse would and did come into it

The husband was accused by the parents, a few years into the litigation and abuse was not substantiated.

Any time a guardian's rights are being questioned or challenged, abuse is considered to see if this guardian should have their guardianship terminated.

In this case, the guardian is a husband of a profoundly disabled woman. Adult protective services normally investigates cases such as these, and then it goes before a judge, to be sure incapacitated adults are not being abused. In Terri's case, the court heard testimony and ruled there was no abuse.

Additionally, this is somewhat about the rights of the disabled. This woman should have her wishes honored. Those wishes were determined, by the court, to not be on life supports, yet, she has had medical treatments forced on her for 15 years. That is abusing the rights of a severely disabled woman.

[Eloriel]

31. Lack of substantiation doesn't mean it didn't happen

Just so you understand that point of reality, eh?

Besides, it's my understanding that the abuse was supposed to have happened before she fell into this state -- i.e., DOMESTIC ABUSE, not abuse of her as patient.

Additionally, this is somewhat about the rights of the disabled. This woman should have her wishes honored. Those wishes were determined, by the court, to not be on life supports,

AFAIC, what you're arguing for is to have the COURT's wishes upheld. The COURT determined that's what Terri wanted. We absolutely do not have Terris' words -- only her so-called husband's, and he has a very strong conflict of interest (another wife and 2 kids!!).

It may very well be what Terri would have wanted -- I'm just not convinced one way or the other, and I think it's highly presumptuous of anyone to say that they do know.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. Big problem with that allegation, Eloriel.

A bone scan shows an "OLD" fracture but has no means of determining HOW OLD the fracture is. The law is that one CANNOT speculate and that is a good thing. It is also worth noting that people with eating disorders develope bone density loss anyway due to a lack of calcium in their system. If abuse WERE an issue, why was it not raised in the beginning when Shiavo and the Schindlers cared for her jointly? It seems the allegations of abuse when taken in tandem with the edited video tend to sully the credibility of the Schindler family.

[Eloriel]

40. It's my understanding that

the allegations were that the abuse was prior to the incident that resulted in her current state. IOW, he was an abusive husband on at least one occasion while she was healthy, altho there was something I heard that indicatged the abuse may have been part and parcel of what caused her current state. I do not know that any of this is true, and it's not all that clear from the email in the OP, but I think you keep trying to make the abuse later than that and I'm not sure it was. Or perhaps there have been multiple allegations. Perhaps they've all been true.

What I don't understand, really, is why so few DUers aren't the least bit concerned about the tone of all this, with Terri Schiavo as chattel, as well as the utter lack of marital fidelity on the part of Michael Schiavo and what that means or could mean regarding his own intentions and motivations. For me it virtually destroys his credibility on the issue of what Terri wants if what Terri wants is assisted suicide, which is what this is for all practical purposes.

I do not trust him. Given the FACTS that we know beyond any shadow of a doubt (his lack of marital fidelity), I don't understand why so many DUers do. As I said elsewhere, he should have divorced her INSTEAD of retaining his control over her fate once it became clear he obviously had no interest in keeping his marriage vows. I actually don't begrudge him moving on, I begrudge him not being honest and upfront about it and cutting the legal ties.

It bothers me he cut off her parents for even 5 minutes yesterday, a move that could ONLY, it seems to me, have been done out of spite and hatefulness.

There are many things I don't like or trust about him and again, it bothers me so many DUers seem he's some knight in white shining armor. He decidedly is NOT.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

45. Lack of MARITAL FIDELITY???

Are you speaking of PRIOR to her heart attack or after she had been in a persistent vegetative state for YEARS?

She was heavy when he met her and heavy when he married her.

I am all for punishing abusive spouses, but there has not been any credible evidence that that was the case. Furthermore, you seem to have missed my post above.

Finally, having dealt with a severely disabled father who needed the level of care that Terri Schiavo needed, my assessment is that Michael Schiavo and ANYONE that would provide that level of care is INDEED a saint.

You've demonstrated that your feelings are based on whims..not evidence. All available evidence is that Michael DID what any of us would want from a spouse. He cared for her, made SURE she didn't rot in her own soiled depends in an inpatient facility and tried every possible means to affect her recovery. It's ALL in the court records if you'd like to deal with facts instead of whims and feelings.

As to the issue of fidelity, are you suggesting it would have been better for him to have relations with and impregnate Terri? A severely disabled brain injured individual? I thought not.

For all intents and purposes his wife has been dead for years. her family indicated and testified they would not pull her feeding tube even if they KNEW it would cause her pain, result in repeated infections and result in the need for heart surgery. You TELL ME WHO THE ABUSERS ARE!

I'd say based on their treatment of Michael, it is JUST as credible to speculate that the Schindlers may be abusers.

[Eloriel]

147. OMG. I can't believe you said this --

As to the issue of fidelity, are you suggesting it would have been better for him to have relations with and impregnate Terri? A severely disabled brain injured individual? I thought not.

That's a monstrous view and totally invalid argument. I can think of no other words to describe it. There are so many things wrong (sick and twisted) about it that I don't know where to begin.

For starters, it equates love and sex to mere physical satisfaction -- the sex act itself -- and WORSE (appallingly worse, unspeakably worse), it's based on some archaic mythology that men are unable to control their sexual desires and MUST HAVE GRATIFICATION. Such an argument gives men, ALL men by extension, permission to do just about anything they want, just so long as they can satisfy their lust, to which they are such helpless prey. I am surprised you didn't suggest that Michael might go and RAPE someone were it not for his hooking up with this other woman.

I just can't believe you said this.

And here's another horror, AFAIC:

Are you speaking of PRIOR to her heart attack or after she had been in a persistent vegetative state for YEARS?

Yes, I made it clear that I object to his marital INfidelity WHILE REMAINING TECHNICALLY MARRIED TO HER. I have said, a number of times, I can understand him wanting to move on, I can't understand him wanting to have it both ways. Ya wanna move on? Cut the damn cords and let her go. Be a man about your intentions. What he's done isn't even fair where his current common law wife and his two CHILDREN by her are concerned. Cut the damn cords, let Terry go, and get the fuck out of her life if you can't/don't want to stay in it for the long haul. Having it both ways doesn't cut it for me.

You've demonstrated that your feelings are based on whims..not evidence.

So fucking what? I've made it abundantly clear I haven't studied this case and do not intend to, that I have QUESTIONS and concerns based on what I have heard from the beginning on this case. Besides, SOME of my questions and concerns are based on outright irrefutable facts: HE HAS ANOTHER WOMAN, AND TWO CHILDREN BY HER and yet has never bothered to do the right thing and divorce Terry.

YOU think he's a saint for the "evidence" (court testimony?) on how he allegedly treated Terri in the meantime. Well good for you. I consider him a self-centered bastard for not divorcing her and letting her go, and I question his motives for that and his insistence now on stopping feeding, and trying to bar her parents from even seeing her for a few hours the other day, etc.

You may not be able to handle the nuance in your worldview, but I don't think it's IMPOSSIBLE that he be a "saint" in one area and a devil in another. After all, even abusive spouses act lovingly toward their mates sometimes.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

148. And you may think it's possible to have an informed opinion void of facts

I don't.

Not even worth getting myself worked up to respond. I find nothing devilish about him moving on and having a relationship with a healthy woman while honoring the vow he made to stick by his wife's side.

[FreedomAngel82]

74. I trust him more then I do those parents

There's proof that the parents said they would DENY HER WISHES EVEN IF SHE HAD IT IN WRITING. These parents are so far gone from reality of this whole ordeal. He's still by her side. They gave him the chance to divorce and have some money but he didn't take it because he cares about his wife. He is a knight in shining armor (at least where this case is concerned and compared to the parents).

[mondo joe]

78. And some so called feminists have no problem with them defying

her wishes or admitting they'd do so.

No problem at all.

[Eloriel]

149. Her wishes?

Have her wishes been found written down somewhere? We have no proof of her wishes, do we? We have merely a COURT's proclamation as to what "her wishes" were, based on his assertions about the matter which came a little later in the game.

IOW, the FACTS are in dispute in my mind. Were I convinced that this is what Terri wanted, I'd be mostly in favor of what's happening. I'm just not convinced.

[Tinoire]

101. Thank you Eloriel!

I thought DU had morphed. Differences of thoughtful opinion are fine but sheesh, the "thoughtful" has been sorely lacking. Thank you for a "thoughtful" post!

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dutch]

139. 'lack of marital fidelity'???

So it seems fundie 'morality' is creeping into the discourse even here at DU....

[Eloriel]

152. Good grief , marital fidelity is now FUNDIE morality and values?

I consider it common morality, common mutual respect between people who care for one another, so I'd like to think it's a progressive value as well as a "fundie" value. I'd like to think it's a common HUMAN value.

I can tell you this: I'd not stick around any man who wasn't faithful to me, whether we were married or not. In fact, I had ONE man who wasn't faithful to me, and he was history just as soon as I found that out, and I never looked back despite his please.

If Michael wanted to cease honoring his marriage vows, great. I can understand that. He just shoulda quit the marriage by getting a divorce.

[ultraist]

42. That's all we have to go on, 16 courts' rulings

Why should we assume that she would have wanted to live without a cererbral cortex and force her to endure medical treatments to keep her alive, when the evidence says she did not want that?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. It would be admissible were it provable.

The allegatin did not come until years later. Was Schiavo being abusive when he MADE the care facility change her daily and make sure she didn't sit in her own urine? Is the evidence of abuse the fact that while she WAS under his care she had NOT ONE SINGLE BED SORE? Was the evidence of abuse that he took her to California to experts to see if she could be rehabilitated?

The Schindlers claim they will care for her but when they had her home, THEY returned her to inpatient care within 3 weeks.

[mondo joe]

48. There's a lot of man hating under the surface.

It's astonishing to see someone who has provided such good care for his wife be charged with abuse by someone purposefully ignorant of the details of the case. :-(

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

61. Actually I understand why feminists COULD be concerned about this

Many women are in wheelchairs and have been in comas due to violence perpetrated against them by men. In fact, I have personal knowledge of a DU'er who uses a wheelchair and suffered severe injuries as a result of being raped and left for dead. Those concerns are genuine and it would be a travesty of justice if a man or woman were able to mame their spouse then take away life support.

The courts HAVE been wrong before MANY times in matters of domestic violence. It's just that the fact pattern in this case does not match those cases.

[mondo joe]

65. Any human should be concerned about THAT. But the fact is there's not a

shred of evidence that Michael Schiavo ever hurt his wife. In all these years, withthe backing of the whole GOP can there be any doubt if they had any evidence they'd charge him?

In addition,the fact here, however, is men AND women have equal spousal rights. There are many women who have made medical decisions for incapacitated husbands.

[FreedomAngel82]

79. But this doesn't have anything to do

with Terri Schavio. It's been proven time and time again the husband hasn't been abusive but very much the opposite. If you can't prove it to someone you shouldn't make the false hearsay claims.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

87. I'm simply saying given the propaganda, I can see the cause for alarm

and as to your post #71...if there were evidence of abuse it does NOT mean he'd be in jail. Many men have abused their wives and gotten away with it. Try not to make factually incorrect statements.

[mondo joe]

90. I said if there was evidence he'd be CHARGED given the fact that

he has the entire giverning party against him.

Is it outrageous to think if Jeb Bush or the Schindlers or Randall Terry could dig up a shred of evidence he'd be charged?

And I think better of women than to expect them to fall for propaganda, though it clearly has happened.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

99. um...friend..my response was to Freedom Angel, not you :)

[Eloriel]

154. Thank you, nothingshocksmeanymore

I appreciate that you finally can understand my concerns, if not agree with them. I'll say it again: I don't KNOW what the right thing is on this case and will likely never know because I doubt there's any amount of information other than personal involvement with Terri that would convince me one way or another.

Yes, husbands have abused and gotten away with it, including causing serious lifetime damage to their wives; yes, judges have been "misogynist pricks," as someone else posted (not TOO overheatedly) in response to my posts and have done quite active harm to women who came before them in their courts; and yes, courts have been wrong.

IN ADDITION, something you don't point out but I'll do so again: sometimes the LAWS don't support the right thing for any given case, and sometimes what gets admitted in court doesn't serve the right thing for a given case either (whether that's the law's failing or the court officers' failings). I volunteered for a time as a CASA (court-appoitned special advocate) and ONE of the reasons I stopped doing that was the heartache of seeing what would be best for a kid or a family of kids, but state law not allowing for that to happen. I KNOW that the law can be, quite simply, INADEQUATE to the task.

It's just that the fact pattern in this case does not match those cases.

I understand that's true for you; it's not true for me. That doesn't mean (I keep saying) that I'm convinced of the OPPOSITE, but more that I'm agnostic, still questioning and still concerned re this case. I do think it's my right to be that, and to express my thoughts.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MollyStark]

159. Oh, the old "she must hate men" accusation

Not very PC, I am afraid. Feminists have very real concerns about this case based on history and the reality of woman's place in society. Just because Eloriel doesn't agree with you doesn't mean she hates men. That was weak.

[FreedomAngel82]

71. Exactly

He would've been in jail if that was the case and none of this would be happening.

[tjdee]

6. Well she should have divorced him then, huh?

You know, the "personal responsibility" and "less government interference" that Republicans claim to love so much!

They're such a bunch of hypocrites, it turns my stomach.

[Ripley]

7. I just love being used.

So now not only is Michael a murdereous sinister monster, the judge is a misogynist prick who won't defend battered women.

The author of this seems to forget Terri's "rights" are being observed by letting her die.

I find it very strange how so many people take their pet issue and project them onto this case...

[FreedomAngel82]

81. I was listening to Rhandi earlier today

and she read a bill that REAGAN passed in 1983 that basically said people had the right to die. I was one years old then so I don't know too much about this bill. Can anybody give me the jist of it?

[deadparrot]

8. I'm kind of prone to thinking that

this goes beyond a mere disability.

Her brain has liquefied. Simply put, if her eyes weren't open, this would not be an issue. This woman is, for all intents and purposes, gone. Independent doctors have maintained this, and they are the ones I'm most likely to believe.

[Beware the Beast Man]

10. Rocket engines burning fuel so fast,

up into the night sky they blast.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

11. Word whore (not you)

Some word whore wrote that just to enflame, and the words "feminist" and "disability" are designed to make it appear rational.

It's not. It's a huge piece of crap, from every angle.

Do yourself and everyone you know a favor and ditch it. It's absurd.

[Kevin Spidel]

16. :)

I love DU'ers


i need to post more emails i get from our info account on here ... hehehehehe


you would love the emails from the freepers!

[Eloriel]

29. I so disagree with the Old Lawyer

I find quite a bit of value in this and I do NOT believe it was written "just to inflame," or whatever the charge was.

I've been concerned about this case from the begining of my awarenesss of it. I am NOT interested in delving deeply into it -- I find it gross and disgusting and some of the purported medical details make me nauseous (I'm the queasy sort -- not a nurse for a VERY good reason). But I've never been comfortable about several things:

* that we're getting the whole truth. When, for example, have we been able to rely on the MSM for our "facts" on anything of importance, and if that's the case (and it is), why is this case different?

* Someone urged me to go research the legal documents of the case, which are purportedly all available. I won't do that. In addition to my reluctance for the previous reason (queasiness), I also don't trust that our court system (hah! perhaps ESPECIALLY in FL) is routinely capable of producing "the truth" on any given matter. Maybe it did in this case, but maybe it didn't. There are lousy judges, there are lousy laws, and there are clever lawyers and/or incompetent lawyers. Between all these, I simply don't trust our courts to truly promote justice.

* I am profoundly uncomfortable with this particular man being able to make the decision for this woman. He is NOT married to her anymore except in the most grotesque technicality of a way. I have no problem with his "moving on," but he should have been man enough to just divorce her and walk away years ago. I'd have had much more respect for him than this twisted, self-serving role he's playing now.

* And don't give me that business about "her wishes" and that Michael Schiavo is the sole custodian of knowledge about what she wanted or would have wanted. NO ONE KNOWS for sure in this case. His revelation on this issue -- that should would WANT to die under these circumstances -- appeared out of thin air years after she fell into this state. Convenient, huh?

* I was troubled when he blocked her parents from seeing her yesterday. What earthly reason, what VALID reason could there have been for that? Someone got to him, fortunately, and he relented. But it provided a little more fuel to the fire of suspicion about him and his motivations.

* I am also troubled by what's being called "her right to die." She is NOT asking for assisted suicide; she is NOT asking for feeding/hydration tube to be removed, but rather her guardian who demonstrably has other interests and possibly a conflict of interest is requesting this. It's not pulling the plug on a respirator or some other machine keeping her bodily functions going, without which she would die quickly, but rather withholding of sustenance which will CAUSE her death, rather than allow it.

I can tell you this: my husband and I already have Living Wills, but I think I want to review them and put in a TIME LIMIT or duration and perhaps other parameters on this kind of thing -- and make absolutely sure it does NOT provide for the very active push toward death which I consider the withholding of food/water to be, rather than a mere passive act allowing Nature to take its course. And after all, if removing feeding tubes weren't ACTIVE, we'd allow a lot of coma victims to die of starvation and dehydration, and that doesn't happen.

In short, I don't know the facts of this case; I despair of EVER knowing the true facts of this case; I don't trust the courts and especially the FL courts; and I absolutely do not trust Michael Schiavo. I DO NOT KNOW that we progressives have been on the ritht side of this issue. At the same time, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN.

I am troubled, however, by the "dead certainty" with which so many DUers have pronounced ont his case, much of that certainty tainted by some rather anti-woman sentiment. I'm troubled that so many DUers trust that what they've been told about this case by the MSM is accurate and true.

thanks for posting this, Kevin. I've avoided most of the Schiavo threads, but of those very few I've seen, this one comes closest to exploring some of my own thoughts and provides some interesting information which tends to validate what my own inner BS detector has been picking up on, I think.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

35. You don't trust anything or anyone

So, how can you ever have any kind of opinion? I understand that's what you wrote.

You chose not to read the court documents because you don't trust them to be truthful or accurate, either. That implies that you also don't trust any of the witnesses called - the physicians, the guardians ad litem, anyone.

In that case, how can you possibly disagree with what I think, since you state very clearly that you don't know anything about the matter?

And, for the record, I'm a woman, I went to law school when Affirmative Action broke down the barriers against women in law school, I've raised three wonderful daughters, and I'm as card-carrying a feminist as you can imagine, so your dig about "anti-woman sentiment" takes away, finally, even the smallest sort of credibility you might have had.

I must say, I am appalled at someone who is so willing to flaunt in a public forum her ignorance of a matter and then proceed to write hundreds of words about it.

[Eloriel]

38. Oh, puh-leeze

Is this kind of retort SURELY not beneath you:

I must say, I am appalled at someone who is so willing to flaunt in a public forum her ignorance of a matter and then proceed to write hundreds of words about it.

I've expressed my reservations about what I've seen, heard, read -- esp. what I've read here at DU. Are you REALLY trying to claim I have no right to do that? And you want to impugn MY credibility?

And, for the record, I'm a woman, I went to law school when Affirmative Action broke down the barriers against women in law school, I've raised three wonderful daughters, and I'm as card-carrying a feminist as you can imagine, so your dig about "anti-woman sentiment" takes away, finally, even the smallest sort of credibility you might have had.

Hah! As if my comments were about or even addressed TO you; as if women can't hold essentially anti-women sentiments (yes, sometimes even feminist women -- it's called internalized oppression). That's the best you can do with reading and comprehension and again, you want to impugn MY credibility?

Okie dokie.

So, how can you ever have any kind of opinion? I understand that's what you wrote.

Basically, on this issue I don't. It seems you got that one right. Congratulations. I DO have questions and concerns and reservations, and one of the few opinions I DO have is that I think it's sad so many DUers don't have more of the same.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HEyHEY]

49. I'd say she handed you yer ass on that one

[StopTheMorans]

52. I'd concur

:thumbsup:

[Just Me]

37. I disagree with you. This is RW rhetoric intended to be emotionally,...

,...manipulative and to distract from the broader issues pertaining to "privacy", separation of powers, respect for the rules of law, and the complete abuse of all of the foregoing by power-mongering politicians and control-freak religious extremists!!!!

[mondo joe]

46. I must correct you again

1. "that we're getting the whole truth. When, for example, have we been able to rely on the MSM for our "facts" on anything of importance, and if that's the case (and it is), why is this case different?"

Don't rely on MSM. Look to science and ample court records.

2. " Someone urged me to go research the legal documents of the case, which are purportedly all available. I won't do that. In addition to my reluctance for the previous reason (queasiness), I also don't trust that our court system (hah! perhaps ESPECIALLY in FL) is routinely capable of producing "the truth" on any given matter. Maybe it did in this case, but maybe it didn't. There are lousy judges, there are lousy laws, and there are clever lawyers and/or incompetent lawyers. Between all these, I simply don't trust our courts to truly promote justice."

So you uniformly decide if a court found it to be so it must be inaccurate. Nice.

3. "I am profoundly uncomfortable with this particular man being able to make the decision for this woman. He is NOT married to her anymore except in the most grotesque technicality of a way. I have no problem with his "moving on," but he should have been man enough to just divorce her and walk away years ago. I'd have had much more respect for him than this twisted, self-serving role he's playing now. "

He's not deciding for her. If you read the case you'd know that. He asked the court to determine her wishes.

Furthermore, he can't dovorce her because he is carrying out his last responsibility to her. But even if he weren't, it's not his decision any longer.

4. "And don't give me that business about "her wishes" and that Michael Schiavo is the sole custodian of knowledge about what she wanted or would have wanted. NO ONE KNOWS for sure in this case. His revelation on this issue -- that should would WANT to die under these circumstances -- appeared out of thin air years after she fell into this state. Convenient, huh? "

Once more: in the first years he thought she might recover (and this not be kept on life support). Only after aggressive therapy failed to produce any results and in fact her condition worsened did he concede.

5. "I was troubled when he blocked her parents from seeing her yesterday. What earthly reason, what VALID reason could there have been for that? Someone got to him, fortunately, and he relented. But it provided a little more fuel to the fire of suspicion about him and his motivations. "

One good reason: the are opposed to her wishes. They have admitted they would defy her wishes, and they would keep her alive at all costs, no matter what.

6. "I am also troubled by what's being called "her right to die." She is NOT asking for assisted suicide; she is NOT asking for feeding/hydration tube to be removed, but rather her guardian who demonstrably has other interests and possibly a conflict of interest is requesting this. It's not pulling the plug on a respirator or some other machine keeping her bodily functions going, without which she would die quickly, but rather withholding of sustenance which will CAUSE her death, rather than allow it. "

She stated she didn't want to be on life support. End of story.

7. "I can tell you this: my husband and I already have Living Wills, but I think I want to review them and put in a TIME LIMIT or duration and perhaps other parameters on this kind of thing -- and make absolutely sure it does NOT provide for the very active push toward death which I consider the withholding of food/water to be, rather than a mere passive act allowing Nature to take its course. And after all, if removing feeding tubes weren't ACTIVE, we'd allow a lot of coma victims to die of starvation and dehydration, and that doesn't happen."

Consider it what you want - the court can only follow the legal and medical definitions.

8. "In short, I don't know the facts of this case"

Well you got one thing right.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

67. Read the court documents. There's nothing that would make you queasy

there's plenty that would inform you as to the quality of care provided by her husband versus her parents. There's plenty that would inform you as to her intent to the degree that she expressed it while competent to express it. There's plenty that will inform you as to exactly when her husband said "enough is enough." There's plenty that will inform you as to the lengths he went to TRY TO HELP her recover from this. There's plenty that will inform you as to the degree the family would make her go through further surgeries, illnesses, infections etc simply to not ALLOW her to die.

Really. Read the court documents. They are the only thing that will have you trust the judicial process in this case.

[Lilith Velkor]

140. How DARE you suggest there are ambiguities?!

;)

[filet mignon]

142. Thank you for posting, very well thought out post. I see you have been

a member for years, but that might not get you too far in this discussion.

Many a good liberal have been trashed for posting differing opinions such as this.

[Eloriel]

155. Hehe

Thanks. Every now and then I have to go against the grain here.

And lotta other times I'm busy thrashing those who are going against the grain here.

Welcome to DU!

[ender]

12. your friend is delusional

[Kevin Spidel]

17. not a friend.. and email n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

14. One more thing

She's not "disabled."

She's dead.

Without the life support she's been on, her body will shut down. She died when her brain was deprived of oxygen during her heart attack, and that's incontrovertible.

Man, if I were disabled, I'd be really pissed at people trying to use that label to further their own anti-choice ends.

[Pastiche423]

76. I am disabled

and I am beyond pissed at people trying to use that label to further their (whatever)agenda!

[MollyStark]

160. Without food and water your body would shut down.

Are you dead?

[jdj]

15. my thoughts are that none of this stuff is documented.

the judge, his history, why he won't admit the evidence, the name of the woman that died, the confrontation the night before, etc, etc.

That is something that wingers don't get, that you have to really investigate these things for your own private conclusions, and most certainly if you are going to send serious spam like this around you really need to have footnotes. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just saying the kind of people who would believe this based on the content you posted are not "progressive democrats".

edit: also regardless of the events leading to her present state, her present state IS her present state, so Schiavo's motives kind of seem irrelevant. But the truth is, that with his history and circumstances, most people would drop this crap and say the hell with it and move on, they'd gladly relinquish guardianship. He's been offered anywhere from $1 million to $10 million to do so, yet he won't.

[saracat]

18. There is NO substantiation for any of these points.

The cheating" is not verified. In fact, the parents asked him to "date" after the accident, and encouraged him to bring girls "home " for their approval. That is in the court docs. She does have a broken bone that predates her marriage. There was some talk of parental abuse in adolescence.
This is certainly not the progressive point of view and it is NOT worth posting. I am surprised at you suggesting we consider it!

[Kevin Spidel]

20. I agree... but I had to share this...

becasue it is only one of many emails to our info account on this same subject. When you read the same argument over and over again.. occasionally I have to post some of this stuff as a reality check...

like a ..."huh, am I missing something... lemme post on DU to see if there is an angle I am missing here" type of post.

Thank you all for your feedback!

[beam me up scottie]

19. Bullshit.

These are no doubt the same manipulators that tried to tell us that women should hate President Clinton because he was a womanizer.
Bullshit then,
bullshit now,
just bullshit.

[paula777]

27. Sounds like he read Teri's parents talking points and believes them

[yankeedem]

30. It's horseshit

Based on strawman arguments. It makes sense, only if you believe the points in the "letter".

Lies in the email.
-Michael was a wife-beater (no proof or allegations from anyone who would have the ability to know.)

-No doctor that has examined Terri (personally, not by video) has disagreed about the PVS diagnosis, at least no doctor under oath in court.

-It is his decision to make, as she cannot speak for herself and the spouse is the default guardian in a marriage.

-She has talked during rehab. Noone has testified to this, and it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone with no cerebral cortex to talk. Not make noises, talk.

I think we had some of these "progressive Democrats" here last night.

[Medium Baby Jesus]

36. Obviously written by a republican fundie n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

43. Guess what? This isn't a simple issue.

Plenty of valid concerns on both sides. However, regardless of how she got that way, she is what she is now, and it's too late to change it.

[AmericanErrorist]

44. Chew on this website... www.notdeadyet.org

See what you think then!

[ultraist]

53. Approx 70% of the disabled community supports assisted suicide

http://www.newmobility.com/review_article.cfm?id=34&action=browse

But would legalizing assisted suicide violate the ADA? Would it be coercive to people with disabilities? No, said five disabled people who, in concert with Gay Men's Health Crisis and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of assisted suicide. The signatories of this brief are attorneys Evan A. Davis and Barbara Swartz, historian Hugh Gregory Gallagher, Ph.D. candidate Michael A. Strin and disability advocate Susan Webb. Andrew Batavia, who is quadriplegic, is the counsel of record.

These "amici" say that denying assisted suicide is another form of coercion, that it denies their right to end their lives if they become terminally ill. Their "friend of the court" brief asserts, in part:

"The state's intrusion, effectively forcing a person to continue living against his or her will, destroys the autonomy that has been central to the struggles of people with disabilities. ... Those disability rights advocates opposing the right to assisted suicide appear to be saying that the individual with a disability should have control over every decision in his or her life, except for the decision of whether to live in the face of a terminal illness."

On the issue of individual choice, the brief declares:

"Like people without disabilities, these amici want the right to make this choice for themselves if they someday become terminally ill. They do not want to be deprived of this right simply because they have disabilities. Nor do they want their disabilities to be used by others to justify a wholesale denial of this right." The divisiveness of the debate goes far beyond the dry, legal language of amicus briefs. Both sides are digging in for a long and acrimonious fight.

Who's the Majority?

"Disabled people don't all speak with one voice about assisted suicide,"says Batavia. "Some segments of the disability community would have you believe that all disabled people oppose assisted suicide. This isn't so. Some disability leaders are out of touch with what disabled people believe. Because they're so vocal, you'd think they represent the views of the majority in the disability community."

It's actually his side, says Batavia, that's in the majority corner. He cites a 1995 Louis Harris Poll finding that 66 percent of people with disabilities support the right to assisted suicide.

---------

Assisted suicide needs to be monitored diligently to ensure those with disablities are not discriminated against. There's always the possibility of coercion and abuse," Batavia adds. "We have to work vigilantly to make sure this doesn't occur. But in a free society, you don't take away a right-in this case the right to assisted suicide-because it might be abused.

[BurtWorm]

54. Very interesting

Thanks for that link!

[BurtWorm]

47. This is a disservice to the disability rights and feminist movements.

It's all based on rumors--false rumors. This person thinks Terri Schiavo is competent. She hasn't been competent--or noncomatose--in 15 years. This is a very dishonest argument.

[ultraist]

57. Good point! We know who REALLY supports women's and disability rights

For the Repukes to own this is a big sham, ike Bush's "Culture of Life" they try to project all while they let children starve and go without medical care, mass murder Iraqis, allow the abortion rate to increase, push the poverty rate up, etc...HYPOCRITES. Where's the compassion?

[Eloriel]

157. Whoaaa, she is not "comitose" according to news reports

The term they are using repeatedly, ad nauseum, is "persistent vegitative state." IF she were comitose, they'd use that. She's not.

And in fact, some of the argument about this is precisely over the fact that she has or seems to have reactions to things around her, which would not be the case were she comitose.

[oldcoot]

50. The author of this email needs to do some research

As a feminist, I get tired of listening to right-wingers complain about how am I a "knee-jerk man-hater," and then complain about how hypocritical I am when they find out I actually don't hate men. The reason I am not screaming about how Michael Schiavo is an evil wife beater because the facts do not support it. Unlike many on the right, I do not believe in accusing people of violent crimes simply because I do not like the stance they are taking.


This email, for example, is pure crap. An endless number of posters have posted links to court records on this web site including records that contradict this email. Jay Wolfson, Terri's guardian ad litem, has stated on several times that Michale Schiavo took excellent care of Terri and most definitely got her treatment. If you want to read Wolfson's comments for yourself see http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/orl-locmiket25022505feb25.story and then tell me what a bastard he is.

It is also worth noting that court after court has ruled in Michael Schiavo's favor. Are all of these judges misogynists? If they are, we are all in big trouble.

I am actually more concerned about the reaction of Congress to this case than I am about whether or not Michael Schiavo is a perfect human being. Women's rights activists and disability rights activists all depend upon the courts to interpret the laws that protect us. If Congress can rob the judiciary of the power to interpret the laws in this case, then what is stopping Congress from interfering in legal decisions that benefit women and the disabled?

Those who are really concerned about the rights of men, women, the disabled, would be better off spending their time fighting unfair congressional budget cuts and bankruptcy legislation, then interfering in this private medical matter.

[sandnsea]

51. Now it's a feminist abuse issue???

Who bought into the abuse claim perpetuated by the the radical right? Whoever wrote this email, that's who. This is insane. I am just disgusted. There is no hope when so many people can be so easily duped.

[ultraist]

55. Well of course. We all know that the Repukes are pro Feminist

That's why they are opposed to Affirmative Action and why they want to deny women their right to privacy by outlawing abortions. And why they cut funding to social programs including domestic violence shelters. And cut funding to violence against women prevention programs. And cut food stamps that disporportionately affect single mothers. And are allowing birth control to be cut from insurance plans. And implement abstinence programs that have increased the teen pregnancy rate and abortion rates. And...

Get with the cognitive dissonance program. :crazy:

[IndianaGreen]

56. Schiavo Protesters Not All Christian Conservatives

This story is from Reuters. If you go to Jewish Group, you will find an article from Rabbi Marc Gellman in which he expresses his concern about the Schiavo case. Rabbi Gellman, a familiar face on TV, is not a fundie by any stretch of the imagination.

Schiavo Protesters Not All Christian Conservatives
Tue Mar 22, 2005 06:41 PM ET

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (Reuters) - Conservative Christian groups have called for mass vigils outside the hospice caring for brain-damaged Terri Schiavo but many of the few dozen who have shown up said they were drawn for personal reasons unrelated to organized religion.
Eleanor Smith of Decatur, Georgia, sat on Tuesday in a motorized wheelchair in front of the hospice, baking in the sun, with a sign on her lap reading, "This agnostic liberal says 'Feed Terri."'

Her background was a far cry from the evangelical right wing more generally seen as the lobbying force behind the U.S. Congress' scramble over the weekend to draw up a special law to try to prolong Schiavo's life, and President Bush's decision to cut short a Texas vacation to sign it.

Smith, 65, had polio as a child and described herself as a lesbian and a liberal who had demonstrated before in support of the disabled and causes supported by the conservative establishment's archfoe, the American Civil Liberties Union.

REUTERS

[mondo joe]

58. And there are gay republicans too, and Jews for Jesus.

The human mind is a mystery.

[IndianaGreen]

59. And there is such a thing as religious values

that mean a lot to a lot of people no matter how distasteful some DUers find that to be, and not all of them are fundamentalists or Republican either!

[mondo joe]

62. If they're religious values they can impose them on themselves

Not other people.

Freedom of religion, you know.

[IndianaGreen]

63. It was religious values that opposed slavery and segregation

It was religious values that opposed slavery and segregation, and I say this without in any way downplaying the significant contributions of humanists, such as socialists and anarchists, in the struggle for equality.

As Rabbi Gellman wrote in Newsweek:

However the courts dispose of the legal issues in the Schiavo case, or in the various abortion cases, the moral issues will remain with us and between us. After the ruling they will be just as powerful and just as contentious as was slavery when it was the defining moral issue of our culture a century and a half ago. The courts have ruled both ways over the years, and their rulings settle the law for a time, but they never settle the moral issues. Their ruling in the Dred Scott case in the mid-19th century that slavery was legal did not make slavery moral. And for the pro-life community and for the pro-choice community, no ruling will end the moral debate that is defining us. Life is either a privilege or it is a gift we have not given and cannot revoke. No act of Congress or the courts can free us from facing that choice. And that choice, like the choice to forgo slavery, is not made in the great public places. That choice is made in the quiet and humble places where the better angels of our nature speak to the best parts of our loving hearts.

I visit many dying people and one of them, David, always wanted me to tell him the Yiddish story of the foolish men of Chelm who one night saw the reflection of the moon in a rain barrel and decided that it would be a very valuable item for dark and stormy nights. So one clear moonlit night they sneaked up on the rain barrel, saw that the moon was in the barrel, and threw a cover over it. So pleased were they that they had caught the moon that they called the whole village together on a dark night to open the barrel and light the village. After opening it, they sadly discovered that the barrel was full of rain but no moonlight. After a lengthy consultation they concluded, “We were not quick enough to catch the moon.” “Not quick enough to catch the moon,” David said to me on my last visit to the hospice. That night he crossed over to a place where the answers to all questions are clear. To answer some questions, you need intelligence, cash, power, and patience. But for other questions, you need an open heart and you need to be fast enough to catch the moon.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7259993/site/newsweek/page/2/

[mondo joe]

64. religious values also supported segregation and slavery

Religious values can support anything adherents want then to.

That's the beauty of made up values.

If people have religious values about what I can do with my own body they have bad fucking boundaries and need to mind their own business.

[IndianaGreen]

75. And religious values are on a wall outside the United Nations

where it quotes from the Book of Isaiah:

They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift sword against nation. Neither shall they learn war anymore.

[mondo joe]

80. I don't really give a fuck what's on the UN. I care what's in the law.

And keep your g-d off my -ss.

Or is personal freedom not part of your religious values?

[IndianaGreen]

84. The law is the PATRIOT Act and IWR

that's some choices you have made!

[mondo joe]

86. And I care. So please keep you g-d off my b-dy, and I'll keep on

working to make laws more just.

[IndianaGreen]

92. You assume that I want to ban abortion, which I don't.

Do you assume that all people that have religious values are homophobic, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, pro-military? I suggest you look around and you will see many progressives that have religious values, and you don't have to go to Jesus MCC to find them!

Now, to burst your balloon, let me tell you that the anti-choice people can use Roe to ban abortion. This is how: The basis of Roe was fetal liability. One cannot ignore the possibility that further advances in neonatal care developments will continue to push viability closer to the point of conception. Since viability in Roe marks the earliest point at which the State can impose restrictions on abortion, it would be within the realm of possibility for a State to intervene on behalf of the unborn the moment a woman first finds out she is pregnant without violating what remains of the Roe construct.

A concern over the vulnerability of Roe has prompted many prochoicers to look for other arguments that could be used to preserve the right to choose. Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, the two attorneys that represented the plaintiffs in the Roe v. Wade case, discussed using the gender discrimination argument when they were preparing for trial. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term would violate her right to due process of law. The argument parallels the one used in racial discrimination cases. Weddington and Coffee did not emphasize the gender discrimination argument because there was a lack of precedent in 1971.(1)

In a 1985 article written for the North Carolina Law Review, Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized Roe for being based on the right to privacy rather than on the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Ginsburg argues that abortion prohibitions should have been linked to discrimination against women. The conflict, according to Ginsburg, is not "simply one between a fetus' interests and a woman's interests ... nor is the overriding issue state versus private control of a woman's body for a span of nine months. Also in the balance is a woman's autonomous charge of her full life's course" and "her ability to stand in relation to man, society, and the state as an independent, self-sustaining, equal citizen."(2)

Sources:

1. Weddington, Sarah. A Question of Choice. New York: Penguin Books, 1993.

2. Pojman, Louis, and Beckwith, Francis, eds. The Abortion Controversy: 25 Years After Roe v. Wade. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1998.

[mondo joe]

93. I never mentioned abortion. Do you not understand the words "MY BODY"?

Apparently not.

[IndianaGreen]

96. I suggest you go back and R-E-A-D what I posted

instead of reacting you what you think I wrote!

[mondo joe]

98. What you posted was: "There is such a thing as religous values"

And my response is the same: Keep them off my fucking body.

[IndianaGreen]

100. No one was talking about what you referred to as your "fucking body"

You should read what people write!

[mondo joe]

102. You certainly were. Religious Values as a basis to interfere in the

personal decisions of others about right to die.

[IndianaGreen]

104. The Schiavo case is not about right to die

It is about euthanasia!

The religious values that you hold in so much disdain have been a part of jurisprudence going back to Hammurabi.

Most voters, including those that voted Democratic in 2004, do hold religious values that give them solace and guidance. If you want to use such a broad brush that all religious values are belittle, then you won't win any votes in 2006 or 2008.

BTW, Dr. King was a religious man and his religious values were behind his struggle for racial equality and against the war in Vietnam.

[mondo joe]

109. Incorrect. Allowing someone to pass away naturally is not euthenasia.

[IndianaGreen]

121. There is nothing "natural" about starving and dehydrating someone to death

Anymore than there was anything natural about the way the Nazis allowed the mentally and physically impaired to pass away naturally.

[mondo joe]

125. Are you calling Hospice a nazi operation?

When people are terminal one of the things that happens is they stop eating and drinking.

[IndianaGreen]

158. German judges ordered the deaths of the mentally unfit

and their euthanasia orders were based on German laws passed by the Nazis.

It is as difficult for some people to realize that our invasion of Iraq was a war crime, it is also difficult for some to admit that the court's denial of food and water to Terri Schiavo is euthanasia.

[ultraist]

85. Are you suggesting that we legislate religious beliefs?

Are you proposing we violate the Constitution?

Slavery was abolished because they found it was unconstitutional. Same with segregation. And one day, Gay marriage will be legal because the religious oppressors will lose influence and the law will win out.

Crediting religion for the Emmancipation Proclamation or for Brown vs. Board, is very dishonest.

[IndianaGreen]

97. No, but people that were moved by religious beliefs have passed laws

laws that were good in some cases, and were bad in other cases. Unfortunately some people around here like to lump all religious people into the same mold!

[MollyStark]

161. We have separation of Church and state

We do not have a separation of Church and politics. President Bartlett said so and I agree with him.
People have always brought their religious views to bear on their political and social lives.

[ultraist]

60. Exactly. We know who supports our rights and who is fucking lying

I have much more respect for the opinions of LAMBDA Legal Edu & Defense fund over some group like notdeadyet that is associated with fundies.

Who has passed all of the major legislation protecting rights, including the rights of the disabled? Repukes or Democrats?

It's insane to think the Repukes are the party that promotes civil rights.

An exception to the rule argument wont convince me otherwise.

[IndianaGreen]

68. There is no greater right than the right to life!

It is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Those are the words penned by Thomas Jefferson, a man that was not a fundamentalist!

To look at the Schiavo case strictly through the lens of partisanship will make us miss the boat as Tom DeLay did. There is a moral and ethical component to the case, and it is one that the government is ill-suited to resolve. These are difficult issues that we may never agree on, but still remain issues that concern many people deeply, and I am not talking about those that believe that G_d created the world in 6 calendar days!

We face the same difficulty with the death penalty. One can argue that the death penalty is barbaric and diminishes us as a society. But how do we reconcile that view when faced with the crimes of the Holocaust, or the crimes against children, or the crimes our nation's leaders are committing in Iraq?

[mondo joe]

72. Then you missed LIBERTY right next to it,

The moral component is of self determination and privacy.

And if your fucking g-d has a problem with MY choices for MY body that is his or her fucking problem.

This is NOTHING like the death penalty issue which is not one of self determination.

[IndianaGreen]

82. My "fucking g-d has" NO "problem with (YOUR) choices"

So spare me your outrage about abortion rights which is not what is involved in the Schiavo case.

However, I will point out to you, that if you think Roe is so important, then you should wake up to the fact that the Roe construct has the seeds for banning abortion altogether (it's the fetal viability issue).

[mondo joe]

88. Who asked about ROE? I'm talking about tbe right of the individual

to make decisions about her or himself.

And if your fucking god has no problem with it, don't tell me it's "religious values".

Keep your religious values - and keep them off my body.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

95. That's the same thing Ruth Bader Ginsburg said about Roe

and it is the same thing Sarah Weddington, the plaintiff's attorney in Roe said in her book A Question of Choice.

Do some reading!

BTW, my "fucking religion" is Judaism and we Jews don't give a rat's ass about what you do with your "body," that's your business!

[sniffa]

106. overt anti-semitism

not too much of Leap there.

[ultraist]

153. What is overt anti-semitism? "Give me liberty or give me Death"

Stating, "keep your religion out of our laws?" That's seperation of church and state and it doesn't matter what religion it is.

Maybe you were referring to something else. But my comments were not directed at any one religion (I thought he was a "Christian" in fact) and I have no idea why it was deleted.

I'll state it again: Keep the fucking religion out of OUR laws and off my body.

BTW, Indiana Green: "Why don't you do some reading."

[mondo joe]

111. If you don't care what people do with their bodies then butt out of

Terri Schiavo's choice to remove life support.

Actions speak louder than words.

[IndianaGreen]

113. I don't recall Terri Schiavo making any choice

What we have is a dispute between two parties. The husband, his girlfriend, and his brother claim that Terri had made a statement that she did not want to be kept alive by extraordinary means (quite different from the situation she is in today). Terri's blood relatives claim that they never heard Terri make any statements similar to the ones the husband claimed she made.

[mondo joe]

114. And that's what court is for. And the court has upheld 19 times that

finding that this was her wish.

Shall we never allow anyone to proceed with anything if there is ever a dispute? Can we never have a binding conclusion?

Tell me, what does the Torah say about leaving your parents and entering a sacred bond with your spouse? Anything?

[IndianaGreen]

117. Appellate courts never look at new facts in a case

Appellate courts only look for egregious errors by the trial judge, and nothing else! So when the kill Terri crowd rants about 19 judgments, they fail to note that not a single judicial review looked at new facts in the Schiavo case.

[mondo joe]

120. Thank you for admitting there were no errors in the judgment.

[IndianaGreen]

124. Egregious errors. A trial court can still make errors, they all do

but they do not rise to the level in which the case must be remanded to the trial court.

[sniffa]

127. the kiLL terri crowd

bwahahaha

anti-semites and murderers... sweet!

[mondo joe]

128. Oh Sniffa -

If I weren't so reserved I'd be absolutely smitten with you.

[sandnsea]

66. Let Texas pull her plug

What an idiot, a complete and total idiot. The legal family guardian is being overruled by a Congress act and a right wing power play, and that nitwit doesn't get that that means losing the civil rights she thinks she's protesting for.

[TexasSissy]

77. This is a conservative sham e-mail. We've all seen 'em before.

Not from a progressive. Probably from a radical Christian pro-lifer. And it's filled with so many inaccuracies that it would take a very long post to state them all. But here are some highlights.

1. This e-mail is an attempt to re-litigate this matter. This matter has been litigated, and all relevant issues were put on the table. The trier of fact made determinations on the issues. That is our justice system. It's not good....until you consider all the others in the world.

2. The Courts have not found that Terri's husband abused her in any way. The parents have been saying they think he caused her condition. Drs. have stated that this just happened, possibly as a result of bulimia.

3. The Dems are not saying this is a right to life issue. They are saying this is a state's rights issue. Florida has the right to determine the laws under which its citizens live and rely. Florida courts have the right to determine what kind of cases it hears and decides. All of these issues were decided in Florida's court system....all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.

4. The e-mails talks about controversy among the doctors about whether she is in a vegetative state, etc. 12 doctors testified that she is in a persistent vegetative state.

5. News crews. The Court banned news crews after egregious conduct by Terri's parents and news crews. They went in a videotaped her, etc. She has a right to privacy. Just because she's in a vegetative state does not mean that she does not have the right to some dignity. There have been plenty of photos and videotapes taken of her.

6. This has nothing to do with rights of the disabled. This is whether a state has the right to determine cases under its own laws w/o the federal government interceding to impose a different outcome.

7. This case was not only tried in court, but there were numerous appeals on different grounds.

8. The husband is not the one deciding anything. Terri Schiavo and the Florida courts did all the deciding. Her husband testified, just as her parents and siblings did.

9. The husband has nothing to gain by staying married to Terri. He lives with another woman and has another family. The easiest course for him to take would be to divorce Terri and walk away. He says he feels it is his duty to see to it that Terri's wishes are followed. The Courts, NOT the husband, determined what Terri's wishes were.

If you want to talk rumor, there's this: When the husband got $$$ from lawsuit years ago, the parents got very angry that they didn't get any of it. They came right out and asked how much of the award they were going to get, and when the husband told them none, that it's for Terri, the father got furious.

[Bouncy Ball]

83. Rapture repuke says "Hey! I know! I'll call myself a

progressive Democrat (and be sure to mention it a couple of times) and then I'll make this case to be one of SPOUSAL abuse and FEMINISM!!! That'll get those libruls to listen to us, hee hee hee!"

Wipes sweaty hands together, starts typing.

Big. Stinky. Pile. O'Shit.

I got to the "he might have abused her" crap and stopped reading.

[ultraist]

91. "Big. Stinky. Pile. O'Shit" LMAO!!! EXACTLY.

[mondo joe]

94. That whole mesage is an INSULT to women and feminists

As are some of the posts that followed.

I swear, someone somewhere is enjoying pretending to be the worst caricature of a feminist.

[Tinoire]

103. Bull. What is an an INSULT to women and feminists is that a 'husband' who

What is an an INSULT to women and feminists is that a 'husband' who wants to "MOVE ON" can say "PULL THE PLUG". If he doesn't want to care for her anymore let him get a DIVORCE and let the BLOOD PEOPLE who love her take care of her.

Signed,

Feminist.

Progressive.

Daughter of TWO physicians.

Person REVOLTED by many of the knee-jerkers & of the chauvinists using what should be a PRIVATE matter as a springboard for their personal issues.

If the boy needs to move on that bad, let him get an effing divorce and let the people who lovingly raised her and are willing to try all means available to bring her back take care of her.

[IndianaGreen]

105. Well said, Tinoire!

Rabbi Marc Gellman was interviewed last night by Aaron Brown on CNN. Gellman, who is not a fundamentalist or a rightwinger by any stretch of the imagination, spoke about an op-ed he had written for Newsweek on the Schiavo case. In a nutshell, the Schiavo case is not about right to die, but about euthanasia. In the Karen Quinlan case, she was being kept alive by a machine. In the Schiavo case, she is NOT on life support. Her husband, who is living with his version of Amber Frey and has had two kids with her, is using the law as the executioner.

As Gellman wrote:

Catching the Moon

Our columnist looks at the spiritual and moral issues surrounding the Schiavo case
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Marc Gellman
Newsweek

In many right-to-die cases, the patient is on life-support systems, so all that needs to be done to allow them to die is to remove these medical obstacles to death. However, in this case Terri Schiavo is not on any life support systems. In this case, in order to live she only requires hydration and nutrition; and it is a big stretch for many people to label food and water extraordinary means. It is one thing to let a person die in peace who is already dying. It is one thing to remove an obstacle to death. It is quite another to cause death. When you add in her parents' willingness to assume the financial and emotional burden of her care, the insistence of her husband that he be given the right to starve his wife to death just seems insanely ghoulish to many people who are otherwise in favor of a person's right to die. Death, they argue—and I agree—is not always an insult or a betrayal. Death can be a natural and welcome release from pain and suffering. We now face the frightening possibility of modern medicine, motivated more by a defensive fear of lawsuits than the Hippocratic oath of “first do no harm,” stopping us from crossing over when it is our time. But this obviously is not Terri Schiavo's time. She is alive, innocent and mute. She is not at death's door. All this sound and fury is about cruelly bringing the door to her.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7259993/site/newsweek

[mondo joe]

108. Your reference is an idiot whho doesn't even know that legally and

medically the feeding tube IS life support.

[IndianaGreen]

110. Rabbi Gellman is an idiot?

Are there any religious figures that meet your approval, or do you hold all religions and religious views in utter contempt?

[mondo joe]

112. Anyone who makes assertions about things he's ignorant of is an idiot.

Doesn't matter if he's religious or not.

If he's writing about this case he ought to know the feed tube is life support.

[IndianaGreen]

116. Food and water is not a medical life-support treatment!

What Michael Schiavo wants is to kill Terri Schiavo by denying her food and water, euthanasia for short. Terri is NOT on life support, which makes her case far different from the Cruzan and Quinlan cases.

A child killer like John Couey will get more legal protections than Terri Schiavo has gotten from our legal system!

[mondo joe]

119. It's not food. It's a bag of chemicals being pumped into her gut

and it's no more natural than a machine breathing for someone.

Terri IS on life support - both medically and legallly.

Terri HAS gotten legal protection - the protection of enforcing HER choice.

And I suggest you review your religious values again and check out that false witness commandment before you again talk aboout what Michael Schiavo WANTS.

[moobu2]

122. Thank you for saying what I was about to.

[IndianaGreen]

129. The part about "HER" choice is what is in dispute

and dehydrating and starving her to death is euthanasia, no matter how you label it. This issue won't go away, even after Terri dies!

[mondo joe]

130. Again, that "dispute" was resolved legally.

Or do you suggest no legal decision is ever binding so long as someone objects to it?

You say she's getting no legal protection, but at the same time denying the legal authority to provide protection.

[IndianaGreen]

132. That dispute is still in the courts

but the underlying issue, euthanasia, will be with us for a long time.

[mondo joe]

133. And the decision has been upheld over a dozen times. But removal

of life support - including the feed tube - is not euthenasia, not legally or medically.

[moobu2]

135. It has nothing to do with euthanasia, where did you get that?

[ultraist]

138. Correct. Using medical technology and surgery to insert a tube

IS a medical treatment.

I found the Rabbi's comments illogical. He said it was ok to reject ALL medical treatments to bring on a natural death, such as antibiotics for pnemonia or a respirator, EXCEPT the medical treatment of surgery to implant a tube to supply chemicals that have nutrients. This tube requires a high tech piece of equipment to function.

Tell me WHAT is the difference between surgery for tube insertion with the use of a high tech piece of medical equipment and a respiratory machine that provides oxygen (which provides something as basic as water or food).

His statement defies logic. Rejecting the use of surgery for tube insertion and the use of a machine to provide nutrition/water is WRONG but it's ok to reject the use a machine to provide oxygen.

In other words, if one chooses to suffocate to death because they reject medical intervention that is ok in the "eyes of God," but if one chooses to dehydrate to death, that is not ok in the "eyes of God."

Why is it ok to reject oxygen but not food/water to bring on a natural death? Totally illogical.

[Dutch]

131. 'the insistence of her husband that he be given the right to starve..

..his wife to death'.

That is such a grotesquely callous simplification of Michael Schiavo's position that it's tantamount to lying by omission. Gellman should be ashamed of himself.

[Lilith Velkor]

144. Grotequely callous simplification, mmmhmm.

Does that mean calling what the US military is doing in Iraq a "war of aggression" is tantamount to lying by omission?

No, Gellman is calling it like he sees it without euphemisms. Sorry you feel so uncomfortable about it.

[crispini]

145. Well, how about a contrary opinion from a different religious figure?

Here's an interview in Salon with Rev. John Paris, the Walsh Professor of Bioethics at Boston College, and a Catholic priest, who reviewed the case.

... (snip)....
Why is the case bizarre?

In most cases, the court has a theory, you have an appellate review, and that's the end. But this case, the parents keep coming back with new issues -- every time that they lose, they come in with a new issue. We want to reexamine the case. We believe she's competent. We need new medical tests being done. We think she's been abused. We want child protective services to intervene. Finally, Judge George Greer denied them all. He said. "Look, we have had court-appointed neutral physicians examine this patient. You don't believe the findings of the doctors but the finding of the doctors have been accepted by the court as factual." There have been six reviews by the appellate court.

... snip...

As a priest, how do you resolve questions in which the "sanctity of life" is involved?

The sanctity of life? This has nothing to do with the sanctity of life. The Roman Catholic Church has a consistent 400-year-old tradition that I'm sure you are familiar with. It says nobody is obliged to undergo extraordinary means to preserve life.

This is Holy Week, this is when the Catholic community is saying, "We understand that life is not an absolute good and death is not an absolute defeat." The whole story of Easter is about the triumph of eternal life over death. Catholics have never believed that biological life is an end in and of itself. We've been created as a gift from God and are ultimately destined to go back to God. And we've been destined in this life to be involved in relationships. And when the capacity for that life is exhausted, there is no obligation to make officious efforts to sustain it.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/03/22/father_john/index.html

Sensible man. It's enough to make me consider Catholicism. ;)

[mondo joe]

107. Wrong, and a bad parody of feminism. And please prove they "lovingl"

raised her, since you know so much about the personal lives of this family.

There's nothing feminist about handing a woman over to "the BLOOD PEOPLE" who admit they would defy her wishes.

Please telll me by what feminist principle do you seeek to override HER choice?

[deek]

143. you go, girl!!! eom

.

[moobu2]

123. It looks like a scam spam e-mail

made to look like something to spread disinformation in the form of a fallacious argument meant to appeal to emotion. It's filled with the same disgusting lies you can read on any of a 1000 anti-abortionists websites.

[mondo joe]

126. What is the feminist rationale to give a woman to 2 people who admit they

would defy her wishes while she's incapacitated?

[Junkdrawer]

134. This was debated today on DemocracyNow...

I side with Ken Goodman:

KEN GOODMAN: What you notice is a consistent pattern of judges from local circuits to federal appeals, all coming up with exactly the same conclusion. You notice a series of neurologists, board-certified neurologists, all coming up with the same conclusion. You notice doctors, lawyers and people who teach ethics in our medical schools all coming up with the same conclusions. It has nothing to do with what you just heard from the representative. It has nothing to do with euthanasia, nothing to do with starvation. Nothing to do with dignity.

It has to do, precisely, with the flip side of dignity, namely the right to refuse medical treatment. Terri Schiavo is not being starved to death. And anybody who uses the language of starvation and suffering is doing so to deceive you. Talk about framing the debate. That's exactly what's happened here for partisan political purposes. She's uncontroversially in a persistent vegetative state according to credible neurologists. That does not include any members of our Congress. And the fact of the matter is anybody who suggests otherwise is trying to advance an agenda that has nothing to do with poor Terri Schiavo.



http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/22/1529259

[Vladimir]

136. I have consciously tried to avoid this issue

mainly because I think the amount of coverage it is getting is utterly obscene considering the ongoing imperialist genocide in Iraq, but dammit its just impossible! I mean, a billion gazillion threads later, the itch just needs to be scratched. I enjoyed reading the original post, because it encompasses a lot of the problems I have with the body of opinion that agrees with the court judgements in this matter. My first instict on the matter was that the courts are right, her family are nutters and that's that. Now, I'm not so sure. That is not to say that I necessarily think the feeding tube should be re-inserted, and I certainly disapprove of the violations of the constitution that have occured over the last week as a result of this sorry affair. But there are some serious questions about the behaviour of her husband in all this, as outlined by Eloriel and Tinoire above, and I think we are sometimes too rash to slam what is percieved as the 'evangelical' position on this matter to recognise that it may be that neither side in this issue has Terri's best interests at heart. I am certainly disturbed by both her parents insistance that they would not stop treatment even if they knew it was hurting her, and her husband's comments about the state trampling all over 'his life'. With all due respect to Michael Schiavo, if anyone is being trampled over here it is Terri. But is that reason enough to keep her in a vegetative state with (from my understanding of available evidence) no hope of recovery? I am tempted to take the position that this should be a decision for her doctors, and no one else - and not just in her situation, in all similar situations. Now admittedly this has problems of its own, especially in a country with no universal health care, but I can't see anyone better qualified to make the decision...

PS I am not sure I have a problem with her husband's finding a new girlfriend five years after the fact - five months later, ok I could see the point. But five years is a fucking long time... if he genuinely is doing what she would have wanted (and its perfectly possible), finding a new partner would be a way of preserving his own sanity through such a long legal battle as much as anything else.

[sadiesworld]

137. The "keep Terri alive" proponents...

regularly bring up the malpractice suit/$, and they also insinuate that Michael was abusive during their marriage and/or responsible for Terri's death, but do you notice how they NEVER examine the abuse allegations in the context of the malpractice suit?

Isn't it reasonable to assume that if there were any credible evidence that Michael had abused Teri that he would not have filed the suit in the first place, much less have been successful? Terri's cause of death was directly at issue in the case and Michael's claim for loss of consortium also put their marital relationship in the cross-hairs.

Malpractice attorneys are a particularly competent and well-funded lot--sorry, doctors and hospitals don't receive inadequate representation. I'm sure teams of paralegals and associate attorneys crossed every t and dotted every i in an attempt to deflect blame for Terri's death and minimize the quality of the Schiavo marriage. Moreover, juries aren't particularly sympathetic to money-grubbing abusers, but ARE generally sympathetic to the medical profession.

Like others I have tried to avoid the three-ring circus, but I'm starting to believe that the RW has finally gone too far. If the LTTEs in my local paper are any indication, the repubs are jumping the shark here--especially with the medical community.

[Baconfoot]

141. Wrong. Evidence of Michael's unfittness HAS been reviewed.Oh forget itNT

[gnofg]

146. accusation

It is diatressing to many DU's that if you don't agree with the accepted position of a certain group that you are
1 a freeper
2 a troll
3 an idiot
4 stupid

This is an are a for discussion and exchange of ideas. A little civility would be appreciated.

[Bridget Burke]

150. Who are you accusing? The OP?

Or another specific poster here?

[deek]

151. agreed

don't forget rw religious nut

[me b zola]

156. Regarding people with disabilities

I worked several years with people with disabilities, several of them were completely nonverbal, many needed total assistance with their daily needs ie dressing them, assisting with transfers into their chairs, hygiene, & feeding.But these people directed their own care & their own lives. With assistance, the people that I worked with lead full lives. Some or all control of their body was lost, but the essence of who they are was brilliantly shining. Most of the people with disabilities had a more active social life than I did!!

I have also worked in nursing homes where I have cared for several people who were in a similar state as Mrs, Shiavo. It is apples & oranges. Trust me, NO ONE would want to be subjected to living that "life". It is not life, just the warehousing & care of a lifeless body.

There is another thought that I have on this subject. I didn't realize at the time the seriousness of the issue, it has been several years. One of the women with disabilities that I provided services for was agnostic, perhaps atheist. She had no desire to go to church, she was quite vocal (for a non verbal person!!) about her feelings on the church. Then I hired a young woman who was very involved in her church, but compared to some of the predators that apply for the job, I thought it was a welcomed change. I supervised several homes, but this young lady wanted to work exclusively with Ms X. Within months Ms.X was attending church with our little do-gooder, and soon there after she was Baptized in the church. Now I had several staff people who were wonderful & progressive thinkers that previously Ms X had a good relationship with. Soon Ms X began pulling away from long term (several years) relationships that she had with wonderful people. She became distant & mistrustful of those of us who knew her for years.

I guess what I am saying is that it has just occurred to me that fundies may well be targeting people with disabilities, in effect, preying on them. If this is so, then it is nothing short of abuse.

Sweet Jesus, these people have no shame.