Dean's World

To me that's really all there is to this: eyewitnesses differ on what she said. Her husband is the only relative who claims she said this, and other witnesses say he's contradicted himself on this point. Meanwhile, brother and parents say she would never have wanted this.

So far as I'm concerned that really should seal it: when in doubt, err on the side of caution.

I disagree. This issue has been settled by an institution by no means perfect, but one that I trust far more than than I would bloggers: the courts. All of the evidence of Schiavo's intent has been heard and adjudicated according to a legal procedure created to make precisely this kind of factual determination. That seals it for me.

As far as I'm concerned, that Terri Schiavo expressed a wish not to be artificially kept alive in a state like the one she's in is a legally established fact, and therefore unassailable without the introduction of new evidence unavailable to the courts when the determination was made. It's called the Rule of Law. It's not perfect, but it's a socially agreed upon procedure for resolving disputes of fact.

I think it's disgusting what the House Republicans are doing. I think they're using Terri Schiavo as a prop to support their own political grandstanding, and I think it's obscene. This is exactly what I meant a while back when I said that there are no villains in this case except the politicians exploiting the tragedy for their own ends. I was thinking about Jeb Bush at the time, but it seems now he's got company.

I'm concerned that this power--now that it has been used for this purpose--will be abused by House or Senate members with other agendas; say, death penalty opponents trying to keep <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.crimelibrary.com/ramirez/">Richard Ramirez</a> from meeting his well-deserved end. Regardless of the merits or the outcome of this case, this loophole needs to be severely curtailed or closed in the future.

I disagree with your ultimate position on this case, Scott, but you've raised a point that I can agree with. Whatever happens with Terri Schiavo, someone has to step in and remind everyone where the legislative branch ends and the judicial branch begins.

Sorry to be presumptuous, Scott. To answer your question, I was under the impression that you were what is often referred to around here as a Terri Schiavo supporter. I regret my mistake.

And for what it's worth, I also agree that this case could have dangerous consequences either way. Although I have a firm position on this issue, I try not to be blind to the implications of that position.

It's now being reported everywhere that the judge has just ordered her feeding tube removed NOW. And this has been done. Just for spite?

I'm with Drew on this. The judges--all the judges at both local, state, and federal levels--have shown the courage of their convictions. They have decided--properly, in my opinion, but that's actually immaterial--that Terri Schiavo's intentions are best represented by what her husband purports them to be. The law says that next-of-kin follows a particular order, with the spouse on the top of the list.

I think, as well, that Congress is grandstanding and going far beyond its legitimate bounds. There's a good discussion on the constitutionality of this subpoena over at Volokh Conspiracy.

We're talking about killing a human being here. I think it's perfectly all right for anyone, even Congress, to step in, confirm evidence, and, if necessary, perform a stay of execution before this woman is killed.

That's what's usually done when the state authorizes a death.

I signed a living will, but the brutality with which the sentence of death is carried out in these right-to-die cases is grotesque. Why do we treat a helpless human being so cruelly? Why do we think it's cruel to torture Timothy McVeigh or a sick dog for a week, but it's ok to force Terri to die a slow death?

The courts and the people who support the "right to die" don't want to admit that, when the law is followed, they are killing someone. If that's what the signers want, fine, but let's be honest about what we're doing. If this sort of killing is going to be legal it should be compassionate.

My father slipped into irreversible coma some 12 years ago. One day he was okay--though in failing health--and the next, he was on the floor. Nothing the hospitals could do would stabliize, simultaneously, his blood pressure, his fluid balances, his chemical balances. When he slid, it was pretty much straight to the bottom.

He did sign a living will, leaving the ultimate decision to his children. My brothers, sister, and I had to decide whether keeping him alive was what he wanted, what he would have wanted.

After lengthy discussion--and with the assistance of a parish priest for my sister--we decided that he would have wanted to go, that that was his intent when he signed the will.

Luckily for us, he died before the artificial respiration had been turned down completely.

But the nurse who was initially given the medical order to start turning down the respirator refused to do so. She, apparently sharing the views of some here, felt that it was morally wrong to do so.

My siblings and I--and obviously the doctor--disagreed. She was removed from the case, which was a very good thing. My siblings and I did not ask for and did not need her well-intended "intervention". Had she not been removed by the hospital, she would have been removed by us, no matter the legal consequence.

No one wins in the Schiavo case. This is an awe-ful decision to make. But the laws dictate who has the right to make that decision. It is not us, it is not Terri Schiavo's blood family, and it is not any legislature. The courts are correct in their reading of the pertinent law.

Starving to death cannot be a pleasant way to die. I would vastly prefer that our legislatures would write laws that permitted "assisted death" in very restricted circumstances. But our society is not ready to take that step, fearing--and with some cause--that this would be a step too far onto the slippery slope. Because an unnatural death is not legally permitted, a "natural" death through starvation/dehydration is the only form of death available to Ms Schiavo.

Prayer for her merciful passing is about all that is legally and morally left for us.

As a Floridian, I do understand what the FL law provides in these instances. The FL Supreme Court looked at the case and decided that the law said that absent a written will, then the only reasonable way to interpret Terri Schiavo's intention was to rely on her nearest of kin, i.e., her husband. Try read that 2004 FL Supreme Court decision of Bush v. Schiavo. You can find it at the Florida State University website.

The FL Supreme Court did not go lightly into this case. They did examine evidence, including a CAT scan that showed that Ms Schiavo no longer had most of her cerebral cortex, it having been replaced with cerebral-spinal fluid as the result of its death. Nor did the court simply look at it as a minor point of law. The justices all have families and while understanding the emotional complexity of the issue, decided that rule of law is the most important thing they must support.

The new moves in Congress to get a trial de novo in a federal court might work. I'm not sure Congress has the authority to coerce a court that way, but perhaps it does. If so, then the tube will be put back in. A new trial will be held. And unless a miracle has happened that made new brain cells grow, then it will come to the same conclusion as state courts. Then the feeding tube will be removed again.

I am very concerned about Congress deciding that the federal government has the authority to impose itself in decisions like this. I firmly believe this is something best handled on the state level. We do not need a single, federal standard to decide matters like this. Even though they pointedly deny it, I do think this is populist show-boating. And I know two people for whom I voted last year who are not only not getting my vote next time around, but will instead get my active opposition.