How do you feel about Terri Schiavo?

[snyper0311]

Hello all,
I was just reading on the latest issue with Terri Schiavo and the removal of her feeding tube. This got me to wondering, what do others think/feel about the ruling?

For those of you that don't know about what has been going on here in the US with Terri Schiavo, she is a lady from Florida that is technically brain dead. The doctors inserted a feeding tube to keep her alive for the last fifteen years. Over the past few weeks, her husband has requested, and won the right to remove her feeding tube. Her parents appealed to the court system to have the tube reinserted but have lost in the courts. Now, the US government has gotten involved and passed legislation stating that this would be unconstitutional and, what is going on, violates her rights.

My opinion is that her husband is right. I feel that he should have the authority to do what his wife would have wanted. What is wrong with our government? What makes them think that they have the right to make this decision for someone and make a law to accomidate their opinion? How do you feel about this?

 

[MountainPro]

there is a thread about this topic aleady in the soap box...just two down from this one.

pull the plug, thats how i feel and thats what i would want my wife to do it i ever ended up like that poor woman....infact i told my wife that very thing last night and she agreed. She reciprocated the feeling too.

Hello all,
I was just reading on the latest issue with Terri Schiavo and the removal of her feeding tube. This got me to wondering, what do others think/feel about the ruling?

For those of you that don't know about what has been going on here in the US with Terri Schiavo, she is a lady from Florida that is technically brain dead. The doctors inserted a feeding tube to keep her alive for the last fifteen years. Over the past few weeks, her husband has requested, and won the right to remove her feeding tube. Her parents appealed to the court system to have the tube reinserted but have lost in the courts. Now, the US government has gotten involved and passed legislation stating that this would be unconstitutional and, what is going on, violates her rights.

My opinion is that her husband is right. I feel that he should have the authority to do what his wife would have wanted. What is wrong with our government? What makes them think that they have the right to make this decision for someone and make a law to accomidate their opinion? How do you feel about this?

 

[limerickman]

Hello all,
I was just reading on the latest issue with Terri Schiavo and the removal of her feeding tube. This got me to wondering, what do others think/feel about the ruling?

For those of you that don't know about what has been going on here in the US with Terri Schiavo, she is a lady from Florida that is technically brain dead. The doctors inserted a feeding tube to keep her alive for the last fifteen years. Over the past few weeks, her husband has requested, and won the right to remove her feeding tube. Her parents appealed to the court system to have the tube reinserted but have lost in the courts. Now, the US government has gotten involved and passed legislation stating that this would be unconstitutional and, what is going on, violates her rights.

My opinion is that her husband is right. I feel that he should have the authority to do what his wife would have wanted. What is wrong with our government? What makes them think that they have the right to make this decision for someone and make a law to accomidate their opinion? How do you feel about this?

It's a very sad case and it is a terrible dilemna.

From my knowledge of the case, I tend to reluctantly agree that her husband is more right, than her family, based on what I have read about the case.

I think a dangerous precedent might be set in this instance.
The courts and the goverment ought to be separate.
The goverment has no business meddling in the judiciary.

 

[jhuskey]

It's a very sad case and it is a terrible dilemna.

From my knowledge of the case, I tend to reluctantly agree that her husband is more right, than her family, based on what I have read about the case.

I think a dangerous precedent might be set in this instance.
The courts and the goverment ought to be separate.
The goverment has no business meddling in the judiciary.

The legislature only gave the judiciary a confirmed right to make a decision,which they did.
The tube feeding tube will not be re-inserted. As of this morning, anyway!
Bush or the legislature did not make a direct decision on this issue they just gave the decision making power to that judge.

And I agree neither my wife or myself want to go on living without quality of life and before someone jumps on that statement.
I have adequate quality at present.

 

[limerickman]

The legislature only gave the judiciary a confirmed right to make a decision,which they did.
The tube feeding tube will not be re-inserted. As of this morning, anyway!
Bush or the legislature did not make a direct decision on this issue they just gave the decision making power to that judge.

And I agree neither my wife or myself want to go on living without quality of life and before someone jumps on that statement.
I have adequate quality at present.

Maybe I am mistaken but I read that Bush and Congress signed a new bill amending the legislation at the weekend - which allowed the parents of this unfortunate lady to press for the re-insertion of the feeding tube.
Is this correct ? (maybe I am mistaken)
I understand that the legislature signed this bill, at the weekend, because they were unhappy with the ruling of the court (which implies that the legislature, when unhappy with a given judicial decision, can format another piece of legislation in the hope that the plaintiff can re-admit their case and win their case).

Maybe I'm wrong, as I say.

 

[Fixey]

I think a dangerous precedent might be set in this instance.
The courts and the government ought to be separate.
The government has no business meddling in the judiciary.

I seriously disagree here Lim, The judiciary is simply an organization to interpret and enforce the will of the government. The Government's roll is to assess the wants of the people (Yeah right) and where practical, Legislate to change laws into line with current thinking, therefor it is SOLELY the governments business to dictate (Meddle as you put it) to the judiciary (who after all are just glorified Lawyers)

 

[jhuskey]

Maybe I am mistaken but I read that Bush and Congress signed a new bill amending the legislation at the weekend - which allowed the parents of this unfortunate lady to press for the re-insertion of the feeding tube.
Is this correct ? (maybe I am mistaken)
I understand that the legislature signed this bill, at the weekend, because they were unhappy with the ruling of the court (which implies that the legislature, when unhappy with a given judicial decision, can format another piece of legislation in the hope that the plaintiff can re-admit their case and win their case).

Maybe I'm wrong, as I say.

The way I understand is that the legislation allowed the district court to change the previous ruling,which didn't happen. It is no doubt that conservatives are attempting to give her parents the edge in the situation but it is still in the hands of the judiciary.
I guess the question is, will she survive long enough for side to out maneuver the other.

 

[jitteringjr]

The goverment has no business meddling in the judiciary.

Actually, this is their job. I am assuming by government you mean the President and congress. I know you are an Irish guy so you may not know, but:

Congress provides a checks and balance system over the Judiciary.

The President provides a checks and balance system over Congress.

The Judiciary provides a checks and balance system over the President.


This is so no one branch can gain power over the others, so Yes, it is the government's job.

 

[limerickman]

Actually, this is their job. I am assuming by government you mean the President and congress. I know you are an Irish guy so you may not know, but:

Congress provides a checks and balance system over the Judiciary.

The President provides a checks and balance system over Congress.

The Judiciary provides a checks and balance system over the President.


This is so no one branch can gain power over the others, so Yes, it is the government's job.

I live in a Republic and it's democratic (at least it was when I last looked).

The legislature create the law.
The judiciary adjudicate the law.
The legislature and the judiciary are separate.
As in your country, there is a series of checks and balances between both
arms of the political/legal system.

My knowledge of this case is that the judiciary have allowed life support to be stopped.
But the politicians have decided that they don't like this decision and have enacted more legislation to try to stop the removal of life support.
Therefore, it would seem to me that because the politicians dislike a court ruling, that they can impose another piece of legislation, in the hope that this
will deliver a different outcome in the court.
(if I am wrong - please tell me).
Why is it that the politicians feel compelled to draft emergency legislation -
does this not compromise the independence of the courts and it's decisions ?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

I live in a Republic and it's democratic (at least it was when I last looked).

The legislature create the law.
The judiciary adjudicate the law.
The legislature and the judiciary are separate.
As in your country, there is a series of checks and balances between both
arms of the political/legal system.

My knowledge of this case is that the judiciary have allowed life support to be stopped.
But the politicians have decided that they don't like this decision and have enacted more legislation to try to stop the removal of life support.
Therefore, it would seem to me that because the politicians dislike a court ruling, that they can impose another piece of legislation, in the hope that this
will deliver a different outcome in the court.
(if I am wrong - please tell me).
Why is it that the politicians feel compelled to draft emergency legislation -
does this not compromise the independence of the courts and it's decisions ?

That would be true if the juducial branch was completely impartial. I don't know about where you live but in the US some in the judicial branch seem to be taking an activist role. Basically, decreeing law from the bench. Shouldn't the legislature pass the laws? The judicial branch should only deterime the constitutionality of said laws.

 

[snyper0311]

I live in a Republic and it's democratic (at least it was when I last looked).

The legislature create the law.
The judiciary adjudicate the law.
The legislature and the judiciary are separate.
As in your country, there is a series of checks and balances between both
arms of the political/legal system.

My knowledge of this case is that the judiciary have allowed life support to be stopped.
But the politicians have decided that they don't like this decision and have enacted more legislation to try to stop the removal of life support.
Therefore, it would seem to me that because the politicians dislike a court ruling, that they can impose another piece of legislation, in the hope that this
will deliver a different outcome in the court.
(if I am wrong - please tell me).
Why is it that the politicians feel compelled to draft emergency legislation -
does this not compromise the independence of the courts and it's decisions ?

I totally agree with you on this. Why does congress feel that the laws in place are unfair and need to be ratified? Seems to me like they just want their hands in someone elses soup! It has become more of a political thing and less of a "life saving" issue. I personally feel like she is being used as a pawn for political significance. It really chaps my hide to see this going on. Another appeal, another ruling in favor of her husband. When will this torture end for this poor woman?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

I totally agree with you on this. Why does congress feel that the laws in place are unfair and need to be ratified? Seems to me like they just want their hands in someone elses soup! It has become more of a political thing and less of a "life saving" issue. I personally feel like she is being used as a pawn for political significance. It really chaps my hide to see this going on. Another appeal, another ruling in favor of her husband. When will this torture end for this poor woman?

Once she is starved to death then the torture will be over. It really chaps my hide that someone can be starved to death and the courts think its ok.
I thought it was Congress' job to make laws. Or maybe you like having a judge make law.

 

[jitteringjr]

My knowledge of this case is that the judiciary have allowed life support to be stopped.
But the politicians have decided that they don't like this decision and have enacted more legislation to try to stop the removal of life support.
Therefore, it would seem to me that because the politicians dislike a court ruling, that they can impose another piece of legislation, in the hope that this
will deliver a different outcome in the court.
(if I am wrong - please tell me).
Why is it that the politicians feel compelled to draft emergency legislation -
does this not compromise the independence of the courts and it's decisions ?

That is exactly correct, Congress doesn't like it so they are trying to change it. That is how it is supposed to work. They are checking the Judicial branch.

 

[jitteringjr]

I thought it was Congress' job to make laws. Or maybe you like having a judge make law.

Judges are supposed to make laws. Killing an unborn fetus is legal in the U.S because of the Row Vs. Wade Supreme Court decision right? This is called common law, which is not to be confused with constitutional law. Here is a brief overview:


http://www.quickmba.com/law/sys/

Once she is starved to death then the torture will be over. It really chaps my hide that someone can be starved to death and the courts think its ok.

I don't think it is torture for her. The way I understand it and this might not be correct but her brain is not sending signals to her body and vice versa. If you pinch her, she can not feel it. If she can't feel pain, how would she even know if she is hungry?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Judges are supposed to make laws. Killing an unborn fetus is legal in the U.S because of the Row Vs. Wade Supreme Court decision right? This is called common law, which is not to be confused with constitutional law.

Ummm...maybe you should read the constitution and see just what it says about the 3 branches of government. Congress shall pass the laws and the judiciary shall determine the constitutionality of said laws. The judiciary also is to interpret laws.
Is it a fetus or a person?

 

[Shreklookalike]

Once she is starved to death then the torture will be over. It really chaps my hide that someone can be starved to death and the courts think its ok.
I thought it was Congress' job to make laws. Or maybe you like having a judge make law.

I would think that the real torture would be spending the remainder of your life confined to a bed, with no way to do anything for yourself, and no way to communicate with anyone. This poor woman is in a condition where she can't even do something along the lines of blink once for yes, blink twice for no.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

I would think that the real torture would be spending the remainder of your life confined to a bed, with no way to do anything for yourself, and no way to communicate with anyone. This poor woman is in a condition where she can't even do something along the lines of blink once for yes, blink twice for no.

Since we have nothing from her stating that she didn't want to live this way, what's the problem if the parents would be willing to care for her? If she is "existing" then why does anyone really care if the parents care for her? Isn't it interesting that those of us alive and well are so quick to kill those that can't speak for themselves.

 

[jitteringjr]

Ummm...maybe you should read the constitution and see just what it says about the 3 branches of government. Congress shall pass the laws and the judiciary shall determine the constitutionality of said laws. The judiciary also is to interpret laws.

Nothing I said was contrary to this. Don't tell me to read the constitution when you don't even know what common law is. Judges also make common law, and:

Or maybe you like having a judge make law.

yes I do like judges making law. That is how it's supposed to work.

 

[snyper0311]

Since we have nothing from her stating that she didn't want to live this way, what's the problem if the parents would be willing to care for her? If she is "existing" then why does anyone really care if the parents care for her? Isn't it interesting that those of us alive and well are so quick to kill those that can't speak for themselves.

Well, let me ask you a question. According to the doctors, she is "Brain Dead." We can keep a body existing as long as it is on life support. Should we keep everyone on lifesupport and in existance?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Well, let me ask you a question. According to the doctors, she is "Brain Dead." We can keep a body existing as long as it is on life support. Should we keep everyone on lifesupport and in existance?

If she didn't say otherwise then it really isn't our choice. Maybe we should kill everyone that becomes a drain on society!