SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (8974)3/29/2005 5:15:51 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Lessons from Terri Schiavo

Cal Thomas
March 28, 2005

The Terri Schiavo case has been a perfect media storm and an object lesson.

For the media, it served as a metaphor for much of what divides us: pro-life vs. pro-choice; religious vs. secular; wife vs. husband vs. parents/in-laws; church vs. state.

Many religious leaders (and certain members of Congress) at first distinguished themselves by standing on principle and appealing to the state to preserve Terri Schiavo's life. But a few called for defiance of authority, suggesting Florida officials disobey court orders, "rescue" Terri from her hospice bed and reinsert her feeding tube.

The Miami Herald reported Saturday that agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told police in Pinellas Park they were going to conduct such an operation. The newspaper said agents backed down rather than confront local police outside the hospice. Certain people seem to be arguing that only those laws and judicial rulings with which they agree are to be obeyed. That invites anarchy.

Some of those calling for the law to be disobeyed were ordained clergy, which is especially troubling.

What do these ordained men mean by encouraging people to break the law? Have they not read, or taken seriously, Romans 13, the chapter in which Paul, the Apostle, says, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

The footnote in the New International Version reminds the reader that the "governing authorities" at the time these verses were written were probably pagans and Paul said to submit to them anyway. That's difficult to get around, especially for those who take the Bible seriously, if not literally.

Should Gov. Jeb Bush have defied the courts and ordered that Terri Schiavo be "rescued"? Perhaps he had such authority, perhaps not. But that does not give people, especially Christians, the right to rebel against judicial authority. Only when they are ordered to stop preaching the Gospel are they permitted to disobey. They can, and should, work within the system to change judges and the way laws are interpreted.

Christians, especially, put themselves in the position of using politics and civil authority to force those who do not accept their religious premises and beliefs to behave as if they do. To achieve their objectives, would they be more effective laboring inside hospices for days, weeks, even years in support of the infirm, or do they best advance their cause outside hospices, performing for eager cameras and quote-takers?

This does not demean the substance of their pro-life argument, which I share, but it does suggest they may be employing inferior weapons - such as politics and the media - instead of superior ones, such as grace and selflessness.

It does not help their argument that some clerical and political leaders had e-mails and Web pages that directed people to links that afford them the opportunity to make contributions, not necessarily to Terri Schiavo, but to the "ministry" of her self-appointed defenders.

The biggest lesson from the Schiavo case - and it is one that must be sent to as many people as possible - is this: The courts are a mess and need to be reformed. Judges should be appointed who believe not only in the Constitution, but also that our rights are endowed from outside the state. Fundamental rights are not granted or denied by judges who create and eliminate them at will.

Had Terri Schiavo been pregnant and wanted to abort, her husband would have no legal say in the matter, but he has ultimate power over her life and death. Isn't it legally inconsistent that courts may no longer sentence 17-year-old killers to death, but Terri Schiavo, who has injured no one, has been sentenced to death by the courts?

Here is a political-moral-ethical question worthy of continued debate. That debate must not die with Terri Schiavo. If it goes on, she will have taught many a valuable lesson and her life will have made an important contribution to the nation and to others in the future who will share her condition, but not necessarily her fate.

©2005 Tribune Media Services

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (8974)3/30/2005 4:45:21 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Are we being misled?

A CHALLENGE TO SCHIAVO'S NEUROLOGISTS

By Michelle Malkin (all relevant links below)
March 30, 2005 01:32 PM

Code Blue Blog, run by an inpatient radiologist in South Florida, has a $100,000 challenge for the loudmouth neurologists employed by Michael Schiavo:


<<<

I've watched a steady stream of neurologists, bioethicists, and neurologist/bioethicists from Columbia, Cornell, and NYU interviewed all week on Fox and CNN and MSNBC. They all said about the same thing, that Terri's CT scan was "the worst they'd ever seen"or "as bad as they've ever seen."

Here's the problem with these experts: THEY DON'T INTERPRET CT SCANS OF THE BRAIN. RADIOLOGISTS DO.


*Oh*

You see, a neurologist will look at the CT of the brain of one of his patients, but this is entirely different from interpreting CT's of the brain de novo, for a living, every day, without knowing the diagnosis and most times without a good history. In addition, whereas I heard Dr. [Ronald Cranford] say he's "seen" a thousand brain CT's... well I've interpreted over 10,000 brain CT's. There's a big difference.

When I look at a CT of the brain every case is a new mystery about a patient Idon't know. I must look at the images, come to a conclusion, dictate my findings and report a conclusion. This becomes a part of the official legal record for which I am liable. I bill Medicare for a CT interpretation and am paid for this service.

Neurologists do not do this. They don't go on the record, alone, in written legal documents stating their impressions about CT's of the brain. The neurologist doesn't get sued for making a mistake on an opinion of a CT of the brain THE RADIOLOGIST DOES.

A neurologist has no where near this type of practical experience.
And their cases are skewed according to where they practice and what their specialty is. Now, some of my best friends and some of the smartest docs I ever met are neurologists, but that doesn't change my observation that most neurologists I've met, in my experience, show an incomplete grasp of the nuances involved in image interpretation.

I have seen several neurologists -- in the printed media and on television -- put up a Representative CT of the brain of a normal 25 year old female and contrast this with Terri Schiavo's CT. This is a totally spurious comparison. No one is disputing that Terri Schiavo does not have the CT of a 25 year old female
.

What I'm saying is that Terri Schiavo's CT could be the brain of an eighty or ninety year old person who is not in a vegetative state. THOSE are the CT scans we should be showing next to Schiavo's, because in THAT case you would see similar atrophy and a brain much closer to Schiavo's.
>>>

The CodeBlue blogger is putting his money where his mouth is and "offering $100,000 on a $25,000 wager for ANY neurologist (and $125,000 for any neurologist/bioethicist) involved in Terri Schiavo's case--including all the neurologists reviewed on television and in the newspapers who can accurately single out PVS patients from functioning patients with better than 60% accuracy on CT scans."

He'll provide 100 single cuts from 100 different patient's brain CT's. All the neurologist has to do is say which ones represent patients with PVS and which do not. If the neurologist can be right 6 out of 10 times he wins the $100,000.

Any takers? Hmmmm?


michellemalkin.com

codeblueblog.blogs.com

codeblueblog.blogs.com



To: Sully- who wrote (8974)3/30/2005 8:07:37 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Terri's Tight Deadline

Best of the Web Today - March 30, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO

This morning brought very strange news in the Terri Schiavo case. From the Associated Press:

In a rare legal victory for Terri Schiavo's parents, a federal appeals court agreed to consider an emergency motion requesting a new hearing on whether to reconnect their severely brain-damaged daughter's feeding tube.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta issued a written order without comment late Tuesday allowing Bob and Mary Schindler to file the appeal, even though the court had set a March 26 deadline for doing so.

In a one-sentence order, the court said: "The Appellant's emergency motion for leave to file out of time is granted."

Even as the court waived the legal deadline, a biological deadline approached. Terri Schiavo is now in her 12th day without food or water, and doctors have said she will likely be dead within two weeks of her feeding tube's removal.

Whatever the legal merits of the Schiavo parents' arugment, the court's latest ruling certainly seems to vindicate the views of Judge Charles Wilson, who, dissenting a week ago in Schiavo v. Schiavo, wrote that "we should find that the gravity of the irreparable injury Theresa Schiavo would suffer could not weigh more heavily in Plaintiffs' favor. In contrast, there is little or no harm to be found in granting this motion for a temporary injunction and deciding the full merits of the dispute."

The best argument the "right to die" people have had in this case is that the legal process has worked, even if it's produced an outcome with which not everyone is happy. As the 2003 guardian ad litem report put it,
"The courts have carefully and diligently adhered to the prescribed civil processes and evidentiary guidelines, and have painfully and diligently applied the required tests in a reasonable, conscientious and professional manner."

Yet there is now a strong chance that Terri Schiavo will die, pursuant to court order, while legal questions about her fate are unresolved. It's hard to see how this can do anything other than weaken Americans' confidence in the judiciary.



To: Sully- who wrote (8974)3/31/2005 1:40:20 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Robed Pot Calls Kettle Black?

Captain's Quarters

In denying the Schindlers a final en banc appeal, the opinion for the denial includes a shot at Congress and the President by Justice Stanley Birch:

<<<

Birch went on to scold President Bush and Congress for their attempts to intervene in the judicial process, by saying: "In resolving the Schiavo controversy, it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people our Constitution [sic]."
>>>

Talk about judicial arrogance! Not only did the Eleventh Circuit openly disregard the law written by Congress, this justice arrogantly tells the other equal branches that the only branch guaranteeing a free people is the one not accountable to the will of the electorate. Bear in mind that none of the courts that reviewed this case after the passage of the emergency legislation found it unconstitutional; that at least would have put the court on record. Instead, the judiciary simply and contemptuously disregarded a law which to this moment remains legal and valid.

If Birch thinks that this law constitutes such a serious threat to the Republic, then the court should have ruled it unconstitutional
.

However, that would have meant a hearing on its merits, which the 11th Circuit cravenly refused to provide. Birch instead reacted in keeping with the hyperinflated notion of the judiciary in modern times as a superlegislature with veto power over actions taken by the other two branches without any due process whatsoever.

Birch's comment demonstrates that this out-of-control judiciary constitutes the main threat to the Founding Fathers' blueprint. They have set themselves up as a star chamber, an unelected group of secular mullahs determining which laws they choose to observe and which they choose to ignore. The arrogance of this written opinion will resonate through all nominations to the federal court over the next several years. It will motivate us to ensure that judges nominated will start respecting the power of the people's representatives to write and enact laws, and the duty of the judiciary to follow them or to specify their unconstitutional nature in the explicit text of the Constitution itself.

In the meantime, perhaps the Senate may want to read this opinion closely and discuss impeaching Justice Birch for his inability to apply the laws of Congress as required. This statement should provide all the proof necessary.


Posted by Captain Ed

captainsquartersblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (8974)3/31/2005 9:06:24 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Kennedy Follows In Krugman's Freaked-Out Footsteps

Captain's Quarters

Earlier this week, Paul Krugman asserted that the greater political participation by conservative Christians would lead to politically-based assassination attempts, and blamed talk radio and cable news for the phenomenon. Never one to leave a hysterical rant aside, Dan Kennedy today picked up Krugman's paranoia and predicted that conservatives would one day murder Michael Schiavo, and the blame would fall on Sean Hannity and Joe Scarborough -- all because they had the audacity to air a dissenting opinion about Terri Schiavo's diagnosis:

<<<

IF THERE WAS an emblematic moment in the religious right’s crusade against Michael Schiavo, it might be said to have taken place on March 21. It was a Monday, three days after Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube had been removed. And William Hammesfahr, a neurologist who claims to have examined the all-but-brain-dead woman for some 10 hours several years ago, was a guest on Sean Hannity’s radio show.

What Hammesfahr had to say was — quite literally — incredible. He told Hannity that Terri Schiavo was "completely conscious." That she "tries to communicate." That she was "a very, very, very aware, alive, vibrant individual trapped in a body that’s preventing her from communicating properly." Hammesfahr wouldn’t answer Hannity’s question as to whether he believed Michael Schiavo was "trying to murder" his wife, explaining that he didn’t want to get sued. But he did have this to say when asked whether Terri could recover from the state in which she had lain for some 15 years: "I would expect with treatment — proper medical treatment — I would expect her to be able to talk again at some point, and to return to her family and start to live her life again, be able to go out, see movies, enjoy life."

It was an extraordinary declaration. Just in case you missed it, Hammesfahr repeated it that night on Fox News’s Hannity & Colmes, and took his traveling media show to MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, as well as to other outlets. Thus did the media help to advance the monstrous notion that Terri Schiavo is a fully sentient woman suffering only from a serious disability, a lack of treatment, and a husband and judicial system who’d rather see her dead than rehabilitated.

Because of Hammesfahr, Hannity, and others like them, Michael Schiavo has reportedly received numerous death threats. Florida state judge George Greer, who has presided over this fiasco for many years now, is under armed guard. Last Friday a North Carolina man named Richard Alan Meywes was arrested and charged with sending out an e-mail promising a $250,000 reward for the murder of Michael Schiavo, and another $50,000 for bumping off Judge Greer. According to reports, FBI affidavits revealed that the e-mail, supposedly written on behalf of an unidentified multimillionaire, said in part: "It is my understanding that whoever eliminates Michael Schiavo from the planet while inflicting as much pain and suffering that he can bear stands to be paid this reward in cash."

Now, William Hammesfahr may or may not be sincere, but he is almost certainly wrong in his assessment of Terri Schiavo. Yet by spouting his views before every television camera and microphone that popped up, he helped contribute to an atmosphere of hysteria that placed the lives of Michael Schiavo and George Greer in danger.
>>>

Kennedy makes as much sense here as someone attempting to blame Democrats for Squeaky Fromme's assassination attempt on Gerald Ford, because the Manson Family somehow was emblematic of the Left. Nutcases are nutcases, and Kennedy completely succumbs to the bigotry against those who believe in religion. In fact, he goes farther than Krugman, associating those who believe in preserving life with nutcases who feel they can kill whomever they please to make a political point.

Kennedy also makes a chilling argument against freedom of speech. Did Hammesfahr get up and say, "We should stop Michael Schiavo by any means necessary"? No, and in fact he said nothing except that in his opinion, Terri could improve with therapy -- an argument the Schindlers had made for years. Other doctors have made the same argument, and others have disputed it. Does Kennedy now think that the purpose of the media is to give full reporting to an informed electorate -- or that it should only exist as a mouthpiece for the official government position? Because that is precisely what Kennedy argues here, and it's a mind-boggling screed coming from a journalist.

If some psycho attacks Michael Schiavo, then that person should be held responsible for his actions. Period and end of story
.

If Kennedy doesn't like debate or thinks it's too dangerous for the American public to hear, then he should find another line of work, or else explicitly state that he intends on only reporting one side of every issue from now on. We've heard plenty of screeching from the Left these last two weeks about the impending threat to the Republic from the Christians, but the mindless associations between debate and hypothetical violence made by irresponsible and irrational pundits like Krugman and Kennedy promise to do much more damage to our freedom than any prayer or faith-based morality can ever do.

The Boston Phoenix and the New York Times needs to tell us if they support free speech, or if they join in the conclusions of their featured writers that Americans will turn into raving lunatics at the mere hint of dissent from the media orthodoxy.


Posted by Captain Ed

captainsquartersblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (8974)3/31/2005 9:58:05 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Theresa Marie Schiavo (1963-2005)

Wizbang
By Kevin Aylward on News

Terri Schiavo died this morning around 10:00am, on her 14th day without food or water.

"Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord; and let perpetual light shine upon her. May she rest in peace. Amen."

- Eternal Rest Prayer

wizbangblog.com

wizbangblog.com

wizbangblog.com

wizbangblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (8974)4/1/2005 7:53:33 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Terri's death

The Washington Times:
Opinion/Editorial

Who would have thought that the life of one unassuming Florida woman could move the hearts of millions? Certainly not Terri Schiavo herself, who died yesterday, 13 days after the removal of her feeding tube. Those who chose to gather outside her Florida hospice perhaps prayed for a miracle to happen -- that perhaps Terri would survive long enough for something to be done. In the end, however, Terri was human and succumbed to her forced starvation and dehydration as any human would. Is there a miracle in her passing? Maybe not. But surely in these last two weeks the nation bore witness to the miraculous power of a single life.

Supporters of Michael Schiavo's campaign to remove his wife's feeding tube often cited poll numbers that seemed to suggest a majority of Americans agreed with their view. The more cynical seemed to enjoy the idea that this was a poor political decision by the Republicans. Notwithstanding the media and political circus, fundamental societal issues have been raised that now the country cannot ignore. Politics may have motivated certain participants on both sides, yet it is our judgment that however Americans viewed this extraordinary case, on the whole their reasons were genuine and entirely apolitical. To dismiss this as just a political game is to miss a chance to discuss these issues as they continue to play out in our daily lives. We suspect states will be revisiting laws that govern both guardianship and government authority over life in the years to come. Mrs. Schiavo's death does not signal the end of the discussion -- it begins the discussion.

We sympathized with those who found constitutional reasons to fault congressional intervention in a state case. It should be remembered, however, that Mrs. Schaivo's condition, as well as the laws governing that condition, had moved beyond certainty. It wasn't that those who wanted to keep Mrs. Schiavo alive simply disagreed with the Florida court's ruling; it is that the many ambiguities and distortions of fact, which the laws couldn't cleanly account for, demanded a second look from a higher authority. The default position of government should be to always err on the side of life, or what President Bush described as "a presumption in favor of life."

Unfortunately for Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and Mr. Schiavo, the case is not quite over. Both parties will wait expectantly for the results of Terri's autopsy. Since the procedure should be able to help determine the severity of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, as well as answer other lingering questions surrounding her collapse in 1990, the autopsy should go forward. We hope the people who cared for her in life, which includes both family and strangers, will find some closure in the coroner's report. It will then be for the country to address the questions raised from Terri Schiavo's life and death.


washtimes.com



To: Sully- who wrote (8974)4/3/2005 2:50:12 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Captain Ed makes a good point.......

One Final Piece Of Cruelty

Captain's Quarters

USA Today reports that the autopsy on Terri Schiavo has been completed, and her remains have been released to her husband, as ordered by the Florida courts long ago. This gives Michael Schiavo an opportunity to exact one more bit of cruel revenge against Terri's parents:

<<<

The autopsy of Terri Schiavo has been completed, and the body is ready for release to her husband, who plans to cremate her remains and bury the ashes without telling his in-laws when or where. ...

The Schindlers have scheduled a funeral Mass for Tuesday in Gulfport. The Mass will be preceded by a gathering for people to express their condolences.

Michael Schiavo's family has said he plans to take the cremated remains to Pennsylvania, where Terri Schiavo grew up, but her parents and siblings want to bury her body in Florida so they can visit her grave.
>>>

I can understand the family disagreement over where and how the dead are interred; those happen all the time. But for those who continually argued that Michael had Terri's wishes in mind all along, please explain to me how Terri would wish that her parents would never be able to visit her grave, would never know where to place flowers in remembrance, would never have a place to gather and mourn her passing. I can't imagine anyone wishing that for their funeral arrangements. Such actions reveal an undeniable selfishness and cruelty that belies his supposed devotion to Terri's wishes.

The results of the autopsy will not be released for several weeks, and may or may not answer the nagging questions surrounding the Schiavo case. One way or the other, I'll report the findings when they're released.

Posted by Captain Ed

captainsquartersblog.com