Bush signs Schiavo legislation (moral, reject, America, mission, euthanasia)

[linwood]

They have no conscience...

A memo from GOP leaders meant to be seen only by Republican senators pointed out the political ramifications of the Schiavo debate and how it could help them with Christian conservatives in the 2006 midterm elections. According to The Washington Post, the memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Tallahassee, who is up for re-election next year.
``This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue,'' said the memo, which was reported by ABC News and later given to the Post. ``This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.''

http://news.tbo.com/news/MGB6YQPTI6E.html

[PixiFaerie]

The problem in this is two-tiered.

1. Terry's Husband is the legal decisionmaker, her parents aren't. Legally, in cases like this he has the power to do whatever he feels is appropriate as logn as it follows the letter of the law.

2. Terry is in what neurologists call a PVS. She will never recover. Ever. She is dead in all but name. If you were to look at her brainscans, which they do have on the net, you will see that the entire CAT of her brain is dark, void of any type of activity. The part of her brain that controls her personality and autonomy and "her" is gone and replaced with a slushy spinal cord fluid. Much of her brain has undergone some form of necrosis.

The only portions of the brain which are functioning are some of the stem and portions which control autonomical functions. Eating, breathing, digestion etc. There's nothing alive about Terry except for basic reflexes and organ functions.

THere has never been anyone who has come out of PVS. Ever. She's braindead, and science judges life by brain activity.

This is why Terry must be let go. There are statements made by Neurologists as late as 1998 saying that Terry was braindead, just as she is now. Time has only exacerbated her condition.

In This case, Euthanasia would be moral, but passive euthanasia takes too long and is waste of time. They should just use AE istead, but it's not legal for some silly reason.

[michel]

You guys must have seen this;

Bush backs family in 'right-to-die' case

2005-03-21 08:45:34


An emergency law has been rushed through US Congress to prolong the life of a brain damaged woman.

Terri Schiavo had her feeding tube removed on Friday after her husband said she did not want to be kept alive artificially.

President George W Bush has backed members of Terri's family, saying her rights have been violated and she should be kept alive.

The President cut short a Texas vacation and flew back to Washington to sign the bill.

Schiavo, 41, has been in a vegetative state since an operation went wrong 15 years ago - and her husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, believes she should be allowed to die, but her parents disagree.

Her husband's lawyer called the last-minute attempt by US congressional Republicans to keep the tube in place "nothing short of thuggery" and called Democrats "spineless" for failing to thwart it.

Her husband won permission to remove the feeding tube after telling a court she would not have wanted to live in that condition.

[Green Gaia]

Posts split from US judge rules Schiavo should die and this thread placed in Political Issues... as this is now officially a political issue that could effect us all and our personal rights.. which seem to be shrinking by the day... .

[Green Gaia]

This what everyone should be paying attention to this morning, no matter what your feelings about this one woman....

Violation of limited government?
The bill was, said Frank, “the manifestation of a constitutional crisis.”

Congress was doing what only courts should do, Frank said. DeLay and other Republicans had rejected “a fundamental precept of American government, that is, a limited government.”

He pointed to a provision of the bill which said nothing in it would be a precedent for future legislation or private relief bills.

“Well, if it’s the right thing to do, why not?” asked Frank, arguing if the GOP majority was going to intervene in the Schiavo case, it was inconsistent not to do so in comparable cases.

“Of course, no one believes we’re only going to do this once,” he said.

We're losing our rights to make personal decisions now... the government wants to make those for us, even if it's against our wishes. This is scary stuff, people....

[Ceridwen018]

I wouldn't worry too much about that, Maize. The government can push and push until it ticks someone off, who will sue them, at which time the Supreme Court will whip them in. Things like this have happened in the past...its why we have the checks and balances system.

[Green Gaia]

The courts had already ruled on this... they decided that it was Terri's wish not to "live" like this and that she had no hope for recovery. The government ignored the court's ruling and did this anyway.... I don't think they really care what the courts have to say as long as they get politcial gain to push their agendas. It's a very sorry situation all-around....

[Sunstone]

I was listening to a talk radio program this morning on this subject, and it struck me how the radio host was demonizing the husband. The host commented on the husband's motives and announced that "they just didn't add up". He then proceeded to speculate that the husband had beaten his wife into a coma, and for that reason doesn't want her to recover. It was sickenning.

By the way, the same host attributed Bush's motives in signing the legistlation to the highest possible motives, declaring that Bush had nothing to politically gain by signing the legistlation, and was doing so only from the most noble motives.

Is there any relief from the bunk?

[painted wolf]

Since when does Congress have the right to step into the Judicial system and tell them how to do thier job?
Courts have heard this case, the Judical system has done its job.
When did the US Congress get the right to step in and make life and death desisions for individual citizens?
Regardless of my feeling tword this case, the Congress has broken its constitutional boundries and interfeared with the workings of an indipendant branch of government.
This Congressional act is Unconstitutional and must be punnished IMHO.

The government doesn't get the right to pick and choose what rulings to uphold. It can't be allowed to ignore the desisions of the courts. That is how the Trail of Tears and many other gross injustices have happined in the past.

wa:do