Horologium - Archives

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Thoughts about Terry Schiavo

One of the reasons I have not been posting recently is the almost morbid fixation of the country on Terry Schiavo; her case seems to be omnipresent. I have a few, rather conflicted thoughts about the whole situation.

Firstly, I understand her husband's position, although I cannot understand why it took him so long to decide to stop the measures which have prolonged Terri's life (even before the legal battles started). I understand his desire for companionship with another woman, although I am repulsed by what is essentially an open affair with another woman, complete with children. He is still married to Terri, regardless of her condition, and what he has done is violate the vows he took when he married her; in a strictly legal sense, he is in breach of a contract by having relations with another woman while he is still married to Terri.

I can also understand the position of the parents. They love their daughter, and believe that if there is any chance of her ever recovering, they want to make sure she is alive. They also feel that her husband is betraying her, by trying to end her life in order to move on with the woman with whom he now shares a life.

I am not pleased with the role of the federal government in the case; while I agree that the constitution grants the feds the right to ensure the life and liberty of each of its citizens, this is not a case in which congress should ever have involved itself. The local and state courts are the proper venue for this case, and the Supreme Court wisely declilned to intervene. However, several congressmen (some who are acting on principle, but some who are simply looking for publicity) have decided to inject themselves into the case. I am fairly consistently an advocate of states' rights, so my regular readers know that while I may or may not agree with the ends, I most assuredly do not agree with the means. If congress wishes to enact a law preventing future occurances, let them do so (and the Supreme Court can rule on its constitutionality), but the method they have chosen here offends me.

From a personal perspective, my feelings are much clearer. My mother has made it clear to the family that she does not want any "heroic" measures taken to keep her alive; she does not have a DNR on file, but she does not wish to be hooked up to machines to stay alive. I am of a similar mind. In a case like this one, where there is a question about Mrs. Schiavo's mental state, my question is this:

Is there a chance her condition will improve?

If not, she is going to be either a lifeless husk, with no awareness of her surroundings, or (even worse) a consciousness, trapped with no way to communicate with others. I, for one, would hate to be aware of my environment, but lack any way to alter it or to communicate with others; I'd rather be dead than live such a hellish quasi-existence. If Terri is conscious, she has been trapped for 15 years now, in something far worse than solitary confinement. I understand that loved ones often have trouble letting go, but I really wonder if they have thought about what their actions mean to Terri. For those who believe in an afterlife, Terri's soul has either already departed (in which case there is no reason to keep the body alive), or is stuck inside her body, unable to go to its final destination until the body dies. How does she benefit from remaining here?

posted at 06:42 PM |

permalink | Comments (4)

Michael Sciavo: bigamist, domestic abuser, Two unsuccessful, now threee murder attempts; a murderers dream: get others to do what you could not succeed at.

"judge" greer, "judge" whitemore, et al: comtempt of Congress for refusing to hold DE NOVO hearings.

Law enforcement, The Florida Department of Children and Family Sevices: Malfeasance for failure to use and assert their authority. 1) "the Florida Department of Children and Family Services have the authority to enter the premises where Schiavo is currently being held and remove her if they believe that medical care is necessary to avert a likely risk of death or serious injury." and 2) failing to conduct a criminal investigation under A.) the Americans with Disabilities Act,

B.) the governor of Florida, Impeachment for: Jeb Bush is the only legal authority who can stop Terri from starving. [and the more imminent: death by dehydration]

"He must act and he must act immediately on her behalf. He must disregard the order of Judge Greer. He has both the authority and the duty to do so under the state constitution," Kennedy said in a press release.

Kennedy noted that Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution says, "All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law, and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life..."

It also says "no person shall be deprived of any right because of ... physical disability." That includes the right to enjoy life, Kennedy said.

As governor, Jeb Bush has the "'supreme executive power' and the constitutional duty as stated in Article IV, Section 1, to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'"the Florida Constitution-

And now the Muslims will start screaming for overturning bigamy and polygamy laws, based on this precedent followed by polyanimists,

Michael Sciavo has managed to re-establish, in his favor, the mideaval law that when a man marries a woman, she becomes his private property and can do with her what he alone deems proper up to and including killing her.

This case has Roe vs, Wade all over it. Why? because Roe vs. Wade is the Dread Scott decision of our time. As in Dread Scott, the human Life (slaves, and now the unborn) has (have) no claim to constitutionally protected rights, because slaves, and the unborn, are private property and the possessor alone decides what he deems proper, up to and including, the killing of the Private
Property Life.

Theresa Schindler: A Raisin in The Sun

posted by myron on March 25, 2005 01:44 PM

Oh, and lets not forget ABCNews: Fraud; for this push-poll: "As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible."

1) Terri is not on life support. And Doctors have said otherwise: The problem is that, contrary to what ABC News told those polled, Terri Schiavo is not on "life support" and has never has been on "life support." The loaded phrase evokes images of a comatose patient being artificially sustained by myriad machines and pumps and wires. Terri was on a feeding tube. A feeding tube is not a ventilator. Terri can breathe just fine on her own.

And as many of her medical caretakers and parents have argued, if given proper rehabilitation, Terri could learn to chew and swallow on her own as well. She is disabled, not dead.

A follow-up question asked:

"If you were in this condition, would you want to be kept alive, or not?".
Presto! "Broad public Approval"!
A push-poll for euthanasia? Judicial internvention to accomplish this, with "Broad PublicApproval"?
Is it any wonder why informed people see the Lame Stream Media and its collusion with Leftist party agendi as organized Crime with massive PR?

posted by myron on March 25, 2005 02:03 PM

I have decided that I have no way of personally knowing what Terri's situation is. As a result, I've decided not to form an opinion about this case. I wish more would do the same.

But, I do have a larger picture concern. Too often, these sorts of emotional cases get turned into opportunities for extremists on both sides to take away more of our rights. In this case, there is the sancrosanct right of a wife or husband to carry out the wishes of their spouse. The institution of marriage has already been beaten down to the point that government has institutionalized a bias against it. If any sort of bogus legislation is passed during or in the wake of this event, it will only make things worse.

My advice is to stay the hell out of it and let this man carry out his wife's wishes.

posted by Iguana on March 26, 2005 04:17 PM