Thumpy: "Boniface IX, Leo X, Sixtus IV, Pope Julius III among others had Jewish physicians, including the note anatomist Amatus Lusitanus."

You are correct - this is a commonly known fact. Later Popes rejected having Jewish doctors.

However, I was referring to the following: "Your lawyer, your accountant and your doctor should all be Jewish -- that's why God made them."

I am sure you felt your comment was a joke. But it is an odd joke in the context of kathyk's anecdote.

I'll finish Theology for Beginners, or some other book you feel more important.

So even free advertising makes me an anti-Semite? Gevalt!

JB: "haste"

14 years???

"expedient"

No one (no one here at any rate) has used this argument. It is a straw-man to keep bringing it up. The moral facts cited include personal rights, values and privacy held independent of government busybodies, personal dignity, the marital bond, the common consensus of both experts and ordinary people who have thought about end-of-life and quality-of-life issues, the separation of church and state, the independence of the judiciary, and other moral factors.

The time actually spent on the facts of this case: almst zero despite the years of lawyering it has received.

I take it then that your position is that she has lived 15 years without any change in her condition or case disposition so she must die because that is what her spouse (in respect for the privacy of the spousal relationship) dictates. Not much thought is required to drive a truck through that one.

Yes, I can do rhetoric as well as you but where is the truth.

JB - She is already dead as a person. The only question is what indignities her remaining body will be forced to go through, to satisfy a minority conception of morality (primarily religious in origin). It is her privacy and dignity I was talking about, not primarily the marriage relationship. I also worry about my privacy and rights, whenever Congress or the Christian right doesn't like how I live my life. And I am offended by Congress's cavalier attitude towards the judiciary. Cindy, Quirt, and kathyk refuted your claim that almost no time was actually spent on the facts of the case. Her shell of a body has no feelings, hopes, awareness or memory. She is no longer a person. Multiple expert judicial reviews have confirmed this.

JB - She is already dead as a person. [/b]

Please define "dead" as I think you are operating from a different definition than the one with which I am familiar.

(As a sidebar: If she is dead already why do we need to do anything)

http://www.dererumnatura.us/archives/2005/03/schiavo_brain_s.html

This is a link to a "supposed" scan of her brain. If real, you can see that the candle is out and not coming back. It has atrophied and been replaced with csf.

JB: "define "dead""

Answer: "Her shell of a body has no feelings, hopes, awareness or memory. She is no longer a person."

This was also expanded on in the recent abortion threads. The person once known as "Terri" no longer exists - none of her dreams, hopes, desires, feelings or memories will ever again be real, whether or not she has a tube feeding her zombie-like body. You cannot kill Terri; she no longer exists. Her parents cannot face this, but it is true.

All we can do at this point is show her body some respect and dignity, for the same reason we bury our dead with a ceremony. It is a moral crime to desecrate the dead, similarly is it a moral crime to force Terri's body through this gastly spectacle, against her wishes when she was alive (as three people testified, and as the vast majority of people who have thought about the issue also decide). Let's honor Terri's memory, respect her dignity, and stop this sick farce. The Christian right groups making this a federal case (literally) should stop trying to control Terri's body, to make their theological (and anti-abortion) point.

Goodnight for now. I have to get up early next morning.

Ooooh, you fell right into it:

No, actually the issue here is whether a sectarian anti-religious minority will impose its totalitarian vision of society on everyone else while depriving us of our religious expression, dignity and our rights.

The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism by david i. Kertzer Excellemt, just the kind of book I like to read, just ordered it. Thanks Jeffrey for the tip. Please any others who want to drop in names of books by title and author, please do so.

And Jeffrey, socially everything is probably ok, I mean I usually like hanging out with diehard socialists, they have such interesting conversations.

This doctor has a different view:

http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html

"How bad does it have to get before you get the idea that the common people in the streets who look to you for justice that makes common sense to them get so fed up with you that they run all the magistrates out of town, run the benches, bring down judges and tear their robes off, tear down your sham of law and order? You want us all to go nice and quiet into your new Soviet of Amerika. Well we wont!"

"People out in the streets realize that what's done to Terri could be done to them or their loved ones and THEY DON'T LIKE IT!"

Unfortunately, despite your raving, a majority of Americans ... a majority of all Americans, a majority of church-going Americans, a majority of Republicans ... all believe that Terri's feeding tube should not be reinserted. So I don't really see the majority running down the judges and tearing their robes off over this issue. In the case of Terri Schiavo, the law and public opinion are intersecting, no matter how loudly you'd like to scream otherwise.

Jeffrey said this:

"What was "over the top" was for Congress to call special sessions to deal with this one case while attempting to violate the process of law, and while all the other problems of the world get ignored."

I do agree that Congress seemed to be able to react with amazing speed in the Schiavo matter, when it is almost always unable to do so in any other situation. However ... I think it's a very close call whether the Congressional Schiavo law was appropriate. The death penalty analogy really resonates with me. State court decisions concerning application of the death penalty are reviewable in federal court. I am sympathetic to the idea that a "death" decision for someone not convicted of a capital crime should be entitled to the same sort of review. However, if that's right, it shouldn't be limited to Terri Schiavo. It should be for every person in a similar situation, as long as someone with standing disagrees with the decision.

JBryan said:

"It seems that we have, as a polity, come to the point where we believe that the courts are the supreme arbiter of law in this country and have forgotten that the legislature is, Constitutionally, a coequal branch of government and actually makes the laws. "

I disagree with this. If the Florida legislature wanted to outlaw living wills entirely, the courts would uphold that law. If the Florida legislature wanted to say that all living wills must be in writing, without exception, the courts would uphold that law. What the courts would not uphold was a law that was designed to apply to one person and one person alone, Terri Schiavo.

The Florida legislature does not want to rewrite the law concerning living wills. They just want to reverse the Schiavo case. And that they are not empowered to do, constitutionally. If they try to reverse an individual court decision without making a law of broader application, they aren't treating the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government.

By the way, I seem to recall armed conflict in the 1960s over court orders integrating schools. I seem to recall a certain Southern governor personally attempting to bar African-Americans from schools. I seem to recall riots in the streets. The judiciary survived. David's hysterical predictions simply don't have much credibility.

As to this new expert, my dubiousness about his 11th hour trotting out and thesis that one can find an expert to support darn near anything is supported by this article appearing this AM in the NY Times. They went out and found the most right-wing, pro-life neurologist they could. His
"opinion" is not about the reality of situation; it's about ideology. Note his own words about not having noted any signs of being able to verbalize or communicate.

A Diagnosis With a Dose of Religion
By JOHN SCHWARTZ and DENISE GRADY

illiam P. Cheshire Jr., the Florida doctor cited by Gov. Jeb Bush yesterday in his announcement that he would intervene again in the case of Terri Schiavo, is a neurologist and bioethicist whose life and work have been guided by his religious beliefs.

Dr. Cheshire directs a laboratory at the Mayo Clinic branch in Jacksonville dealing with unconscious reflexes like digestion, and he is director of biotech ethics at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, a nonprofit group founded by "more than a dozen leading Christian bioethicists," in the words of its Web site.

In an article last year in Physician magazine, published by the evangelical group Focus on the Family, Dr. Cheshire, 44, said doctors are too quick to declare that a patient is in a persistent vegetative state.

"I'm not sure the diagnosis is used consistently," he told Physician. "I am sometimes asked if a patient is in P.V.S., but it's only been a few days. By definition, you have to wait at least a month."

Yesterday, in an affidavit supporting a petition by the Florida Department of Children and Families in the case, Dr. Cheshire said it was more likely that Ms. Schiavo was in a "minimally conscious state."

"Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90-minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness or volitional behavior," he wrote, "yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of some things around her."

Mr. Bush called Dr. Cheshire a "renowned neurologist," but he is not widely known in the neurology or bioethics fields. Asked about him, Dr. Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, replied, "Who?"

Dr. Cheshire, who graduated from Princeton and earned a medical degree at West Virginia University, did not return calls to the Mayo Clinic seeking comment. The clinic said in a statement that his work on the Schiavo case was not related to his work at the clinic and that the state had invited his opinion. "He observed the patient at her bedside and conducted an extensive review of her medical history but did not conduct an examination," the statement said.

Dr. Caplan said that was not good enough. "There is just no excuse for going in and making any pronouncement about the state that Terri Schiavo is in unless you're going to go in and do some form of technologically mediated scanning that would overturn what's on the record already," he said.

Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and medical ethicist at the University of Minnesota Medical School who has examined Ms. Schiavo on behalf of the Florida courts and declared her to be irredeemably brain-damaged, said, "I have no idea who this Cheshire is," and added: "He has to be bogus, a pro-life fanatic. You'll not find any credible neurologist or neurosurgeon to get involved at this point and say she's not vegetative."

He said there was no doubt that Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state. "Her CAT scan shows massive shrinkage of the brain," he said. "Her EEG is flat - flat. There's no electrical activity coming from her brain."

Dr. Cheshire entered the field of bioethics relatively late in his career. A profile of him on the Web site of Trinity International University, where he enrolled in the master's program in bioethics in 2000, states that he was "searching for how he should integrate his faith with his medical career." After getting the degree, he became an adjunct professor of bioethics there.

A search of his publication record in the online medical library PubMed yielded articles in medical journals, with a focus on headache pain, in particular trigeminal neuralgia, a painful disorder originating in a cranial nerve called the trigeminal. None of the papers dealt with persistent vegetative states.

His papers show a fondness for puns, as in the title of a letter to The New England Journal of Medicine about a patient whose fillings caused an electrical current that made her condition worse: "The shocking tooth about trigeminal neuralgia."

He was also the author, with others from the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, of a paper opposing stem cell research.

The center's Web site notes that he and his wife and four children are members of the Episcopal Church of the Redeemer in Jacksonville and that he has done medical missionary work in Honduras and Siberia.

He has also written poetry, including "Exit Ramp," a poem about the movement to allow physician-assisted suicide that uses the metaphor of a highway off-ramp to warn of a different kind of slippery slope:


Such killing fast degenerates,
Despite concern for patients' best,
Into a plot that terminates
Without explicit prerequest.

So much stated as a certainty. How do you know all of this?

JB, care to comment on the article about the new expert you put so much stock in? Particularly this quotation of his:

"Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90-minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness or volitional behavior," he wrote, "yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of some things around her."

So the guy has a feeling, and this should be enough to undo 10 years of litigation and appeals?

I saw Dr. Wolfson, the guardian ad litem, interviewed again on CNN this morning. I learned a very interesting new fact.

When Terri first experienced her accident, she was without oxygen for several minutes ... I believe he said 11 minutes. When she made it to the hospital, she could have been considered braindead, and allowed to expire. Michael Schiavo wouldn't consider it. He insisted that Terri be trached and that extraordinary measures be taken to preserve her life.

So much for the conspiracy theorists who have hinted that he might have deliberately caused her accident. He could have let her die right then, and no court and no parents could have stopped him. He didn't.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta followed, talking about the difficult gray areas between a persistent vegetative state and a minimally conscious state. I hadn't realized it, but he's a neurologist. He said that it would be irresponsible for any neurologist to reach a diagnosis on whether a patient is in a persistent vegetative state or a minimally conscious state on the basis of videotapes.

If it's irresponsible for a neurologist to reach a conclusion based on videotapes, then it's absurd for people outside of the medical profession to attempt to do so.

That I put so much stock in? Not only do you presume to speak for Terri Schiavo but you presume to speak for me as well.

State Told Not to Enforce Law Protecting Terri Schiavo
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 24, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -- The Florida judge presiding over the Terri Schiavo case ordered the state agency charged with protecting vulnerable adults to make no attempt to take the brain-injured woman into protective custody late Wednesday. The order appears to be in direct contradiction to a state statute that requires the agency to act.

Mayo Clinic neurologist Dr. William Cheshire -- who is also a member of the Florida's Adult Protective Services team -- said late Wednesday that Terri Schiavo "may have been misdiagnosed" by one court appointed doctor and two other physicians chosen by Michael Schiavo.

Those three doctors declared Terri to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), but Cheshire said, based on his examination of Terri and review of her records, she is more likely in a minimally conscious state (MCS). The term is a new diagnostic description that has come into acceptance since Terri was last examined.

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said the new information "raises serious concerns and warrants immediate action.

"Terri is now going on her sixth day without food or water," Gov. Bush told reporters Wednesday afternoon. "It is imperative that she be stabilized so that the adult protective services team can fulfill their statutory duty and thoroughly review all the facts surrounding her case."

One member of the media asked if the state Department of Children and Families (DCF) planned to take Terri Schiavo into protective custody, remove her from the hospice where she is being dehydrated and starved to death or try to reinsert her feeding and hydration tube.

"We are looking at every potential opportunity to be of assistance," replied DCF Secretary Lucy Hadi.

That response apparently prompted the attorney for Terri's estranged husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, to contact Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge George Greer, requesting a court order barring the state from acting. Noted "right-to-die" attorney, author and activist George Felos argued during a court hearing later Wednesday that DCF had "no more power than ... a person walking down the street," to place Terri in protective custody.

"Any action would be a violation of Mrs. Schiavo's constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. It would be a violation of her civil rights. It would be an assault, a battery, a trespass on her," Felos argued, following his assessment with a threat aimed at DCF officials, "and, should that occur and should that be attempted, we will hold those to the fullest extent of the law."

But Florida statute 2004-Ch0415-Section%201051#0415.1051"415.1051 seems to contradict Felos' claim.

The statute states, "If it appears that the vulnerable adult ... is likely to incur a risk of death or serious physical injury if such person is not immediately removed from the premises, then the representative of the department shall transport or arrange for the transportation of the vulnerable adult to an appropriate medical or protective services facility in order to provide emergency protective services."

Jennifer Lima-Smith, an attorney for the DCF, reminded Greer that the agency does not need his permission in advance to act.

"The law allows the department to exercise both emergency protective services -- intervention and emergency removal -- either one or both," Lima-Smith told Greer.

The statute also appears to specifically exempt DCF from an otherwise enforceable mandate to seek Michael Schiavo's permission to remove Terri.

"If the vulnerable adult's caregiver or guardian is present, the protective investigator must seek the caregiver's or guardian's consent ... before the vulnerable adult may be removed from the premises," the law states, "unless the protective investigator suspects that the vulnerable adult's caregiver or guardian has caused the abuse, neglect, or exploitation."

The only authorization or requirement for the involvement of the courts in an emergency intervention or removal comes after DCF has taken its action. "The department shall, within 24 hours after providing or arranging for emergency removal of the vulnerable adult, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, petition the court for an order authorizing emergency protective services."

Nonetheless, Greer rebuked the agency, ordering it not to attempt to enforce the state law.

"Since it appears imminent that the department is likely to do something in contravention of that rule of law, this court is going to grant the oral motion," Greer said. "DCF is hereby restrained from taking possession of Theresa Marie Schiavo or removing her from Hospice Woodside, administer (sic) nutrition or hydration artificially or otherwise interfere (sic) with this court's final judgment."

That final portion of Greer's oral order seems to contradict yet another portion of the statute, entitled "Emergency medical treatment.

"If, upon admission to a medical facility, it is the opinion of the medical staff that immediate medical treatment is necessary to prevent serious physical injury or death, and that such treatment does not violate a known health care advance directive prepared by the vulnerable adult," the statute states, "the medical facility may proceed with treatment to the vulnerable adult."

Terri Schiavo has no such advance directive.

---------------------------

So much for the perfect world of law. So much for Quirt's neurologist. So much for the claims the lawyers have made that their views are based solely on the rule of law.

Another thing I just heard on the news - the claim that Terri had a heart attack is false. Her heart stopped, but not because of a heart attack. According to the news story I just heard, no one, no doctor, no one, has looked into just why her heart stopped. The courts have it down as a heart attack, so BY GOBS it's a heart attack....

Lawyers, and the legal system, suck.

Let's let Larry and Moe decide instead of the legal system...

And lets not forget there have been lawyers on both sides of this issue for 15 years.

For the fifth time since this case began, the Supreme Court has declined to intervene. In each instance, Justice Kennedy receives the petition initially because he handles petitions from the 11th Circuit. In each instance he referred the petition to the entire Court. Not a single Justice, not even Scalia or Thomas, wanted to intervene.

jf

"Lawyers, and the legal system, suck."

So much for Larry's protestations that he's not going to get insulting, he's just discussing things in a spirited way.

"So much for Quirt's neurologist."

I've never had occasion to visit a neurologist, so I have no neurologist. Perhaps you refer to the court-appointed neurologist? Or CNN's medical expert, who happens to be a neurologist?

Dr. Cheshire, as was said elsewhere in this thread or another, admits that he has not observed the usual indicia required for a finding that someone is minimally conscious, and not in a permanent vegetative state. He based his finding on his feeling that there's a human presence in there, somewhere. Very scientific of him.

He also didn't conduct a full examination, which he admits. He observed Terri in the hospice, but his findings were based mostly on viewing the videotapes. As Dr. Gupta and others have said, no competent neurologist would diagnose a patient as minimally conscious, or in a permanent vegetative state, without a thorough examination.

Still waiting for substantiation on the nasty and so-far-unsubstantiated allegations about the bias and the professionalism of the guardian ad litem, Larry.

Larry's article even quoted the important part of that law.

"If the vulnerable adult's caregiver or guardian is present, the protective investigator must seek the caregiver's or guardian's consent ... before the vulnerable adult may be removed from the premises," the law states, "unless the protective investigator suspects that the vulnerable adult's caregiver or guardian has caused the abuse, neglect, or exploitation."

Note the "unless" clause. There must be suspicion of abuse, neglect, or exploitation. And, of course, that suspicion must be reasonable, as any government suspicion must be reasonable.

Michael Schiavo has been her guardian for 14 years, and suddenly the DCAFS has concluded that there is a suspicion of abuse, neglect, or exploitation AFTER the feeding tube is removed? You're such a great fan of common sense, Larry, would common sense suggest that, if there were suspicions of abuse or mistreatment, those suspicions would have arisen sometime over the last 14 years, sometime before 5 days after her feeding tube was removed? Wouldn't common sense say that, if the guardian ad litem concluded that Michael Schiavo's care of Terri has been exemplary, and that she hadn't (as of that time) had a single bedsore in all the years that she was under Michael's care, then you need something more than simply saying "I suspect abuse or neglect"? And wouldn't common sense say that the removal of a feeding tube, as ordered by a state court judge, cannot of itself constitute abuse or neglect? The judge was well within his discretion, absent more than the flimsy assertion of abuse or neglect, to conclude that the DCFAS's supposed "suspicion" was not reasonable, and was in fact fabricated as a delaying tactic.

"So much for the claims the lawyers have made that their views are based solely on the rule of law."

So much for musicians who try to practice law.

The Terri Schiavo affair is going to be winding down soon. She will die and her body will be cremated and her husband if he is guilty will go scot free.

I see the clusters of people on these threads.

On one side are KathyK (who quoted what I said repeatedly because she was saying that I am a broken record), Cindysphinx, bcarey, QuietEvans, Moonbat, Nunatax, Dave Spelvin ...Jeffrey.

On the other side, Larry, Luke's Dad, JBryan, Jolly, ivorythumper

On one side we hear that the judicial system has done its job well in the Schiavo case, she's an unfortunate woman with a husband who meant well but now wants his wife's original wishes carried out and furthermore the body is nothing more than a corpse that's been kept alive artificially for fifteen years and its humane to just let her (eh, it) die. "Everything is fine, just go back to sleep."

On the other side we hear all kinds of appeals to things that have already been decided by courts up and down the line years ago and they aren't going to do what was requested of them by Congress; to order a new investigation, that the courts are NOT doing their job, etc. "There's something wrong here and we need a new accounting for all of what happened."

On one side we have "kill the corpse and do it now and do it quickly."

On the other side err on the side of life.

One group is said to sponsor and belong to "the death party."

The other group is merely said to be ignorant and stupid because we aren't lawyers and furthermore we should be grateful that any lawyers bother to try and explain anything to us who are after all nothing but a bunch of nobodies who can not and do not know anything.

I feel the cold on one side. Tremendous cold. Death.

I sense the growing sense of something way beyond hate brewing on the other side, aimed at lawyers in general and the judicial system as a whole.

There are already reports that everyone concerned in this matter is under police protection as there have already been dozens of threats.
Bcarey fears "crazies;" those who don't agree with the liberal agenda.

There are on one side people who fear that their country is being taken away from them on many fronts. These people are saying, "let Terri's body live."

There are those on the other side who are prepared to give the country away because they really believe that their view of the future is the correct one and those who are getting despoiled of everything they believe in are in some sense disposable, even more than an Asian made piano. They are saying, "let Terri's body die."

I've learned a lot from these latest threads. It's true, I doubt that Terri Schiavo is still there, I don't like her parents treating her as if she were, I like the idea of taking someone who is badly delusional and saying, "snap out of it, she's gone and will never come back, leave her to God." But there are just too many doubts and unless those are very thoroughly and thoughtfully removed once and for all, this saga will become an unwanted legend and the side with the hate that has been growing as a result of how this case was handled shall one day explode.

When I was a liberal I thought that anyone with a different opinion from the right one was uninformed, backward and stupid and moreover they could and would be removed from the golden path of social progress supported by such splendid groups as the Democrat Party. Of course I supported the view that Republicans were either mean, greedy, polluting, and selfish bastards or ignorant morons.

Then I grew up and began to see things quite differently and a little later I came across one of the greatest "for profit" businesses going on right under the noses and with the consent and help of not only the judicial community but the Democrat Party as well, right in the heart of their biggest political bastion, New York City, and specifically emanating out of the borough of Brooklyn. I'd tried in vain to bring this scandal to their attention, but they were not interested because it didn't fit their bigger picture of a society in which children and their issues were really mere pawns used for political gain. You see I was blinded by my idealism. Joke was on me. Liberalism isn't about idealism, it's about control, social control and right now it's being conducted from a bunch of interlocked courts that all use the same case law for their purposes, to justify their actions contrary to the intent and justification of the statutes. And they call this doing their job. Oh I expect to get slammed. But you know I don't really care. What I can do instead is to on one hand pray and on the other hand CURSE, and as soon as Terri Schiavo's body breathes her (its) last breath, everyone who had anything to do with bringing about her ultimate demise will bear the curses of tens of thousands upon them.

But in the end, we all die, and in this life we can count on little that can be called justice, and as my friend has told me many times, never leave anything that's really important up to an attorney. But for all of them and especially the magistrates who have made the final rulings, according to all the near death experience research, when they die they will face a review of their actions as seen by their victims, and then they themselves will pass under judgment.

I have every right to ask that a just God would have mercy on the souls of these practitioners of the law who are working evil thereby. It seems that there may be a unique place in hell for those who are weighed in the balances and found wanting.

After I had graduated from college and passed the GRE within the 93rd percentile, my college advisor suggested that everything seemed to point in the direction of a career in the law. The LSAT was suggested, placement in a law office where I would read law and do research was suggested as a job. A lot of help was promised. I said no.

Ten years later I found myself working for a big corporation where someone suggested that I could study law through one of their programs and that because I knew some of the firm's lawyers and they had spoken well of me that I might consider it. I said no.

Six years later I found myself in the middle of the largest number of legal fights in my life, did some research for an attorney who was sympathetic but ultimately powerless to stop the leviathan, who liked my work, offered to help me financially to study law and become an attorney. I turned him down.

I'm beginning to find out why.

On Thursday I had the unique opportunity of functioning as a key witness in an investigation of a couple who are strongly suspected of being international jewel thieves. It took place in Harlem. The whole place and process were incredibly professional. I enjoyed doing my part to try and put these people behind bars where they belong, but I wonder about whether they'll be there or whether (because these people know where I live) that some night I'll wake to find a knife at my throat because the judge had to let them go through some legal technicality. If that happens well at least my family knows that I do not want to end up like Terri Schiavo.

David,
Through your writing in these threads and others, you have helped me gain clarity and insight concerning many issues. Thank you for writing this. I truly enjoy reading your posts.

Just to show how much Larry has been distorting the facts in these threads:

Larry has made much of the fact that the nursing home aides claim to have found track marks on Terri's arms, suggesting that Michael Schiavo has somehow poisoned her. I'd never read that, until this morning, but I was unnerved by that. I began to wonder whether there was really something to the claims of spousal abuse, even if they weren't raised until the very last moment. Here's the real story:

"At one point, Mr. Schiavo banned the Schindlers from seeing his wife, saying aides at her hospice had found what appeared to be needle marks on her arm after one of their visits."

"A police report found no evidence of wrongdoing, and their visiting rights resumed three months later."

That's right, the track marks were supposedly found after one of her parents' visits. And it was Michael Schiavo who made a stink about it. And it was investigated by the police (not Larry's much-hated court system, the police), and the police found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Given Larry's continued distortions of the facts in this case, I have to admit that I read what he says with more than a grain of salt.

The divide is interesting, i wonder what the source of the differences are. I mean there are obvious arguments over the legal process, over doubts regarding the husband, etc. but the groupings seem highly correlated with political (and perhaps religious) ideas. That, to me, indicates the source of conflict is in fact something far deeper than the superficial arguments specific to the case.

Perhaps it comes down to views regarding life itself. Err on the side of life is something i've read a few times: if there are doubts we should err on the side of life.

It's a strong statement, especially as the words "life" and "death" have powerfull emotional associations. To say "err on the side of death" sounds terrible before you even look at the circumstances.

And yet i think it's a reasonable question to ask, should you always err on the side of life, fullstop? And how much doubt are we talking about?

I mentioned this in another thread but i think it's worth mentioning again because i think it provides a way to understanding our own and others responses to these issues.

Which is worse: keeping Terri alive if she wanted to die, or ending Terri's life if she wanted to live?

To say we should "err on the side of life" inherently implies that the latter is significantly worse than the former.

When dealing with criminal cases, we "err on the side ofinnocence". To convict (in theory), a great deal of evidence that the plaintiff is guilty is necessary, rather than the opposite being true (requiring a great deal of evidence that the plaintiff is innocent for acquital). We presume innocence, rather than presuming guilt.

From a moral stance i think the reason can be attributed to viewing convicting an innocent man as substantially worse than aquiting a guilty man. Thus we skew the system in favour of the innocent, even though doing so means that, on occasion, the guilty walk free.

I agree with that. If i ask my self "would you convict a guilty man at the expense of convicting an innocent?" my answer is invariably "no". Likewise, if i ask myself "would you acquit an innocent at the expense of also acquiting a guilty man" I'd answer "yes".

Returning to Terri Schiavo: when i ask myself, 'which is worse keeping her alive if she wanted to die (A), or ending her life if she wanted to live (B)', I do not come to a clear cut answer the way I do regarding the criminal case; in her case, both options seem fairly evenly horrible.

It follows that i do not agree with skewing the system in favour of either life or death. So the fact that i think it very likely (ie. a very good bet) that Terri Schiavo did not wish to be kept alive under her current circumstances means that removing the tubes is, for me, fundamentally the right decision.

If you consider B to be significantly worse than A, then you would "err on the side of life", and how much you "err" (ie. how much certainty you would require before you would consider ending Terri's life the right decision) would dependent on how much worse B is than A.

A few points...

1. I had a chance last week to read depositions written by three different people, concerning the same event. All three people were in the room, and were eyewitnesses to the event.

There were many points of agreement, but all three differed in many substantial respects.

Therefore, I find the testimony of the three people that testified in the Schiavor case, eight years after the fact,[/b] to Terri expressing her wish for no artificial means, to be rather hard to believe.

2. Terri's family was denied due process, because this decison had no jury component.

There are some things best not left to a judge.

3. Reading through these threads, I've never seen where anybody mentioned that there has never been another finding of fact,[/b] other than the original hearing.

All reconsiderations that our legal friends have quoted, have been upon legal review only, as I understand it. The original judge may condemn Ms. Schiavo to death, but at least he has done so legally. Whether he was right in his facts, has not been reviewed.

4. Yes, when in doubt, err on the side of life.

I find it almost incredulous, that the same people who so often lecture us on the poor, and the downtrodden, are so vocal in their arguments to terminate life.

Because when one enters into the realm of Death, there is no turning back.

There has been a ton of misinformation and conjecture on all sides of this issue. An article in today's NYTimes clears up some facts. There has been a brain scan. Most neurologists support the diagnosis of persistent vegetative state and at least one of the two who doesn't has been clearly discredited.

jf


Schiavo's Condition Holds Little Chance of Recovery
By BENEDICT CAREY and JOHN SCHWARTZ

Published: March 26, 2005

At the center of the debate over Terri Schiavo's fate is the question of her diagnosis: Is she in a persistent vegetative state, or in a milder state of brain damage called minimal consciousness? And in either case, does she have any chance to regain awareness?

While a few neurologists say it is possible she has been misdiagnosed, an overwhelming majority say there is little room for disagreement. Patients who have suffered brain damage from oxygen deprivation - like Ms. Schiavo, whose heart briefly stopped in February 1990 - almost never recover if they have remained in a vegetative state for more than three months. Most neurologists who have examined Ms. Schiavo say she has been in a vegetative state for about 15 years.

Dr. Ronald Cranford, a Minnesota neurologist who examined her in 2002 as part of a previous court case, said a CT scan of her brain showed very little but scar tissue and spinal fluid. An electroencephalogram measuring electrical activity in the thinking parts of her brain showed no evidence of continued function, he said.

"It's totally flat - nothing," Dr. Cranford said, "and this is very unusual. The vast majority of people in a persistent vegetative state show about 5 percent of normal brain activity."

In some cases, patients with severe brain injuries may indeed reach or pass through a state of minimal consciousness, where they are intermittently able to respond or move with purpose, say by reaching for a glass. In a study published earlier this year, neuroscientists in New York reported that on brain scans these patients do show evidence of some conscious awareness.

But after a year in a persistent vegetative state, patients who have traumatic brain injuries from blows to the head rarely regain even minimal awareness. And those in Ms. Schiavo's category, whose brain damage was from lack of oxygen, almost never recover after three months.

On blogs and talk shows in recent days, Dr. Cranford has been widely attacked as heartless and extreme, and commentators have noted that he recommended that life support be removed from some patients with severe brain damage.

But neurologists and ethics experts interviewed yesterday said Dr. Cranford's views did not affect the accuracy of his diagnosis.

"It is crucial in this case to make a distinction between the recommendations Dr. Cranford makes - which people may or may not agree with - and his role in the examination," said Dr. Michael A. Williams, a neurologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and chairman of the ethics committee of the American Academy of Neurology.

Dr. Williams said that he did not always agree with Dr. Cranford's recommendations and that he himself had a patient who has been in a vegetative state for five years, looked after by family members. "But Dr. Cranford is a highly respected neurologist and has to be as objective as possible in making a diagnosis because it is scrutinized by other doctors," Dr. Williams said.

At least six neurologists have examined Ms. Schiavo, and in affidavits or testimony four of them agreed that she was in a persistent vegetative state and highly unlikely to recover. The court has rejected the diagnosis of the dissenters; in 2002, the judge called one of them a "self-promoter" who "offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no test results" to support a claim that he could cure serious brain damage.

Yet another doctor, Dr. William Cheshire, cited by Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida this week in his decision to intervene in the Schiavo case, also questioned the diagnosis after visiting the patient and reviewing records and videotape, according to an affidavit he filed with the court. But Dr. Cheshire did not conduct an examination, according to his employer, the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. He declined a request for an interview.

Neurologists, ethicists and doctors who specialize in rehabilitating people with brain injuries said it was highly unusual to make a diagnosis without a complete neurological exam. This includes a careful observation to see whether the person can track objects with her eyes; whether she pulls away from a pinch; whether the nerve reflexes in her feet, eyes and elsewhere reflect some conscious control. Doctors may also use brain imaging technology to measure changes in structure or activity.

Neurologists define several levels of mental function. Whole brain death means that neither the brain stem, which is involved in breathing and reflexes, nor the cortex and other areas involved in conscious awareness are active. In a persistent vegetative state, the brain stem is engaged but not the higher brain: the eyes are open, the person may seem aware, but is not.

There have been at least four confirmed cases of patients with oxygen-related brain injuries like Ms. Schiavo's who have recovered awareness after being declared effectively permanently vegetative. All four were young or middle-aged men who regained consciousness within two years of being declared persistently vegetative, and were partially paralyzed or severely disabled afterward. One was a patient of Dr. Cranford.

"Yes, I made a mistake, and to this day no one can explain these cases," but the patient made his recovery in less than 12 months, Dr. Cranford said.

In the Schiavo case, he said, "there has been no change in more than 12 years, and no real disagreement about that."

New Information: Shiavo's parents testified in open court that they didn't care if their daughter expressed the wish not to be maintained in this state, they would still want her forcibly tubed. (Source: The Economist)

They care more about their personal values and feelings than those of their daughter. Everything I learn about them makes me think less of them. They have turned their daughter into a spectacle, in order to satisfy their own religious desires, not the values of their daughter.

Bush's poll ratings have gone from 52%approval to 45% approval as a result of this shocking piece of government intrusion into private life and private rights (source: New York Post). Hopefully that will be a lesson to take people's rights seriously, and free from arbitrary government intrusion.

And Jeb is getting it hard from both sides now. Mr. Schindler is blaming him in the press for putting his family through a week of h*ll.

jf