It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Law to Save Terri Schiavo's Life Ruled Unconstitutional

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Circuit Court Judge W. Douglas Baird, has ruled today, that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional. Based on Florida's constitutional right to privacy, and this judge's findings that the law unjustifiably authorizes the Governor to deprive Florida citizens of that right, this judge has reopened the possibility that Terri Schiavo can be legally starved to death.
 

PDF Document of Court Ruling

Last fall, the Florida Legislature and Bush intervened to keep Terri Schiavo alive after a court had ordered the feeding tube removed, causing Michael Schiavo to sue. Baird's ruling is the result of that suit.

In a stinging rebuke to Gov. Jeb Bush and the Legislature, a judge ruled today that the law used to reconnect Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is unconstitutional.

Bush's office immediately appealed the ruling, issued by Circuit Court Judge W. Douglas Baird, that concerns the severely brain-damaged woman.

Bush's spokesman, Jacob DiPietre, said the governor's attorneys appealed today's ruling so they can "continue to defend the constitutionality of this law."

www.newsday.com...

I know there are people who think Terri's food and water should be withheld until she dies from starvation and/or dehydration, but this literally makes me sick to my stomach!! We are just steps away from legally allowing a human's death by starvation. This is unconscionable! We put people in jail for starving their pets to death, yet the courts have found it more constitutional for a woman to die a slow, tortuous death, then for a governor to stop it?!

If they were willing to assist her in passing, by providing her with a quick, painless death, this would not be so horrific. The fact that they are willing to allow stand by and watch her die slowly over several days, however, is just sadistic.

I hope and pray that the governor's attorneys are successful in their appeal. We are supposed to be more evolved than this. What in the hell is the matter with us?

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by jezebel]

[Edited on 5-6-2004 by Valhall]




posted on May, 6 2004 @ 04:48 PM
link   
If they do want her to pass away then the barbarity of letting someone starve or die of dehydration is cruel and not necessary (even if they are brain dead) and it would seem that a large shot of morphine along with some other narcotics would be a much more humane way of letting some one pass away ...ie
euthanasia)...
we euthanize our pets that we love so much in america...but yet we will let someone starve in a hospital ?
Its all in how people view things that lead to cruelties and inappropriate laws.....
im learning to view things with dispassion like the great ones but its very hard and it has to be accompanied with a great striving to attain liberation but slowly and surely im getting there ....then stuff like this pops up as a test to see how far ive gotten......
Good work again Jezzy........



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   
The issue here isn't about being savages by starving someone to death, the issue here is about the right to die. This mans wife had wishes to NOT be artificially kept alive. Her heart does not beat on its own, and she has next to no brain function. Her husband has to see her living in a worse state than death just barely alive because we are so afraid of death to just let someone go. I do agree that starvation and dehydration are among the worst ways to die, but how about being half dead for close to a decade???
We as a people are so fixated on holding on to things that we need to just let go. This isn't a human rights issue, this is a political one. That is the only reason Jeb and George are even interested in this - political. It is truly sad yes, but the current situation is far worse.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcadian
The issue here isn't about being savages by starving someone to death, the issue here is about the right to die. This mans wife had wishes to NOT be artificially kept alive. Her heart does not beat on its own, and she has next to no brain function.


what? does not beat on its own? whoa research that before making comments, she only has a feeding tube and is on no life support at all, she has brain function and every biological function is still there, please post when you know whats going on.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcadian
... the issue here is about the right to die. This mans wife had wishes to NOT be artificially kept alive. Her heart does not beat on its own, and she has next to no brain function. We as a people are so fixated on holding on to things that we need to just let go.


I have no problem with an individual's right to die and fully support euthanasia, but this case is different. First, the woman's heart does beat on its own and, according to her parents, she does respond to them. Additionally, several physicians, hired by the parents, do believe that she can be rehabilitated to some degree. Lastly, and most importantly, I do not believe the woman had a "living will" instructing that her life be ended if she became incapacitated. Evidently she only shared this information with her husband. I should also mention that her husband sued the physician who didn't diagnose the potassium deficiency. He was awarded signficiant funds that were to be earmarked for her rehabilitation, something he never followed through with.

At the very least this should stand as a wake-up call to those who don't have "living will" so that their wishes are honored.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 06:46 PM
link   
quote from namehere:

what? does not beat on its own? whoa research that before making comments, she only has a feeding tube and is on no life support at all, she has brain function and every biological function is still there, please post when you know whats going on.



Um, here is a word for word statement about how she came under this condition:

Terri Schiavo was left severely brain damaged more than 13 years ago after her heart stopped beating because of chemical imbalance brought on by an eating disorder.

Here is the link for the site:

www.newsday.com...

I suggest YOU do your own research namehere. I actually agree with the issue of starvation, but this woman is mentally incapacitated. It was her WISH to NOT be kept alive artificially!!!!

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by Arcadian]



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcadian
The issue here isn't about being savages by starving someone to death, the issue here is about the right to die. This mans wife had wishes to NOT be artificially kept alive. Her heart does not beat on its own, and she has next to no brain function. Her husband has to see her living in a worse state than death just barely alive because we are so afraid of death to just let someone go. I do agree that starvation and dehydration are among the worst ways to die, but how about being half dead for close to a decade???
We as a people are so fixated on holding on to things that we need to just let go. This isn't a human rights issue, this is a political one. That is the only reason Jeb and George are even interested in this - political. It is truly sad yes, but the current situation is far worse.


She is not 'Brain Dead', she has 'Brain Damage'. Her heart is also beating fine. At one point her heart did stop, due to a possible chemical imbalance or some other problem which is somewhat still in debate according to who you ask. Basically, other than the feeding tube, her body is functioning normal. She even responds to painful stimuli.

I totally understand someone's 'Right To Die', especially in such a condition. However, that is not the same as letting someone starve to death!! Or actually, she will die from Dehydration before starving to death to be more specific. Take a few moments and think about suffering through that, or someone you love having to suffer through that!!

If she is going to be 'put to death', for reasons of ending her suffering, then it should be done in a Humane fashion for Christ Sakes!!! We put animals to sleep in more compassionate ways, as well as Prisoners. Hell, even a shot in the head is more humane than letting someones body functions break down from Dehydration and Starvation!!

I'm not even going to get into her so called husband, and the B.S. about him doing this for her!! He needs to get out of the picture, with his new Soon to be Wife, instead of waiting around for 'The Money' he'll get when she dies. If he had any sympathy for her at all, and was doing this for her well being as he says, he'd exhaust every last penny of that money on her or at the very least have her euthanized instead of this sick, heartless, evil method of Dehydration/Stavation.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcadian

what? does not beat on its own? whoa research that before making comments, she only has a feeding tube and is on no life support at all, she has brain function and every biological function is still there, please post when you know whats going on.


Um, here is a word for word statement about how she came under this condition:

Terri Schiavo was left severely brain damaged more than 13 years ago after her heart stopped beating because of chemical imbalance brought on by an eating disorder.

Here is the link for the site:

www.newsday.com...

I suggest YOU do your own research namehere. I actually agree with the issue of starvation, but this woman is mentally incapacitated. It was her WISH to NOT be kept alive artificially!!!!

are you blind? nowhere did tht say her heart cant beat on its own, it says her heart stopped and caused brain damage, a feeding tube is all she has and thats not considered life support.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Last time I checked, a feeding tube was artificial support. Severely brain damaged means just that. As far as her parents are concerned, of course they dont want her to die, she is their daughter. I was mistaken on her heart, I will admit that. However I said she had next to no brain function, not none at all.
As far as euthanization, the last time I checked, it was illegal to purposely "end someones life" rather the person could choose whether or not they wanted to be kept alive by artificial means. She has been in this state for close to a decade.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcadian
Last time I checked, a feeding tube was artificial support.


no because it requires that your body still works for it to be of any use, just because theres brain damage doesnt mean youre dying or near death or suffering, infact most with brain damage seem happy and find joy in small things that you and i probably overlook in everyday life so i doubt shes suffering, just because she dont appear there or whatever means nothig, i've known people who cant move, talk and they seem like nothing is there but they use a special pointer that works by following eye movement and they are very intelligent and vent about what they go through with others who assume they have nothing in their head.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcadian
Last time I checked, a feeding tube was artificial support. Severely brain damaged means just that. As far as her parents are concerned, of course they dont want her to die, she is their daughter. I was mistaken on her heart, I will admit that. However I said she had next to no brain function, not none at all.
As far as euthanization, the last time I checked, it was illegal to purposely "end someones life" rather the person could choose whether or not they wanted to be kept alive by artificial means. She has been in this state for close to a decade.


also she never had a brain function test so noone actually can say how much function she has.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcadian
Last time I checked, a feeding tube was artificial support. Severely brain damaged means just that. As far as her parents are concerned, of course they dont want her to die, she is their daughter. I was mistaken on her heart, I will admit that. However I said she had next to no brain function, not none at all.
As far as euthanization, the last time I checked, it was illegal to purposely "end someones life" rather the person could choose whether or not they wanted to be kept alive by artificial means. She has been in this state for close to a decade.



Terri's husband has denied her basic care for over 10 years and has sought to end her life since he became engaged and since had 2 children. The issue here is that Michael Schiavo, Terris husband, has a conflict of interest in regard to Terri. He only remembered that she made a passing comment about her wishes to not be on a respirator during a movie, 7 years after the incident. Even if Terri made this comment in 1988, as stated by Michael, the Florida courts did not deem feeding tubes as life support until 1999. Hence, her wishes unclear and not to mention heresay, at best.

If the Florida judicial system affirms Michaels right to starve and dehydrate Terri the impications for the disabled and thier right to life, in lieu of the expense, will be tragic and no better than Nazi Germany.(which by the way aquired The United States philosophy of Eugenics and carried out its termination of the disabled as it's starting point)

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by Narnia]

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by Narnia]

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by Narnia]



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   
In reference to jezebel's comment:


"We put people in jail for starving their pets to death, yet the courts have found it more constitutional for a woman to die a slow, tortuous death..."

That's right. We protect animals, trees and even some insects, but it's okay to put humans to death if they are inconvenient or too expensive to have around whether they be too sickly, too aged, a death row inhabitant or a fetus. Human life is cheap.

Of course, I meant that all facetiously.
God, I like causing trouble.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   
This woman has a right to live. Nowhere did she write "I want the plug pulled!" Give her the treatment her parents ask of. If there is no improvement, then I can deal with......Maybe she would be better off, if we let her go. Seeing as none of the treatments have been tried......I FEEL HER HUSBAND IS OUT TO COLLECT!!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Oral arguments are to begin on August 31, 2004 in the Florida Supreme Court. The decision in the Florida Supreme Court will be the deciding factor as to the fate of Terri Schiavo and Disability Rights in the future. The media has made this issue a right- to- die issue and portrait the religious right being pro Terri living and the media has sided with the husband in pulling her plug. The following gives a perspective from disability groups; www.raggededgemagazine.com... www.raggededgemagazine.com...
(the links provided by www.terrisfight.org)

I hope that the Florida Supreme Court protects her right to live, however due to technicalities I am almost 100% sure they won't and that the spiraling views of ones right- to-live, who are disabled, will be gravely affected from here on out and the standard protocol will become starvation and dehydration for these individuals.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Even if she had ever said "I don't want to live by machine", I bet she never said "even if it means starving me to death". If it were a matter of pulling the plug and having her blink out due to heart failure or brain death, that's one thing. But the bottom line is, you can't starve someone to death. I feel allowing it would set a bad legal precedent. Any way you slice it, she is not who she was. Euthanizing her would be ideal if all parties agreed she no longer has any valid function and her family and husband would go along with it, but that's not an option. Until it is an option, she is in a state which must be maintained humanely. Starvation simply should not be an option for anyone.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by torque
Even if she had ever said "I don't want to live by machine", I bet she never said "even if it means starving me to death". If it were a matter of pulling the plug and having her blink out due to heart failure or brain death, that's one thing. But the bottom line is, you can't starve someone to death.


However, untill people realize that thier well meaning "life at all costs" views, it will remain the only option people have. My wife and I are nurses, and we have clearly put in writing what we do and do not want done. I can tell you if I was in her condition I would want to starve to death. Its too bad that others have imposed thier religious values on someone elses life.!



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 04:54 AM
link   
All this yes/no and i bet she was never asked!

Let her die already, but euthenasia is not legal in the US so they have only the "stop treatment" option left, thats why a quick painless option is not on the cards.

Might be wrong of course.

The fact that the Bush camp is interfering is sick! As if they care about her (as an individual), this is about spin and "morals" (of the religious nazi sort).



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 05:57 AM
link   
If her heart needs support to beat, why don't they just remove that support (quick death), instead of the feeding tubes (much longer death)?

I kind of think her heart is capable of beating on it's own, or they would just end that support instead...there'd be no talk of her starving to death.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   
www.tampatrib.com...

The feeding tube is her only life support. She was about to go into failure when the tube was replaced. That, to me, is worse than the basic question of do or don't. Let her get close and then restore the tube. It's not like "starve for a week then, plop, dead". Starve, shut down, suffer, then eventually die. No treatment during this process. Just watch her fail. If she's responsive, as her parents and some medical personnel attest to, then she's feeling it and might actually know what's happening to her. If not, then she would still feel it and suffer.

If this case isn't set up as another bid for the euthanasia issue, I don't know a better, more publicized one that can be.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join