Mar. 31 - Terri Schiavo Dies at the age of 41

Posted by: Debbye at 11:04 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Mar. 31 - From the NY Times, States are taking a new look at end-of-life legislation (alternate and longer-life link from the UPI-Washington Times article on the same subject here if you don't want to register with the NYT.)

Some legislative proposals are drawn straight from the battle between Terri Schiavo's parents and her husband. Among them is the Alabama Starvation and Dehydration Prevention Act, which would forbid the removal of a feeding tube without express written instructions from the patient. And a legislator in Michigan is writing a bill that would bar adulterers from making decisions for an incapacitated spouse.

In other cases, state lawmakers want to make living wills more widely available or simply to clarify the laws that govern the fate of someone in Ms. Schiavo's position. She left no written instructions.

New end-of-life legislation has been introduced in at least 10 states. ..

[...]

In Michigan, Representative Joel Sheltrown, the author of a proposal to strip people who are having extramarital affairs of their right to make decisions for an incapacitated spouse, is a Democrat, meaning he may have an uphill battle in the Republican-dominated Legislature.

But Mr. Sheltrown was not the only one to entertain such a notion. Last week Ken Connor, a legal adviser to Governor Bush on the Schiavo case, said Florida should have such a law. Opponents of Ms. Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, say he should not be allowed to make medical decisions for his wife because he is living with another woman.

Other bills seek to draw a line between a feeding tube and other life-sustaining measures. In Louisiana and Alabama, Republicans have introduced bills that would assume, in the absence of a written directive, that a patient wanted food and water. In Louisiana, the bill would require that a feeding tube remain in place until any litigation over its removal was resolved. In Alabama, Representative Dick Brewbaker, the bill's Republican sponsor, said he would probably make the law apply only in the event of a family dispute.

Posted by: Debbye at 09:21 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

Mar. 30 - Tuning Spork made a wonderfully terse comment on an earlier post that summed up the base line in the Terri Schiavo case: At some point we gotta, finally, ask ourselves if the value of life is worth the value of a Life.

Tuning Spork rips apart Neal Boortz's weird column on why Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die. (Did I say weird? It was beyond weird, and read more as though Boortz drew the short straw when they were divvying up debate positions in journalism class.)

Tuning Spork answers Boortz as perhaps only a sometimes-agnostic sometimes-atheist can do in by looking at science, not metaphysics, and uses logic rather than New Age out-of-body experiences.

He also uses some more excellently blunt language:

What we are forgetting about here is that God instructs us on how to live. This is IT, folks. This is the Test. This is the time. This is who we are. Right frickin' NOW!

The ongoing debate really isn't about religion, scriptural verses, or anything other than Who.We.Are, and if we have retained sufficient humility to know that we don't know the answers to everything, and therefore, as there is doubt, chose to do no harm.

It wasn't that long ago that liberals were arguing cases for the mentally and physically handicapped and urging that every effort should be made to try to teach and provide therapy that would allow them to experience the fullest lives of which they were capable despite their disabilities.

Or maybe I am one of the few who remembers the advocacy for newborns who were diagnosed with Down's Syndrome and had been allowed to die by withholding nourishment.

Posted by: Debbye at 06:27 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

1 When the law doesn't foresee a situation happening, the best you can do is to modify the law for the next time. By the law as it stands, the feeding tube was specifically considered "life support". Also by the law, the only option was to remove life support, even though it meant a prolonged period before the body ceased to function. Terri Schiavo is the proverbial 'wrong place at the wrong time' victim. Hopefully, there will be debate and wisdom applied to adjust the applicable laws to keep this whole circus from happening again.

Posted by: Ted at March 30, 2005 12:42 PM (blNMI)

2 There you go again, being all reasonable and rational! Seriously, when you're right, you're right Ted, yet there's a stubborness in me that keeps hoping she can be saved. There has to be a first, right? As you predict, the laws in many states will be re-examined and probably changed. We learn more by our errors than our successes.

Posted by: Debbye at March 30, 2005 12:59 PM (a3FvC)

3 I agree with Ted 100%, too. I was saving that for my requiem post. I'm actually very relieved that Jeb Bush didn't break the law to save Terri. "Wrong place at the wrong time". Precisely. All I know, for sure, of what I'll write after Terri dies is the first line: "I love America." Reminds me of The Godfather.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at March 30, 2005 09:08 PM (GIVbO)

4 Some state legislatures are already looking at legislation in response to the case: Schiavo has states studying rights bills edited to add NY Times link on the same story here. That's our system: discuss, debate, write letters and/or blogs, push for change, and keep on keeping the pressure on until changes (or, more often, compromises) are made. That's why I too love America, warts and all. We ain't pretty but we hang in and get it done.

Posted by: Debbye at March 31, 2005 08:54 AM (CyDjY)

5 Blogs are a joke. You know it. Bunch of self-important & underemployed egotists. Once this fad dies out (and it is a fad- you know as well as i do that Americans have super short attention spans) I can't wait for all the soul-searching essays on "HOW BLOGS FAILED US"

Posted by: Blackglasses at March 31, 2005 10:47 AM (t+KkC)

6 Blackglasses: Could you provide some back up for your assertions instead of sounding like Major Hofsteder from Hogan's Heros.

Posted by: Richard Cook at March 31, 2005 11:37 AM (Km34P)

7 Richard, don't feed the troll.

Posted by: Ted at April 01, 2005 12:24 PM (blNMI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Mar. 29 - I probably should have commented on the the meeting between PM Paul Martin, Pres. Bush and Pres. Fox but I was too irritated that the press up here kept calling them The Three Amigos (doesn't anyone up here speak enough Spanish to know that amigos means friends?) (and yes, I saw the stupid movie) and it wasn't as though it was more than a meeting for public consumption, the "We are family" kind of public appearance in which the press up here imagines Important Stuff is going on and the rest of us are wondering if Presidents Fox and Bush managed to reach some understanding about the growing numbers of illegal immigrants undocumented workers that are coming into the U.S. from Mexico.

But there was some interesting commentary too. Greg Weston in Smiling Texans, glum Canucks notes too that nothing really happened at the meeting between Bush and Martin.

I agree with that assessment, unless "more of the same" counts. Measures for Establishing North American Security since Sept. 11 have been announced after every meeting between Canada and the USA and will likely continue to be announced after every future meeting. The press keeps reporting on that as though it's really news, so either they are dumb enough to actually believe it this time or they haven't noticed yet that the it's the same, tired press release. (I guess that also translates to being dumb. Whatever.)

Back to the meeting. There are actually real outstanding issues between Canada and the USA involving (what else?) trade. For those keeping score:
Soft wood lumber - no resolution.
The cow thing - no resolution.
Lunch - BBQ or Thai?

Douglas Fisher thinks Canada should be more curious about George but I suspect his advice is falling on deaf ears (if that's what you call people who have their fingers stuck firmly in their ears.)

Bob MacDonald's column notes that Martin actually stepped foot on the ranch, something Chretien never accomplished, and received a gift from the President - a pair of cowboy boots. (Make your own joke. I'm not touching it - besides, my heart is set on a pair like Condi's. Mmm.)

Posted by: Debbye at 03:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 3 kb.

Mar. 29 - Cliff Cornell is an army deserter who is now a peace volunteer and one of 8 deserters all of whom want to stay in Canada.

From Mar. 25, Jeremy Hinzman will appeal the refugee board decision which denied him asylum status (Dodger insists: I'll stay) yet as the headline indicates, there is a persistent attempt to evoke the Vietnam era by terming him a dodger - he is not a draft dodger but a deserter, having voluntarily joined the US Army and even served in Afghanistan.

Supporters of Hinzman claim the decision was pro-war advancing the notion again that it was "illegal" and "Bush's war," despite the fact that it was approved by Congress.

Bill O'Reilly had it wrong, by the way, when he talked about the case. The decision by the appeal board had little to do with concerns over U.S.-Canada relations and more to do with the large number of claimants seeking asylum that arrive in Canada each year and a population that has grown increasingly suspicious of the process due to a large number of bogus claimants. Hinzman's assertion that he would be harshly punished pales in comparison to the real dangers people face were they to be returned to their native lands and indicated his real contempt for genuine asylum seekers who don't face jail but face torture and death.

Refugee claimants are already viewed with cynicism. Hinzman may well have hoped to capitalize on anti-American sentiment but had the refugee board granted his request it would have set a precedent for granting asylum on political bases rather than humanitarian and would have further undercut the credibility of the board.

Posted by: Debbye at 02:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

Mar. 29 - Education just isn't what it used to be: Death Penalty Tossed Over Jury's Bible Study:

DENVER — The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday threw out the death penalty in a rape-and-murder case because jurors had studied Bible verses such as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" during deliberations.

On a 3-2 vote, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life in prison without parole for kidnapping 25-year-old cocktail waitress Rhonda Maloney in 1994, raping her at gunpoint for two hours and then fatally shooting her.

The jurors in Harlan's 1995 trial sentenced him to die, but defense lawyers discovered five of them had looked up Bible verses, copied them down and talked about them while deliberating a sentence behind closed doors.

The Supreme Court said "at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages to vote for the death penalty when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence." [Irritating (search) notations deleted]

But the real curiosity was in the findings of the appeal. The judge should have known that the legal concept of equal punishment for equal transgression was actually codified by a Babylonian king in 2500 B.C. in what has come to be known as the The Code of Hammurabi which systematically organized earlier laws into one code:

The code then regulates in clear and definite strokes the organization of society. The judge who blunders in a law case is to be expelled from his judgeship forever, and heavily fined. The witness who testifies falsely is to be slain. Indeed, all the heavier crimes are made punishable with death. Even if a man builds a house badly, and it falls and kills the owner, the builder is to be slain. If the owner's son was killed, then the builder's son is slain. We can see where the Hebrews learned their law of "an eye for an eye." These grim retaliatory punishments take no note of excuses or explanations, ..

Oh well, at least weird stuff is finally coming out of Colorado again (All the, um, semi-oddball states have to do their part, you know.)

(No offense intended to residents of Colorado. I'm a native of California, so I get that you may be tired of everyone thinking you're all crazy.)

(Really, I more than get it. I endured years of strange looks when I told people I was from California. They either thought I was either crazy to leave or as nutty as a fruitcake just because I was born there. You just gotta know when you can't win.)

Mar. 30 - 02:20 Many thanks to commenter TimR for providing a link to the NY Times article on the Co. Supreme Court ruling which has much more context than the Fox report.

Mr. Harlan is one deranged man. His victim escaped and waved down a passing vehicle, Harlan caught up with them, shot the motorist leaving her paralyzed and then shot and killed his first victim. He did not kill on impulse but exhibited a cold determination to kill.

The defense lawyers brought up the Bible (it's inferred that this happened during statements before the jury retired to consider the sentence) and urged the jurors to consult Biblical wisdom, including the mercy God showed to Abraham (referring to Isaac, I assume.)

Legal experts said that Colorado was unusual in its language requiring jurors in capital felony cases to explicitly consult a moral compass. Most states that have restored the death penalty weave in a discussion of moral factors, lawyers said, along with the burden that jurors must decide whether aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors in voting on execution.

The Bible, the court said, constituted an improper outside influence and a reliance on what the court called a "higher authority.

Personal moral compasses and reliance on "higher authorities" have long trumped the law of the state and many brave souls, such as the early Christian martyrs, Henry David Thoreau, John Brown, Susan B. Anthony, those who sheltered Anne Frank and defied Nazi law, Mahatma Ghandi, Dr. King, and thousands of freedom marchers have disobeyed the law and inspired millions more and, by their appeal to the moral compasses of others, profoundly changed the world for the better.

Moral compasses have long trumped the law because when it does not do so we silently allow gays, Jews, gypsies and other "undesirables" to be transported to gas chambers, we do not challenge laws that legislate second class citizenship within our nations, and we stand idly by while genocide is committed in places like Iraq, Rwanda and Sudan.

Free people have moral compasses. Sheep do not.

Colorado Conservative Darren has some reflections on the decision and more information about the Colorado ruling.

Posted by: Debbye at 12:53 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 966 words, total size 6 kb.

Mar. 24 - The Supreme Court has declined to hear the Schiavo case, and Florida Gov. Bush filed a motion to take custody of her which has been denied (14:08.)

Someone (sorry, I don't remember who) speculated that the Schiavo case was another Gary Condit non-scandal which consumed the media waves despite the lack of substance. I don't agree. As a nation we've been through so much sacrifice, heroism, death, loss and recovery these past 4 years and in some respects we are now looking at if (or how much) these momentuous events have changed us.

Follow the "continued" link below if you want to read more, or skip it if you're tired of the subject. It's exhausting, and should be. We've been through two wars, are holding our collective breaths over Lebanon and Krygyzstan (and now Estonia) and once again need to define who and what we are.

I need to sleep or I'll be a total wreck tonight, so I'm signing off (unless I can't sleep. Sigh.)

By the way, there is a somewhat atypical Ann Coulter column, Starved for justice, up at Townhall.com, and she makes a suggestion that is very appealing:

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: 1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard), 2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), and 3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida?

[...]

In two of the three cases mentioned above, the Democrats' use of force was in direct contravention of court rulings.

Posted by: Debbye at 01:07 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 915 words, total size 6 kb.

Mar. 23 - Charles Krauthammer speaks to the issues in the Schiavo case, The law is failing Terri and to the conflict over whether Congress and the president overstepped their bounds:

The general rule of spousal supremacy leads you here to a thoroughly repulsive conclusion.

Repulsive because in a case where there is no consensus among the loved ones, one's natural human sympathies suggest giving custody to the party committed to her staying alive and pledging to carry the burden themselves.

[...]

Given our lack of certainty, given that there are loved ones prepared to keep her alive and care for her, how can you allow the husband to end her life on his say-so?

Because following the generally sensible rules of Florida custody laws, conducted with due diligence and great care over many years in this case, this is where the law led.

For Congress and the president to then step in and try to override that by shifting the venue to a federal court was a legal travesty, a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers. The federal judge who refused to reverse the Florida court was certainly true to the law.

But the law, while scrupulous, has been merciless, and its conclusion very troubling morally. We ended up having to choose between a legal travesty on the one hand and human tragedy on the other.

I can't judge if Terri Schiavo is truly "brain dead." I can't judge what her wishes would be could she express them. I can't judge if she is or is not capable of responding to therapy.

I can only judge that her life has great value to her parents and that they are willing to fight to preserve that life.

I prefer to go with the option that does less harm, the option that is not irreversible, the option that springs from love and faith.

I prefer not to play God.

05:45 - I think what is most in my mind when I look at this case is (almost unavoidably) the example of Pontius Pilate, who followed the letter of the law and has been reviled for doing so by Christians. It's so easy on this side of the judicial bench ...

I dislike publishing personal facts about my family, but after thinking about this I think I should probably disclose that my sister was in a coma for several months, was non-responsive, and that the odds she would recover were low (she suffered a base skull fracture.) BUT she did wake up, and despite her chronic physical problems due to the injury, I know for a fact that she is glad to be alive as indeed are those of us who love her. That is probably why I shrug when I read assumptions printed as "facts" about Terri's awareness and potential for recovery. Doctors, like weather forecasters, make predictions based on probabilities but do not - or should not - exclude possibilities.

06:22 - Michelle Malkin sheds considerable light on the ABC poll which purported to show most Americans would prefer not to be kept alive in similar circumstances as Terri: they were misled about her condition!

6:32 The 11th Circuit Court denied the request to re-insert the feeding tube 2-1. The Schindlers plan to appeal.

06:53 - Kateland is also awake and posting early. She has a couple of posts on Terri Schiavo, and poses an challenging question on the Pope's quality of life and why people in Israel might be horrified that a woman be allowed to die of thirst and hunger. Good, penetrating posts.

07:19 - Peter Worthington points out that should Mr. Schlinder kill Mr. Schiavo, Mrs. Schlinder's wishes would prevail. (Pull in your horns, people, no one is actually advocating such an act! He's simply making a point about the illogic of the current law which would, in the absence of the husband, grant the decision in this case to Terri's next closest kin.)

Posted by: Debbye at 05:33 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 714 words, total size 5 kb.

Mar. 20 - Terri Schiavo's feeding tube may be restored due to a House, Senate Compromise on the Schiavo Bill. The compromise would allow for the tube to be re-inserted while a federal court reviews the case.

The Senate passed the legislation today (Sunday) and the House will meet in special session tomorrow to consider the legislation.

The President will return to Washington tomorrow to sign the bill into law.

Mar. 21 - The House passed the measure 203-58 and the President signed the measure at 1:11 a.m. It now goes to the federal district court in Tampa.

Posted by: Debbye at 12:24 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

Mar. 3 - In a further blow both to President Bush, who has worked to re-open the border to Canadian cattle, and the Canadian beef trade, the U.S. Senate blocked importing Canada beef by a bipartisan vote of 52-46.

This isn't about missile defense, people, although that is little comfort to beef farmers and meat packers up here. The bipartisan vote in the Senate (and the probability is that measure will pass in the House of Rep.) was due to concerns about being able to re-establish trade with Japan and South Korea because they banned American beef when a cow with BSE was discovered in Canada two years ago.

Let me repeat: BSE was discovered on an Alberta farm over two years ago. American beef was therefore banned in Japan and South Korea because the source might have been Canadian. (Japan wants the origin of the beef indicated on the labels. We said no.) Canada's interests lie in re-opening the American market, American interests lie in re-opening the Asian market. Meeting both expectations is proving difficult.

Nevertheless, Martin's decision not to participate in the proposed missile shield is being factored into this latest setback by "some" Canadians:

Some Canadian industry observers wondered just how much support to expect from U.S. officials clearly disappointed about Canada's recent decision to stay out of the American ballistic missile defence program.

As for the extent of the President's "influence" in Congress, it's hard for Canadians to understand the workings of the U.S. government structure which separates the executive and legislative branches of the government. The word separate must be applied literally: each branch of the government - the executive, the legislative and the judicial - guards its powers jealously. The system may be unwieldy at times, but it works to prevent any branch from becoming too powerful.

The CNN article says that the President will veto the bill (that's one of those "checks and balances" things) if it passes the House and comes to his desk and it doesn't look as though they have enough votes at present to override his veto (that's another.)

It's hard for people who live with Parliaments to understand our Congress, but if it's any comfort, it is equally bewildering for Americans to grasp the subtleties of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet being members of Parliament and the routine practice of invoking party discipline for votes. (Don't get me wrong, such can be invoked in the U.S., but it really, really pisses off the electorate. Members of the House face re-election every two years -- they don't dare piss off their constituents by appearing like sheep.)

"Some" Canadians seem overly anxious to see this as payback. It will be interesting to see how this story progresses.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:05 AM | Comments (57) | Add Comment
Post contains 546 words, total size 4 kb.

Mar. 3 - According to CTV, PM Martin attempted to advise President Bush prior to announcing his decision not to participate in the missile shield, but Bush ignored Martin's call.

A day before he announced that Canada would have nothing to do with U.S. missile defence, Prime Minister Paul Martin placed a call to the American president to tell him of his decision, senior American officials told CTV News.

But the leaders never actually spoke that day. And almost a week later, President George W. Bush has yet to return Martin's call.

This is further evidence of Washington's deep displeasure with Canada's decision to opt out of the U.S. ballistic missile defence program (BMD).

According to this, President Bush was attending a summit with Pres. Putin in Slovakia on Feb. 24.

Note how cleverly the article is worded: Paul Martin placed a call to the American president to tell him of his decision, senior American officials told CTV News. It doesn't say if the call was placed to Washington D.C. or Bratislava.

Now it is possible that the CTV is the only news media in the entire world which was not aware that there was a major summit between the leaders of the USA and Russia on the day that Martin made his announcement. In fact, I'd say it was probable, or they would have mentioned that in their article as a possible reason why the President didn't speak to Martin when he called.

Right?

(CTV link via Kate at the Western Standard blog, The Shotgun.)

Mar. 4 - According to this, President Bush and PM Martin did have a chat about Canada's participation in BMD at the NATO conference:

A U.S. State Department source told The Canadian Press that Bush is upset Martin didn't tell him personally about Canada's decision not to join the missile plan when the two met at the NATO (news - web sites) summit in Brussels last week.

The source said Bush asked Martin specifically about the matter during a brief conversation and the prime minister didn't mention that a decision had been made. A short time later, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew told his American counterpart Canada was opting out. (Bolding added.)

We're greedy, money-grubbing captialists, remember?

Posted by: Debbye at 06:43 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 4 kb.

Mar. 2 - Sorry, the site went down for awhile.

It all seemed very simple. The Iraqi elections, despite the nay-sayers, were held. As promised. When they were promised. The Iraqis -voters and security personnel -did the rest.

A columnist with a Chicago paper wrote that maybe he'd have to admit that Bush was right all along.

And then the Lebanese people responded to the murder of Rafik Hariri with peaceful solidarity and determination. Those of who who understood and supported the aim of bringing consensual government and respect for human rights to the Mid-east applauded them.

Thomas Friedman wrote a column, and the NY Times wrote an editorial.

But now the rush onto the bandwagon is downright getting out of hand. (Ace is calling it a stampede.) Respected liberals are admitting that Iraq was a good place to start. Others are even going so far as to admit that maybe Bush was right. Even the BBC and Arab media is beginning to catch on.

But then there are others, and Jon Stewart is messing with a guest and suggesting that nobody knew that Operation Iraqi Freedom was all about bringing democracy to the Mid-east! It was a secret! It was a secret plan hatched by Karl Rove and nobody knew (except for the millions of Americans who voted for Bush - they knew!)

18:30: Ace has been on a roll keeping up with all this, and he's got a round-up of his "stampede" posts here. (Of course he would do that after I've been patiently linking every time a new post popped up on his site and me doing all that hard work.)

Posted by: Debbye at 01:48 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.