Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: How much is a life worth? [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
By the way, were President Clinton, Secretary of State Albright and Senator Levin also lying when they said that Iraq had WMDs in 1998? Are they part of the vast right wing conspiracy? Or were they just duped by the neocons into saying this?
Don't you think there's a difference between simply stating that a country has WMDs, and sending 130,000 troops into battle based on that statement? If Clinton had invaded Iraq based on the existence of WMDs, like Bush did, your comparison might be valid.
I certainly agree that President Clinton's actions were often not consistent with his rhetoric. Maybe President Clinton was lying when he said that Iraq had WMDs. It wouldn't be the first time that had he lied. But, while I may often disagree with Senator Levin of substantive issues, I believe that he is an honorable man and that he most certainly is not a liar.
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [CTL] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
By the way, were President Clinton, Secretary of State Albright and Senator Levin also lying when they said that Iraq had WMDs in 1998? Are they part of the vast right wing conspiracy? Or were they just duped by the neocons into saying this?
Don't you think there's a difference between simply stating that a country has WMDs, and sending 130,000 troops into battle based on that statement? If Clinton had invaded Iraq based on the existence of WMDs, like Bush did, your comparison might be valid.
I certainly agree that President Clinton's actions were often not consistent with his rhetoric. Maybe President Clinton was lying when he said that Iraq had WMDs. It wouldn't be the first time that had he lied. But, while I may often disagree with Senator Levin of substantive issues, I believe that he is an honorable man and that he most certainly is not a liar.


President Clinton's actions were not inconsistent - but that's certainly an interesting attempt you made to twist reality to fit your view. Anyone who equates lies about a private, consensual sexual affiar to lies used to start a war, belongs in an insane asylum.

Bush & Co deliberately cherry picked the intelligence to support their case for war - and that is treasonous. I remember Rumsfeld standing in front of an aerial photo of the Bagdad area, pointing out the WMD sites. Reasonable people don't make statements like that without being able to back them up. Liars do. And WMDs don't just vanish into thin air.
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth , In war [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The politically correct world has screwed it all up. What happened to carpet bombing the same town three times a day. Maybe line backer again. That was a real war bombing run.

One of my Croatian buddies told me he would pass the local Sniper, on the way to work. He would say, stay away from the East side of the large apartment building today. Life was worth nothing back than.
Last edited by: Helitech: Mar 27, 05 9:50
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [MJuric] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't have a problem with a person controlling the means of their end, particularly through a durable power of attorney or living will (I'd recommend a DPOA before a living will, for various reasons, though).

What I have a problem with is when we find ourselves somehow inferring what a person, who may or may not have a level of conciousness (which we can't know or infer) and who may or may not have expressed a wish to another person, that could be hearsay at best and a lie at worst, as an excuse to starve and dehydrate a person to death.

Human life has an intrinsic and an express value and worth. It shouldn't be so lightly tossed away as a child would toss away the toy that he's suddenly become bored with. However, if a person, after careful consideration and thought, and leaving behind a record of express wishes, doesn't desire or yearn for extraordinary measures to prolong their life (and I hardly think a feeding tube, which supplies food and water, is an extraordinary measure), then they should do so.

This whole Shiavo tragedy gives me the skeeves, and I just can't see what the rush is to basically kill this woman so quickly. I know that many would argue that in the absence of any particular evidence to the contrary, the husband should, by right and law, be the one to speak for her, but I also think that the initial trial was handled clumsily and probably incompetently by the parent's lawyer, and that the appellate process, which was restricted to errors in trial procedure and not able to conduct a de novo review of evidence presented at trial, wouldn't have been any real help to the parents anyway.

I'll really feel sad for all of us when we kill off this person just for the reason that she's either become inconvenient to certain people or for some inadequate and suspect "wish" that she expressed at some point in her early 20s.

What would make me sadder still is if she's become a pawn in the larger cultural war currently raging in our country.

Tony
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"What I have a problem with is when we find ourselves somehow inferring what a person, who may or may not have a level of conciousness (which we can't know or infer) and who may or may not have expressed a wish to another person, that could be hearsay at best and a lie at worst, as an excuse to starve and dehydrate a person to death."

C'mon Kahuna, this is not a case of the husband saying something, and everyone taking his word for it. Several witnesses, including her mother, testified to statements she had made regarding her wishes. In adition, the judge looked at other parts of her life to determine, as best as possible, what her wishes were. If the husband were just trying to get rid of an "inconvenience" he would have accepted the several millions of dollars he was offered to divorce her and be rid of the situation. Nobody is "killing", they are removing artificial life prolonging measures, as defined by FL law, and allowing nature to take it's course.

If people don't like the fact that feeding tubes fit into that category, I can understand that, and they should lobby to have the law changed. If they feel like these types of wishes must be in writing to be considered in these situations, I can understand that, although I disagree, and they should lobby for that law too. However, nobody in this case seems to be out for themselves, and all of the applicable laws appear to have been followed. What difference does it make that the parents didn't have good lawyers? They also didn't have the law on their side. They have attempted to interfere with Terri's medical care since day one, taking Mr. Schiavo to court previously when he attempted to follow medical advice that they didn't agree with. They can't accept their daughters condition, and that's understandable, but it's not their call.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think that I read in the trial transcripts that all of the witnesses who say that she said these things to her husband were the husband's family members or close friends. I posted an earlier piece in another thread about the inadequate representation at trial by the Shindler's lawyer, who was outclassed and outgunned.

Like I said, I don't see what the manic rush is to going ahead and basically starving and dehydrating what we assume to be a vegetable to death, but which might still possibly be a person. In fact, I've seen a much slower march to the death chamber for the very worst among us in the prisons in our country.

I can't imagine the agony and desperation to keep this person alive that the parents and other family members are going through. I can accept that the husband, even though he's got a common law wife and children by that wife and who will eventually go on to live through his progeny, will also suffer, but my beef is with the way we're going about this. Too much, too soon.

Tony
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
" think that I read in the trial transcripts that all of the witnesses who say that she said these things to her husband were the husband's family members or close friends"

Mrs Schindler testified that Terri made mention of these wishes as young as 11 or 12 years old.

"I don't see what the manic rush is to going ahead and basically starving and dehydrating what we assume to be a vegetable to death, but which might still possibly be a person"

Who says she might still recover? Nobody with any credibility has examined her and said that.

"In fact, I've seen a much slower march to the death chamber for the very worst among us in the prisons in our country."

Well I'm pretty sure that most death row inmates haven't exprssed their wishes to be allowed to die, plus the fact that they are alive and functioning people, which Terri obviously isn't.

"Too much, too soon."

Too much what?

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
They were poorly lawyered up. It's a shame that their daughter, who you assume to be a vegetable, but whom we can't definitively prove is, is going to pay the price for legalistic folly.

My opinion is just that, an opinion, but I say that we can't know (and probably will never know), what Terri wanted then or wants now. We don't know if she feels pain, or hunger or anger or love or anything, for that matter. I know what a persistent vegetative state is, and she just may be in that, but what's the harm in her being cared for by a set of loving parents and a brother and a sister?

What's this rush to end a human life, no matter how small or insignificant or non-classifiable it is?

Tony
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Friday, March 25, 2005 [/url] Inside Story on Schiavo Case

(some thoughts from Stever Sailer on Schiavo and the de novo review maneuver that Congress tried to use)

A Florida lawyer writes:



I have been following the case for years. Something that interests me about the Terri Schiavo case, and that doesn't seem to have gotten much media attention: The whole case rests on the fact that the Schindlers (Terri's parents) were totally outlawyered by the husband (Michael Schiavo) at the trial court level.

This happened because, in addition to getting a $750K judgment for Terri's medical care, Michael Schiavo individually got a $300K award of damages for loss of consortium, which gave him the money to hire a top-notch lawyer to represent him on the right-to-die claim. He hired George Felos, who specializes in this area and litigated one of the landmark right-to-die cases in Florida in the early 90s.

By contrast, the Schindlers had trouble even finding a lawyer who would take their case since there was no money in it. Finally they found an inexperienced lawyer who agreed to take it partly out of sympathy for them, but she had almost no resources to work with and no experience in this area of the law. She didn't even depose Michael Schiavo's siblings, who were key witnesses at the trial that decided whether Terri would have wanted to be kept alive. Not surprisingly, Felos steamrollered her.

The parents obviously had no idea what they were up against until it was too late. It was only after the trial that they started going around to religious and right-to-life groups to tell their story. These organizations were very supportive, but by that point their options were already limited because the trial judge had entered a judgment finding that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to live.

This fact is of crucial importance -- and it's one often not fully appreciated by the media, who like to focus on the drama of cases going to the big, powerful appeals courts: Once a trial court enters a judgment into the record, that judgment's findings become THE FACTS of the case, and can only be overturned if the fact finder (in this case, the judge) acted capriciously (i.e., reached a conclusion that had essentially no basis in fact).

In this case, the trial judge simply chose to believe Michael Schiavo's version of the facts over the Schindlers'. Since there was evidence to support his conclusion (in the form of testimony from Michael Schiavo's siblings), it became nearly impossible for the Schindlers to overturn it. The judges who considered the case after the trial-level proceeding could make decisions only on narrow questions of law. They had no room to ask, "Hey, wait a minute, would she really want to die?" That "fact" had already been decided.

In essence, the finding that Terri Schiavo would want to die came down to the subjective opinion of one overworked trial judge who was confronted by a very sharp, experienced right-to-die attorney on one side and a young, quasi-pro bono lawyer on the other.

Nothing unusual about this, of course. It's the kind of thing that happens all the time. But it's an interesting point to keep in mind when you read that the Schiavo case has been litigated for years and has been reviewed by dozens of judges . . . yadda yadda yadda.

By the way, I'm guessing that George Felos is probably quite happy to work the Schiavo case for free at this point since it's making him one of the most famous right-to-kill -- I mean right-to-die -- lawyers in the country. His BlackBerry has probably melted down by now, what with all the messages from the hurry-up-and-die adult children you've been blogging about.
*

Another reader comments:



The veracity/provability of Terri's wishes has been the main issue driving the whole debate. And it is one the media completely downplayed or missed or mis-reported. Because these supposed wishes of Terri provide the "fact" of the legal matter, all other subsequent legal filings appear to have been doomed from the start because this fact legally has been unshaken. Therefore, all filings proceed from the same premise: Terri said she didn't want to be kept alive in this condition. Once again, if you accept the premise what must follow is predictable.

Because of the time it took for Michael Schiavo to finally assert this fact (when has not been firmly established in my mind: Terri's family suggests seven years after her initial collapse and after he had taken up with another woman), one has to wonder how Terri's family initially challenged, if at all, Michael's claim that these were Terri's wishes. A couple of weeks ago I was struck by the possibility that Terri's family had suffered as a result of bad or ineffective lawyering. With all of the non-stop 24 hour cable coverage, why has no one tried to find out and report what took place legally before this story became a national issue? Were all the friends, who are coming out now talking about the rockiness of the marriage or disputing that Terri would have felt this way, deposed before Michael filed the right-to-die claim? I don't know.

Has the media reported on this and asked these questions? Not that I've seen. I suspect it is because the matter would have to mention Michael's personal relationships at the time of the filing; it muddies the waters for those who so fervently claim that Michael is solely perservering to carry out his wife's wishes. If facts are inconvenient for your position, ignore them.

It strikes me that the only measure taken over the last 15 years that could have challenged the underlying premise of the right to die case was the recent congressional action which called for a de novo review. That this action wasn't supported by the courts is for those experienced in legal matters to argue, i.e., was the legislation properly interpreted by the courts. However, the media have almost exclusively rushed to paint this legislation as religious zealotry, intervention, the proof of an impending theocracy, etc.... every description except what it actually was: the allowance of a de novo review in the federal courts.



The Florida lawyer who started this thread responds



Well, yes, but . . . the law passed by Congress allowed for de novo review only of constitutional law claims, not underlying factual issues. Specifically, the provision adopted by Congress stated that the federal court would have jurisdiction over any suit or claim "for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life."

What are the constitutional rights Terri Schiavo is entitled to have reviewed? Well, they're the usual suspects, like due process -- i.e., were there adequate procedures in place to protect her rights, and were they followed properly? Note that these are questions about laws and procedures, not underlying facts. In effect, the only question that can be asked is "Did she get a fair trial?" not "Did the judge reach the right factual conclusion?"

So why didn’t Congress pass a stronger bill, one that would have allowed for a completely new trial on all factual claims? Probably because they realized it would be a very, very dangerous legal precedent to set -- and likely unconstitutional anyway.

Under the US Constitution, federal courts are explicitly limited in their jurisdiction, and can hear only cases that fall within carefully defined boundaries. All other cases are heard by state courts. Allowing a federal court to step in and try a strictly state issue (which the Schiavo case is) from the beginning would pretty much violate every principle of federalism, and open the door to federalizing every case under the sun.

In truth, Congress was probably hoping that the federal courts would find a way to re-try the facts of the Schiavo case under the guise of considering the constitutional issues. But the federal judges declined to bite -- probably for very good constitutional reasons.
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"They were poorly lawyered up. It's a shame that their daughter, who you assume to be a vegetable, but whom we can't definitively prove is, is going to pay the price for legalistic folly"

It's not my assumption. It's the testimony of several neurologists, including ones provided independantly by the courts. Also, I don't see what having good lawyers has to do with medical opinion.

"We don't know if she feels pain, or hunger or anger or love or anything, for that matter"

No, but we know that doctors say she has less than 5% brain function. We know that scans have shown her brain to have shrunk over the last 15 years and that the space has been taken up by synovial fluid. We know what it takes to feel fand function, and we know she doesn't have those things.

"I know what a persistent vegetative state is, and she just may be in that, but what's the harm in her being cared for by a set of loving parents and a brother and a sister"

The harm is that her wishes were to not be kept alive like this. Even her parents admitted that. They just say that she would probably have changed her mind since there might be new therapies.

"What's this rush to end a human life, no matter how small or insignificant or non-classifiable it is"

Again, there is no rush for her to die. There is a rush to ensure that her wishes are met, and that she is allowed to die as she would have wanted.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, we've read that article before on another thread I think. Here's my problem with it. It assumes that they Schindlers were "steamrolled" because they had a poor lawyer, instead of because they didn't have the law on their side. And to think the Schindlers didn't know what they were doing is shortsighted, since they had already fought Schiavo once before about Terri's treatment and won that time.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would join in here slowguy, but you have made all the points very, very well. So my most intelligent addition to the conversation is: What he said.
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"you have made all the points very, very well"

words not often written or spoken aloud. ;-)

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ditto the Frankster.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Ditto the Frankster."

2 in one night? Is there a full moon or something. ;-)

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hey man you know I love you as much as combo Fajitas.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
An interesting point to consider before rushing to judgement on Mr. Schiavo. nurses and cotors have said that he has been the most vigilant and consistent visitor to Terri over the years. Doctors also say that he has been at the hospice at Terri's bedside almost continuosly since the feeding tube was removed, leaving only when her family was there to visit.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Hey man you know I love you as much as combo Fajitas."

That's a lot of love. That's about as much love as really either one of us is probably comfortable with.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [MJuric] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have done much work in the area of risk management. I can tell you that in Australia, AUD$1.2 Million is the value of a human life with respect to Aviation. Pretty blunt I think.
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [plazbot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A nagging sense of injustice [Schiavo]
The Times (U.K.) | 03/29/05 | Michael Gove


The behaviour of Terri Schiavo's husband suggests that he does not have her interests at heart

SINCE GOD has His own plans for a final Day of Judgment, He tends not to be permitted much of a say in those judgments made in the here and now. The claims of religion may still exercise a powerful hold over many minds but in the contemporary West those claims are seldom admitted in court — as we have been reminded by the controversy surrounding the fate of Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman in a persistent vegetative state who has been denied by the courts the food and water necessary to keep her alive.

The religiously inclined in America, and across the globe, have taken Mrs Schiavo’s case to their heart and believe a vulnerable woman’s right to life is being denied. But the courts found in favour of Mrs Schiavo’s husband, her legal guardian, who argued that she would not want to be kept alive in a vegetative condition. Many people who may not necessarily believe that Mrs Schiavo should be allowed to die nevertheless accept that her fate is a matter for the courts, and in matters of life and death the rule of law must prevail.

Attachment to the rule of law is certainly a foundation stone of our civilisation. But so is respect for the moral principles on which our civilisation has been built. And it has often been through religion that those moral principles most central to civilised conduct have been preserved and defended. One does not need to be a member of any church, or a subscriber to any established faith, to appreciate the ethical debt we owe in the West to our Judaeo-Christian inheritance.

To take just one example, our notion of the role that judicial intervention should play in interpreting the law owes a great deal to Jewish tradition. Take the resonant story of the judgment of Solomon. Presented with a child whom two women claimed as their own, Solomon proposed depriving both of the baby by the decision to divide the child into two. One woman acquiesced, the other protested, and by their reactions the woman with the real bond of love to the disputed child revealed herself.

Invoking Old Testament justice may seem anachronistic in an age of advanced medical technology. But the importance of respecting the bonds of love has a profound bearing on Terri Schiavo’s case.

After Mrs Schiavo collapsed in 1990, her husband sued for medical malpractice and claimed that he wished to secure resources so that he could care for her for the rest of her natural life. The court awarded Michael Schiavo $300,000 for loss of companionship and awarded Mrs Schiavo around $700,000.

Mr Schiavo’s conduct since then does not suggest that he has exerted himself to provide the duty of care that he was awarded money to ensure. A year after winning his case on the basis that he wished to nurse his wife,he refused to allow doctors to prescribe antibiotics for a serious infection. In contrast to the position he held when suing for compensation, Mr Schiavo argued that his wife would not wish to live in her disabled condition. Had she died, Mr Schiavo would have inherited her $700,000.

Medical records show that, while her husband was exercising his guardianship, what some of us might consider Mrs Schiavo’s best interests were not well served. Her teeth were not cleaned and five had to be extracted. Mr Schiavo melted down her wedding and engagement rings to make a new ring for himself. And Mr Schiavo now has a relationship with another woman by whom he has two children.

Terri Schiavo’s parents, who oppose her husband’s desire to see her dead, have offered to take on themselves the burden of providing her future care. Mr Schiavo once barred them from even seeing her. And now that her death — at the time of writing — looks to be imminent, thanks to the court’s decision to back Mr Schiavo and deny her nutrition, her parents have had their wish for a Catholic burial overruled.

What would a Solomon come to judgment conclude from this pattern of behaviour? Who really has her best interests at heart? The husband whose heart now seems to be pledged elsewhere? Or the parents whose heart will be broken by her death?

One does not need to believe in any sort of religion to find one’s own sympathies with Mrs Schiavo’s parents. And while I do not share their Roman Catholic faith I am nevertheless grateful for their Church’s teachings on matters of life and death. There is a moral tradition of natural law, going back to Aristotle’s time, which urges us to do what we can to protect innocent life. Whatever its corruptions and abuses, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Aquinas and John Paul II, has upheld the need to protect the vulnerable and voiceless from having their fates decided by the powerful on the basis of utility or expediency.

It is because I believe that tradition still has much to teach us that I am troubled by the fate of Terri Schiavo. She requires no life-support system to survive, she breathes unaided and needs no technology to perform any bodily function. She is brain-damaged, not braindead. The sole outside intervention in her life is the provision of food and water by tube. Now that intervention has been stopped, at the request of her husband, she will slowly die of dehydration and starvation.

Even those found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of capital crimes in Florida at least have the right to a speedy execution. But while there is still reasonable doubt about Terri Schiavo’s wishes she is condemned to a lingering death.

You do not, I say again, have to believe that God plays any part in the affairs of Man to see that something big has been forgotten in this case.



michael.gove@thetimes.co.uk
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply


Pretty much sums it up.
Quote Reply
Re: How much is a life worth? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Give me a break Kahuna.

The judge in the initial ruling said that Schiavo's refusal to grant permission for the anti-biotic treatment was based on the medical advice he had recieved from her doctors. The court ruling describes this testimony as "undisputed."

"Mr Schiavo melted down her wedding and engagement rings to make a new ring for himself"

Dear God, he made one ring out of the combined rings of his dying wife, what was he thinking? Maybe he was thinking that he would have a special ring to remember her by.

"Had she died, Mr Schiavo would have inherited her $700,000. "

Had he consented to divorce her, he could have had as much as $11,000,000.

"And Mr Schiavo now has a relationship with another woman by whom he has two children."

Crime of all crimes, he has found love again during the 15 years that elapsed. And still, with a new love and 2 children, doctors attest that he is Terri's most frequent visitor.

"She requires no life-support system to survive, she breathes unaided and needs no technology to perform any bodily function."

Again with the blatant disregard for the legal truth, which is that feeding tubes are considered life support under FL law.

I particularly like the line that says that religious people all over the world and in America have taken Terri Schiavo's case to heart, despite the fact that polls don't show that to be true.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply

Prev Next