The Terri Schiavo Case

[triton94949]

The main issue in the American news recently has been the constitutionality of giving the federal courts review over the state court decisions. The American newscasters have interviewed experts who are split on whether the issue is constitutional or not. That means that a split decision from the highest federal supreme court is also likely. In other words, nobody really knows, and the issue is too close to call.

The American presidency and congress are probably caught in a bad spot. They do not want to seem insensitive and nonresponsive, when petitioned by the parents in countermanding the state court rulings in favor of the husband's choice. So the issue is not really political, just sticky.

The issue has become public and polarizing because the woman left no will in which she specifically stated what her wishes would be. That can happen to any of us, from the result of a traffic accident, or illness, or from scuba diving. Wills are important. Most people do not have them, however.

 

[baltimoron]

My recollection of the events concurs with Boogie's and I agree with him that the husband is less than credible. Don't forget, there's video footage of Terri in her current state and she appears to respond to stimuli from her parents and doctors. What's the harm, under the circumstances, to give her care over to her parents and let them have the burden that they are willingly accepting?

-Bill

^^
Hmm... I think this is a tad on the debatable side. From what I have read, she might from time to time be able to respond to stimuli and have muscle spasms (in the form of opening the mouth) in her current situation, but the doctors have concluded that these are no voluntary, nor are they more than spasms. Sure, the parents can sit there with a video camera and wait until she has a spasm, but I think it's a bit warped to call it (as some do), "Her smiling when she comes into the room."


Now, from a Jewish point of view (and I might be wrong on this), she is dead. In Judaism, the soul goes to heaven when the body sleeps, and returns when one wakes up. In the morning, the first words out of a good Jew's mouth are the Prayer that thanks god for returning their soul and allowing them to live one more day. So therefore, her soul never really came back down. Ergo, she is no longer living. Just to see things from another point of view. I'll call my rabbi tomorrow and see what he says about the issue.

And as for him bringing it up after seven years, I agree with DA about that. Also, maybe he had faith that science would have a cure, and than saw that her being revived was not possible. One is allowed to change their mind, no? Plus, if he was in it for the money, why would he deny the offers of millions of dollars for him to relinquish the decision?

Another paralell: A teacher of mine had a grandfather that had a stroke, and at one time, he was on full life support. His family was given the decision whether to pull the plug or not, and they kept sustaining him. Miraculously, he was able to go off life support, and he regained conciousness. after about two years of physical therapy, the first words to come out of his mouth since his stroke were, "I love you, thank you for believing in me, don't ever do that again." He later signed a living will so that if he were to be in the same situation, they would pull the plug. I am using this anecdote to say that not every PVS person would necessarly want to stay that way.

For me, it's an issue of pride and human dignity. Do I really want to be that dependent on everybody, having to have people move my body around so that I don't get bed sores. Do I really want people to have to change my sheets and diapers? I would not want to be so dependent on other people and not have the ability to thank them, no less acknowledge their presence…

 

[H2Andy]

OK - after a little googling, it's not life insurance - it's a million dollar settlement in a medical malpractice suit thats on the line. Just to clarify.

Terri became brain-damaged in 1990 and has been thus since (when her heart temporarily stopped, cutting off oxygen to her brain).

in 1992, her case settled, and she got $700,000, most of which is already gone for
legal expenses and medical care. it was set up as a trust fund with the husband as
the trustee. back in 2003, the fund was down to $50,000.

Michael himself got $300,000 from the settlement. if it's money he was after, he would have walked in 2003

Michael began living with his current partner in 1995. they have two children.

Michael petitioned the court for the first time to have the tubes removed in 1998.

in 2000, the first judge ruled that the tubes could be removed.

 

[baltimoron]

I found this letter from the father, though it might be intresting to read:
http://www.terrisfight.org/downloads/bobeditorial.html

As with anything, read it with an unbiased mind... This is one side of the story.

 

[triton94949]

^^
... Now, from a Jewish point of view (and I might be wrong on this), she is dead. In Judaism, the soul goes to heaven when the body sleeps, and returns when one wakes up. In the morning, the first words out of a good Jew's mouth are the Prayer that thanks god for returning their soul and allowing them to live one more day. So therefore, her soul never really came back down. Ergo, she is no longer living. Just to see things from another point of view. I'll call my rabbi tomorrow and see what he says about the issue. …

From my amateur perspective on Judaism and on Christianity, there is a taboo on facilitating death. It is construed as murder. Suicide is construed as murder of the self. Homicide is construed as murder of another. Abortion is construed as murder of the unborn child. All are unpardonable transgressions against the laws of Heaven within these major religions.

One of the arguments stated in the parents' legal brief is their own view that their religious beliefs and their daughter's would be violated by the de facto facilitation of death that the removal of the feeding tube signifies to them.

The review courts however will normally focus on prior decisions in similar cases. If you read in full the published decision from the review by the most recent federal district court, that is exactly what he did. They will not take religion into consideration.

There are 2 more federal review courts available to the plaintiffs, the federal circuit court and the federal Supreme Court. In the meantime, the woman is slowly, naturally dying. The facilitation in removing the life support has already been done, by order of the state court upon petition to do so by the husband.

For an expert interpretation of the religious issues involved, probably a rabbi or a minister or priest or bishop would need to be consulted. But American law separates church and state. So the judges will not do that, or so they swore, in order to uphold the federal and state constitutions.

 

[gypsyjim]

As I understand the issue, and I'm not sure who to believe anymore, there has always been some question or suggestion of spousal abuse that resulted in the lady's current state. There are also many conflicting "expert" opinions on whether Mrs. Schiavo is trully in a vegative state, or if she could respond to newer treatments now available. I am extremely impressed, though by the level of love and sacrifice shown by her family through out this whole period, and hope we are all so loved. I wish some one had the wisdom of Soloman, and could render the perfect solution, but it's not me. Time to go back to diving.

 

[baltimoron]

From my amateur perspective on Judaism and on Christianity, there is a taboo on facilitating death. It is construed as murder. Suicide is construed as murder of the self. Homicide is construed as murder of another. Abortion is construed as murder of the unborn child. All are unpardonable transgressions against the laws of Heaven within these major religions.

Well, I can't speak for Christianity, but as with anything, there are many types of Judaism (I wouldn't call them sects, that's a bit too extreme... It's all one Judaism.) The above is the common philosophy in Orthodox Judaism. Conservative Judaism (don't think Conservative politics- that's a different connotation) believes that suicidalism is a sickness, and people succumb to it. That's why "suicide victims" are allowed to be buried in Conservative Jewish cemetaries. Also, the common Conservative opinion is that the baby is not alive until it takes its first breath (as God breathed the breath of life into Adam), and abortion is ok until then. I am sure no rabbi would support a women aborting at the ninth month, or the eighth month, but it is possible. Just to clarify.

The opinion of Orthodox Judaism supports the father, and I don't think the United Synagogue of Concervative Judaism (USCJ) has put out a comment.

 

[dlndavid]

But American law separates church and state.

Is that right? Or has it been said falsely so many times you now believe it?
But that is a whole other debate we shouldn't go into here, I'm just commenting on something you said, as if to be fact.

 

[dlndavid]

Also, the common Conservative opinion is that the baby is not alive until it takes its first breath (as God breathed the breath of life into Adam), and abortion is ok until then.

I totally disagree. Where did you get this information?

 

[triton94949]

Is that right? Or has it been said falsely so many times you now believe it?
But that is a whole other debate we shouldn't go into here, I'm just commenting on something you said, as if to be fact.

American law is the result of a bourgeois revolution conceived by the Freemasons in taverns in New England against the taxation policies of the King of England. It had little or nothing to do with religion. That is my opinion, if you are asking for it?