They are going to have to take over the hospital and take care of her themselves. The courts will not bail them out.

De facto "ex", eh? Who's to so deem and by what criteria? The implications could be interesting, indeed.

Someday, the story with Michael and Terri will be told. From the initial trip to the hospital to the very end.

We don't know the story now, but we will.

ghostcat:

Oh, c'mon. The man has a new family with two kids. Let's wish them well, but give us a break. "Who's to so deem?" indeed. Are you so distant from the reality of everyday life that you need courts to tell you what a spouse is and where their loyalties lie?

What is really astounding is how everyone one who thinks ex-husbands shouldn’t have the right to kill their disabled ex-wives, or even have control over their care, is pegged as a right-wing Christian.

It's easier for the big media folks to feel good about their personal beliefs and sympathies if they picture supporters of Schiavo's parents as being akin to the courtroom mod from "Inherit the Wind," while Michael Schiavo gets the Dick York role...

I hate for it to come to this but why can't Gov Bush just send in the Guard to save her? What would stop him? The courts? Maybe this is when we take a stand against the courts. If they are going to disregard the wishes of the other two branches of government why can't the executive just disregard the decision of the court. Just have Jeb say, since the courts refuse to recognise the decision of the legislature then I refuse to enforce the decision of of the court.

that's what i want to see, a group of soldiers take her to a base. even a group of american indians could take her to a reservation.

The executive is responsible for enforcing the law. So the legislature and the judiciary are at odds with one another on what is the law and how is it to be applied. So why must the executive enforce only the judiciary’s interpretation rather than the legislative’s.

Peter B. -

This is a nation of laws, not men playing god.

Ghostcat -

That's the whole point.
In this nation only one group could considerably be described as men playing god - the judges.

Now that's just plain silly.

Elite opinion wants Terri Schiavo dead. Anyone who disagrees with killing her is, therefore, by definition, not a member of the right-thinking herd of independent minds. They must be "christers" or "right-wing fanatics" or "the American Taliban" or something--and the elite has to make sure they are demonized and marginalized lest the "stupid peasants" think for themselves and the elite lose control of the message.

ghostcat:

Fugitive Slave Act

Peter B -

If you want to change the law, change the law. Oh, wait ...

ghostcat:

You'd make a great Canadian. We, too, are a nation of laws, so much so that we'll obey any nonsense they throw at us. I've taken great heart over the past few years that our friends and protecters to the south are a nation of laws tempered by principle and morality. Was I wrong?

Peter B -

You've discovered my secret: I am of Canuck descent. French-Canadian, with Indians-of-St.-Francis (Abenaki) for good measure! You should see me hunt, fish, grow corn and squash, make willow whistles, etc. But I don't chew Red Man.

Seriously. The laws were just changed, now the courts are doing their thing. You want more legal changes, go for it. It will be one gelid diurnal in hades before a majority of Americans agree to prolong life indefinitely at any cost. Just sayin'.

ghostcat:

That scenario you depict would be great, only if "doing their thing" didn't mean disregarding the written law in favor of their own opinion. If FLA legislature passed a law stating specifically that Terri's tube should be reinserted and that custody should be given to her parents the FLA supreme court would overturn it for some cocked up asinine reason and you know it.

This is a nation founded upon principle not laws. We have a history of leaders breaking immoral laws before they are changed.

ghostcat:

Aha! The Abenaki have always been known as amoral, secular relativists. :-)

Seriously as well, why do you say "at any cost"? This is a real person in real circumstances that are far removed from the "death with dignity" stories that make us all shudder. I'm getting the general impression that this sentient, 41-year old in the care of a long-gone husband, who is very much alive and who only needs feeding assistance, is going to die because we're all freaked by the idea of endless life support when we are drooling in our eighties. What is keeping the general population from seeing the rather glaring differences?

"sentient"

Peter
I've avoided these threads (and the evolution thingies), but is it a fact that she is sentient. I get confusing messages on that. Some say the videos we see on TV are misleading in that regard. It certainly would seem like a relevant issue.

H-man

If by sentient we mean able to respond to voices and stimuli, my understanding is that she is.

Peter -

OJ pressed me on the Schiavo case very hard, and rightly do, on another thread. I am, in a word, conflicted. I am very (very) concerned about the implications for individual choice (read: living wills and advance directives), states' rights (read, especially: Oregon's Death With Dignity Act), spousal rights (read: my own wife trusts me far more than she does her parents) and preserving the conservative coalition (read: the Libertarian contingent is not happy). Still, I'm for letting it play out in the courts, as we are now observing. After that, I personally would not press it any further in any court or legislature.

cjm:

I like that Indian reservation idea.

mm: to quote a man i admire "doing what i can with what i got". sanctuary is where you find it.

"So why must the executive enforce only the judiciary’s interpretation rather than the legislative’s."

That is what Andrew Jackson wanted to know.