It appears that Terri's feeding tube has been pulled out. The clock on her life is running as never before. Will someone please hurry up and find a way to save her from her ghoulish husband and his legal and medical henchmen?

Francis,

Yeah, when I read this post on Blogs for Terri, I had thoughts related to your plea/question:

JUST IMAGINE: YOUR CHILD IS BEING MURDERED IN A ROOM - YOU ARE MADE TO LEAVE - HOW WOULD YOU FEEL?????

I envisioned the family wandering around the hospital or outside expressing their frustration and sorrow and gathering one of those like-on-TV mobs, which would eventually invade the relevant wing and give the doctors incentive to replace the tube. Maybe the cultural right has to shed its instinctive distaste for '60s-era civil disobedience.

What the case shows is that Republicans no longer believe at all in "states' rights." They now have the same philosophy of federal intervention that Democrats have.

What this case really shows is that Liberals do not believe murder is immoral any more. If the 'State' refuses to at least require better evidence that Terri Schiavo is in fact brain-dead or at least in a non-responsive persistent vegitative state, they (the federal government)have the duty to 'intervene' at the request of somebody with a vested interest in this case. So you tell us Joel; if you were the husband in this case, would you continue for 15 years to try having the feeding tube removed after you had already invested your life in another relationship as that man has? Would you have refused to have a cat-scan performed to at least verify no brain activity the way that man has? If you already thought that she was for all intents and purposes 'dead', would you still perceive an obligation to remain committed to her for 15 years even though you had refused to spend any of the malpractice award money on her care as that man has?

I intended my comment to be limited to whether or not it is appropriate for the federal government to be involved in a state issue.

For the record, however, CAT scans were done on Terri Schiavo and they showed that the portion of the brain responsible for higher brain function had been mostly replaced by fluid.

I do have a serious problem with removing feeding tubes where there is no living will and particularly where doctors don't agree.

However, I have a living will that provides that if neurologists concur that I am in a persistent vegetative state that no feeding tubes are to be used. I consider my position consistent with the highest ideals of Christianity and ethics.

And I've heard that NO definitive tests have been performed much less a CAT scan. Just the same, it should be a matter of public record whether or not the presiding judge has ever had that evidence admitted. Don't you think that in a case with this much publicity, if somebody was not telling the truth about the lack of evidence in the court case, it would be out?

But I see you decided not to answer my questions. Questions a reasonable person should be considering before deciding whether or not to pull her feeding tube. What's the matter, are they too close for comfort? Here's another question for you, how come the Judge will not accept testimony from doctors that disagree with those the erstwhile husband uses? Or how about, how come the husband didn't remember until after the malpractice award that she supposedly didn't want to be kept alive in a PV state? (And in case you are wondering, I am purposely refusing to use his name since he doesn't deserve that respect in my opinion.)

"For the record, however, CAT scans were done on Terri Schiavo and they showed that the portion of the brain responsible for higher brain function had been mostly replaced by fluid."

Joel, a CT scan was done (several years ago), but she's never had a more sensitive MRI or PET scan done. See here.

"However, I have a living will that provides that if neurologists concur that I am in a persistent vegetative state that no feeding tubes are to be used. I consider my position consistent with the highest ideals of Christianity and ethics."

That doesn't tell us what to do in cases where there is no living will. In fact, as the article above demonstrates, neurologists do not concur that Schiavo is in a PVS. In fact, the primary claim to that fact comes from a 45 minute exam performed by a man who goes around the country declaring people to be in a PVS. Also, whether you consider your position consistent with the highest ideals of Christianity and ethics again, a) tells us nothing about the moral course of action in the Schiavo case, and b) doesn't tell us whether your position is in fact consistent with such ideals. Your considered opinion might be in error, after all.

" I consider my position consistent with the highest ideals of Christianity and ethics."

But at least you aren't morally grandstanding, like those craven Republicans.

How do I feel about the Terri Schiavo case? Let me give a comparison. I believe that capital punishment for juvenile offenders is immoral and amounts to murder. However, I do respect conservatives who claim that the Supreme Court overreached in overturning such death penalty.

My point is that Congress overreached. I'm sticking with that point.

"My point is that Congress overreached. I'm sticking with that point."

Can you expand upon that, Joel? What's the reasoning behind how Congress has overreached?

I believe that state courts should decide these matters. That's all the explanation I have or need.

"I believe that state courts should decide these matters. That's all the explanation I have or need."

Well, what if a state court handed down a ruling that it was OK for a severely retarded person to be euthanized. Would that be OK with you?

Mike S.,

Would you be in favor of the United Nations coming to the United States to overturn the court decision in Florida?

Joel,

That's a nonsequiter, but the answer is no. We can go back and forth asking each other questions ad infinitum, but if you're not going to answer mine, then it's sort of a pointless excercise, isn't it?

You said the states should have the final say in these matters. I was just trying to find out what you would do if a state did something that you thought was a gross violation of someone's rights. Apparently your response would be to ask irrelevant, unrelated, hypothetical questions, which would not be very helpful to the person in question.

Here's a couple of links for you to ponder before you convince yourself that a living will and/or starving yourself to death is the way to go.

It's not irrelevant at all. The United Nations shouldn't have jurisdiction. The federal government shouldn't have jurisdiction.

But the two bodies are not equivalent. The U.N. doesn't actually have any jurisdiction - it only operates via the agreement of it's members. If you think the U.S. federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over a life-and-death matter within the U.S., then you need to explain why. Obviously it has some jurisdiction - I'm wondering how you decide in which cases it does or does not have jurisdiction. I've seen some reasonable arguments to this effect, but the arguments in favor of federal jurisdiction are much more persuasive in my opinion.