Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Schiavo...the last word

I'm not insisting on proof, proof is for mathematicians i'm simply asking for a reason:

Given that the definition of brain death is not being pushed back so that more organs can be grabbed, why would you expect the definiition of personhood to be pushed back so that more organs can be grabbed?

What reason is there to believe that if we accept that it is minds, not cells that underly ethics (something bioethicists did a long time ago) that we inevitably end up with with nightmare scenarios, furthermore what alternative do you propose?

And yet they are already, and have been for quite some time, i do not see your slippery slope coming to fruition, over the past 20 odd years have the boundaries regarding brain death been progressively pushed back to allow more organ donations?

Finally as far as i can see your position appears somewhat self-refuting; we are already on your slippery slope, there are already organs at the flip of a switch, so either we are already inevitably doomed, and the case you argue becomes irrelevent, or it is possible to avoid sliding down our metaphorical slope and the basis for the slippery slope argument collapses.

You assume too much my friend.

JBryan: "You need to pull your nose out of those science books and be amongst real humans for a while."

Why do you assume that Moonbat or myself have not dealt with end-of-life and quality of life-issues-ourselves? What is your source of evidence for this?

Larry, when it comes to the coffee room, I am usually just a lurker, but your postings on this topic have been right on the money. Michael Schiavo and his creepy Kevorkianesque lawyer, and Pontius Greer should be ashamed of themselves.

Pete you should post more often!!

Seriously...stick around more, you sound like you have your head on straight.

Fighting words from Tom DeLay...


"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today," said Mr. DeLay, who was instrumental in pushing emergency legislation that gave the federal courts jurisdiction over Ms. Schiavo's care, only to see them decline to order her feeding tube restored. Saying that the courts "thumbed their nose at Congress and the president," Mr. DeLay, of Texas, suggested Congress was exploring responses and declined to rule out the possibility of Congressional impeachment of the judges involved.


...and a more reasonable coda from Jeb Bush....

In Florida, Gov. Jeb Bush appeared to seek a respite from the political battles over Ms. Schiavo.

"There's a lot of raw emotion still, and it may be appropriate to wait" before passing laws to address similar cases, Governor Bush said. "The answer to this is that we don't count on government to be the arbiter, or count on the courts to do that. This is the responsibility of the people we love, to talk to about this way in advance of it happening."


From a NY Times story.


jf

Again, Jeb Bush sounds rational, and Tom Delay sounds like a bomb-thrower.

A lot of conservative legislators have been waiting for years to slap down what they believe to be the increasing infringement of an activist judiciary on their turf...

DeLay and others apparently view this as the opportunity to do so, though I don't think they'll get very far.

I still don't see how the judiciary in the Schiavo case was "activist".

A case came before a Florida state court. It was under a Florida law. The court decided the case under the Florida law. Although the Governor and the legislature didn't like the outcome of the case, they declined to change the Florida law.

Every single appeals court that considered the case found that the trial court had decided the case properly.

I'm not saying that you think this was the product of an activist judiciary, Kent. But, for anyone who believes that, exactly how was the judiciary activist? A case was presented, this wasn't making new law, it was just applying existing law. So how were the judges activist?

It's a false issue.

DeLay is going to do everything in his power to divert attention away from his own ethics problems. Bombs away!

I agree that this wasn't a case of an activist judiciary, but the conservative legislators are using it to target the judiciary as a whole, which they believe to be too activist in many other cases. (Now in some cases, such as the Massachusetts court rulings on gay marriage, they may actually have a point, where the state court essentially told the state legislature: "We are ordering you to come up with a new law".) But I don't believe they're going to get very far using the Schiavo case as their banner.

A few points...

1. From what I have heard, at one point or another, 5 neurologists had examined Ms. Schiavo. Three diagnosed PVS, two did not.

2. There are many people, some who can actually function in society, with a scan that would appear as bad as Ms. Schiavo's.

3. The slippery slope argument has much merit in this case, the primary evidence being the Dutch Model.

It was a very short step (less than 10 years) between the first cases of euthanasia in adults, to the first cases of euthanasia in infants. Current rates for infants are climbing, but are hard to pin down, as the procedure is still technically illegal. Some estimates are 1 out of every 100 live births, although that is probably too high.

At any percentage, however, the Dutch have now made the active step of ending life at a very early age, based on diagnostic data. They are killing what they consider to be less than desirable humans.

In real terms, what is the distinction between that practice and suddenly redefining what constitutes a less than desirable human?

Jolly, your gripe is that you don't like the trial court's decision. But, it was examined under a magnifying glass a dozen or more times, by very conservative judges at several junctures. Like it or not, the judge did his job well - damn well, to stand up under that kind of scrutiny. Disatisfaction with the outcome of one case is hardly cause for sweating over judicial activism.

A couple of points...

1. There were more than 19 reviews of the Schiavo case. There was only 1 finding of fact.

Are you aware that the two court appointed guardians of Ms. Schiavo both had doubts about the motives of Mr. Schiavo, and that Judge Greer took their opinions into consideration, and then rejected them?

2. The Schiavo case is only the tip of the iceberg. Resentment over judicial activism has been simmering in the country for a lot longer than this case has been debated.

As has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions, the legislative branch holds the trump card over the judicial. For over 50 years, the judicial branch has enjoyed power unparalleled in our history.

It is time the pendulum swung back...

Technically, that is correct, but...many additional "facts" were presented to the reviewing courts as part of the argument to reopen the case, so the appeals did not just involve matters of law. Also, the third GAL (appointed pursuant to Jeb's law) made very detailed findings, which would have been reviewed and adopted by a court if the law itself had not been found unconstitutional.

Not true. I have read one of the reports so i can only speak to that one. The GAL noted there was an INHERENT conflict in any similar situation where the decision maker stood to inherit money and thus cautioned the judge to apply a clear and convincing standard, which the judge did. The report did not express doubts about Michael in particular.

jf

Not only that, but the Schiavos and their Randall Terry financed legal team had ample opportunity to find every possible appealable error in the lower court's trial, and there were none. That in itself speaks volumes about the quality of Judge Greer's trial of the case.

Ok, now we know that the case had no merit, simply because of who was writing the checks.

If I am not mistaken, there was a lot more money in the pot, than just Mr. Terry's. As I am also sure that Mr. Schiavo has footed all of his legal bills...

When dealing with attorneys, one must take care not to become too exasperated with them, since they see things as being fine, as long as they are legal, not necessarily if they are right.

Judge Greer's ruling may have been entirely legal.

It also may have been entirely wrong.

My point is, that weren't lacking for funds to put together their A-Team

"Judge Greer's ruling may have been entirely legal.

It also may have been entirely wrong."

When you find a system of justice that can guarantee the right outcome in every single case, you be sure to tell us about it, Jolly.

White Throne Judgement.

See ya there.

Jolly, I really don't want start rehashing the merits of the case, but I just have one burning question for you. Did you read the GAL report to Jeb Bush?