From The New York Times:
A federal appeals court panel in Atlanta refused early today to order that the feeding tube of the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo be reinserted, saying her parents had “failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims.”
“There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo,” the judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit said in a 2-to-1 ruling.
“We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children. However, we are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law.”
A lawyer for Ms. Schiavo’s parents was quoted by The Associated Press as saying the fight would now be taken to the Supreme Court, which has declined on several occasions to hear the case.
On Tuesday, a federal judge in Tampa also rejected the parents’ emergency request, which came after Congress passed an unusual law allowing federal courts to intervene in the case and overrule state court rulings.
In a dissenting vote in Atlanta today, Judge Charles R. Wilson said he could see no harm in reinserting Ms. Shiavo’s tube, saying her “imminent” death could end the case before it could be fully considered.
At a press conference just moments ago, Rev. Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, speaking on behalf of the Schindler family, issued a series of not-so-veiled threats against both the Republican majority in Washington and against Florida Governor Jeb Bush, noting that should Terri Schiavo expire before emergency efforts are enacted to save her, the Christian right will hold Republicans responsible for Ms. Schiavo’s death—a rhetorical position born of desperation, naturally, but one that nevertheless weakens the family’s cause by in effect surrendering the position of powerlessness, which remains their greatest ally in the court of public opinion.
Yesterday, I suggested that most of those politicians supporting the family’s cause are doing so out of conviction and not out of political expedience; if I’m correct, then the partisan threats being issued by Rev. Mahoney and Christian pro-life activist Randall Terry will only serve to alienate those allies who have already exposed themselves politically.
Related: “Schiavo Protesters Not All Christian Conservatives”
****
update: Howard Bashman analyzes the 11th Circuit’s decision.
Randall Terry and the Schiavos are making a big tactical error. You can see what’s driving the Sciavos; they’re not thinking tactics, they’re desperate. And it doesn’t help that they’re getting advice from an excitable terrier.
I’ve been following this case from a societal kind of standpoint, and figured it was only a matter of time before some wingnut pounced on this tasty little item and began dry-humping it like a dog in heat. It’s a shame that this woman’s death, that should have been a dignified, somber, somewhat tragic event, has now become some grotesque circus.
Shank: agreed. The fact is, without a living will or some other documentation, we don’t know Ms. Schiavo’s preference in this matter. For anyone outside the immediate family to claim a right to speak on her behalf is morally repugnant. (and as Jeff points out, ill-advised politically as well)
Shank: agreed also. Thats the bottom line.. I have nothing to add to it..
“failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims.â€Â
It’s sad that the burden of proof is now placed on those who believe in a right to life, and starvation is the default position.
Randall Terry is a ghoul who gives Christians a bad name
There’s nothing like a media circus surrounding a life and death tragedy to whip the weirdos into a frenzy.
“Hee hee hee! This is better than a hog killin’!”
T.C. in the Wild Bunch
And what may be the “fallout” if indeed Terri does pass? The far-right will vote Democrat?
Please.
All these people are beside themselves at this point–what wouldn’t you say or do to save her life when you are convinced Terri is being punished for being of diminished capacity? Rights aside, selfishness aside…she deserves to be allowed to live. There is absolutely nothing to be lost by allowing that.
Lyndsey: are you saying you know Terri’s will in the matter? Are you sure she isn’t in some type of pain and seeking relief in death? I’m not saying *I* know, I’m simply pointing out that *nobody* does.
No, BLT. None of us know that she doesn’t want to live, either. That’s the problem. I cannot get my mind around why, for some people, it seems so IMPORTANT that she die. It’s bizarre. I was mostly commenting on the “circus” Beta was mentioning. (I’m still figuring out this blog thing)
See, I did it again–I was not saying YOU were one of those people, either, BLT. Time for me to stop posting. Yikes.
::raises hand::
Actually, ah, for me…It’s important that she die. That is to say, I DO know what she needs. She needs to die. Now. How do I know? Becuase today was my day in the office pool. Damn. And I figured I’d be able to recover all the money lost in my NCAA bracket.
Lyndsey: I didn’t take offense to your reply! I actually and truly don’t care much about this issue. I don’t know Terri; don’t live near her; don’t have a dog in this race.
I was simply commenting on Randal Terry & Co. getting involved and being offended by that. It smacks of grandstanding and profiting from the suffering of others. This is a family decision, maybe a court decision. This shouldn’t be an opportunity to push your belief system on others as Randal is commonly found doing.
BLT, I know that I’ve gone on and on about this and all of you have been kind enough to let me and I appreciate it more than you know. Done now. Promise.
Randall Terry is a terrorist scum who should be put to death for the good of the nation.
That said, I think you’ve got a tough row to hoe, Jeff, in convincing the people that Tom DeLay, a former exterminator, is sincere in all his declaratons about Life and all that hooey.
It’s going to be easier to convince Michael Schiavo to put the tube back in than to convince America that DeLay is a Man of Principle.
But maybe what you’re doing is more fun.
Well, I did say most politicians, Richard. DeLay’s theatrics, on the other hand, I found a bit unsavory.
Howard Bashman’s analysis omitted any discussion of the dissenting opinion which rightly takes to task the majority of the 11th Circuit panel and the district court judge for deliberating ignoring the explicit mandate in Congress’ act that the Federal courts undertake a meaningful review of the Schiavo case.
Murder.
I’m sure, Jeff, you don’t blame this poor woman’s murder on desperate parents or desperate priests… or their tactics or lack of them. I certainly hope not anyway.
As for Tom DeLay… how do you make a midnight vote to save a woman’s life non-theatrical and non-dramatic?
I can find a lot of fault in DeLay, but he’s done nothing wrong here.
No, of course I don’t, Jim. I feel very much for her parents and sibblings. Here’s what I wrote over at Ace’s place yesterday:
As to DeLay, well, I thought a lot of other lawmakers managed it without the religious histrionics, which struck me as calculated and unsavory. But that’s just a gut reaction.
I don’t have a problem believing that both sides are sincere in wanting what they believe is in Terri’s interests. And in fact making this assumption, even if you don’t believe it, makes the case a lot more interesting as an exercise in public policy and intellectual challenge.
Very few people are able to look at it this way, however, so the dialog has mostly been in the sewer.
But what is the proper way to determine when to remove a comatose patient from life support (whether you believe she’s comatose, feeding tubes are life support, etc.)?
Okay, Jeff. Didn’t think you meant that. But I disagree with your assessment that the whole issue comes down to Michael’s motives. There are a number of moral issues besides that, but let’s take the philosophical case of Michael has been completely honest, completely forthright, and has only the noblest of intentions.
Given such a case, we still must wonder about the value of such testimony that Terri herself gave. If she said she did not want to live like that, what was that. Was it exactly in this kind of condition or another more drastic condition?
When did she say she did not want to live like that? The day before her attack? Two years before? Was she having a bad day? A great day? was it an offhand remark, given nonchalantly, or in deadly seriousness.
What was her relationship like with her husband? Was he the kind of man who demanded she be unselfish– in order to obtain his love? If so, did she give her real wishes that day—or was she giving the wishes of her husband himself, knowing he’d be displeased if she said she wanted to live?
The bottom line for me is there is no sworn testimony on Terri’s part. No living will. Without that, we simply do not know. How many people say they want to write a novel but never do. How many people say they would shoot themselves if they got fat– only in midlife to adjust. And dso on. Saying so once does not make an eternal oath. People who want to die get living wills.
People who do not get living will may also wish to die– but they did not wish to die enough to get a living will.
That means they, by default, chose life.
None of these issues has anything to do with impugning Michael’s character.
Ass though he is.
Two sides of the same coin, Jim. By “trusting Michael’s motivations”, I meant in terms of whether or not you believe his is acting on Terri’s wishes as she articulated them. The court held evidentiary on the matter hearings and intuited, from all the testimony (and lacking a living will, which wasn’t such a widespread doc in the days before serious desktop publishing) that she did.
Apropos trusting the courts & their ability to make informed decissions… a link I can never get enough of, and which people cannot remind themselves of often enough.
I don’t know, Jeff. I’m trying to understand your point, but all I can gather from your post is that a woman is dying and she might not be if there were more Kinkos around in 1990. That doesn’t sound like a reasonable ruling to me.
Maybe I’m missing something. I admit I haven’t read your other posts on this subject. I’ll go do that now…
That’s a rather unfair characterization of what seems to me a sensible set of custodial laws. And I don’t think you’d like my cartooning your arguments as “Blah blah blah Jim is a Christian.”
Read Krauthammer’s column today, and read the FFfT link in my comment above for a better understanding of what approximates my position.
I wasn’t trying to insult your position, Jeff, and I’m not bright enough to cartoon it. (Did I say something funny? If so, there’s a first time for everything.)
I don’t think my Christianity (such as it is)is the driving force behind my argument. (At least here.) I’m wondering when a person’s comment becomes a binding, legal contract, equal to those contracts written and certified by lawyers. As seems to be the case here. That’s a legal question, isn’t it?
Anyway, Jeff, I agree with you on, like, everything. If we disagree on this, and I’m not yet sure we do, it’ll fill our yearly quota.
“I’m wondering when a person’s comment becomes a binding, legal contract, equal to those contracts written and certified by lawyers. As seems to be the case here. That’s a legal question, isn’t it?”
Good questions. Quick answer would seem to be “just as soon as Judge Greer rules it does.”
But I have similar concerns regarding younger people (who often consider themselves nigh-on immortal) filling out a living will at, say, 20. They could very well be selling out their own lives for some youthful idea of vigor.
Maybe that should be “Judge Greer and 33 other judges” because that’s how many have heard this case by now.
Count me in as one of the “Schiavo protestors” who definately is not a Christian conservative.
Help me out here with a little hypothetical. Let us assume that Terry’s mind was not made up on the whole “death with dignity” issue. It is up to us to decide for her what is best. Either Terry feels pain or she does not. If Terry feels pain, depriving her of food and water is repugnant. If she does not feel pain there is no harm in keeping her alive. Is it not this simple ?
“shitting my pants with dignity”
“letting rigor mortis set in with dignity”
“depriving my wife of sunlight for 5 years with dignity”.
This whole dilemma would be a great braintease/drinking thread if there were not actual people involved.
It’s not that simple, because pain can be existential as well as physical.
Let’s say Terri has just enough awareness to know that she’s lying in a hospital bed unable to move, and that she sees shapes and colors kinda buzzing around sometimes, and hears noises but can’t make sense out of anything she perceives, and in fact finds stimulation kinda scary.
Maybe she has just enough consciousness to know she’s a burden to her family, and maybe she has just enough to feel aches in her butt when she doesn’t get moved often enough, and maybe she even feels hungry sometimes.
Maybe she’s generally not in a conscious state, but just drifts into it for a few moments a day, like a baby waking up for a little while but basically sleeping most of the time. Starving her may make her a little more agitated than usual for a couple of days, but after that she’ll just drift off.
If you were in state, what would you want your family to do with you?
The idea that death by dehydration and starvation will make her a “little more agitated than usual” seems to me like an understatement. I am not a doctor or a theologian, but every human has consciousness (at one point at least). The point where existential and physical sensations intersect is unknown to me. She could be experiencing the pain of a million lives while she is incapacitated for all I know. Certainly makes a good argument euthanasia. What would I want if this happened to me ? Cowards answer: I don’t know. When most of us are young the answer is something like “I would never want to suffer like that” Then a funny thing happens. You get old. Old people can fight for their lives like no one else. Do these people receive their will to live specifically as a result of their diminished capacity?
I’m off to write “terri” on a blackboard until my wrist cramps up.
turing word special: as in I must be
argument for euthanasia
Grammar, syntax and spelling police have all been notified.