G.O.P. Right Is Splintered on Schiavo Intervention

[MavKikiNYC]

CONSERVATIVES
G.O.P. Right Is Splintered on Schiavo Intervention
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Published: March 23, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 22 - The vote by Congress to allow the federal courts to take over the Terri Schiavo case has created distress among some conservatives who say that lawmakers violated a cornerstone of conservative philosophy by intervening in the ruling of a state court.

The emerging debate, carried out against a rush of court decisions and Congressional action, has highlighted a conflict of priorities among conservatives and signals tensions that Republicans are likely to face as Congressional leaders and President Bush push social issues over the next two years, party leaders say.

"This is a clash between the social conservatives and the process conservatives, and I would count myself a process conservative," said David Davenport of the Hoover Institute, a conservative research organization. "When a case like this has been heard by 19 judges in six courts and it's been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the process has worked - even if it hasn't given the result that the social conservatives want. For Congress to step in really is a violation of federalism."

Stephen Moore, a conservative advocate who is president of the Free Enterprise Fund, said: "I don't normally like to see the federal government intervening in a situation like this, which I think should be resolved ultimately by the family: I think states' rights should take precedence over federal intervention. A lot of conservatives are really struggling with this case."

Some more moderate Republicans are also uneasy. Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the sole Republican to oppose the Schiavo bill in a voice vote in the Senate, said: "This senator has learned from many years you've got to separate your own emotions from the duty to support the Constitution of this country. These are fundamental principles of federalism."

"It looks as if it's a wholly Republican exercise," Mr. Warner said, "but in the ranks of the Republican Party, there is not a unanimous view that Congress should be taking this step."

In interviews over the past two days, conservatives who expressed concern about the turn of events in Congress stopped short of condemning the vote in which overwhelming majorities supported the Schiavo bill, and they generally applauded the goal of trying to keep Ms. Schiavo alive. But they said they were concerned about what precedent had been set and said the vote went against Republicans who were libertarian, advocates of states' rights or supporters of individual rights.

"My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. "This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility."

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Mr. Shays said. "There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."

While the intensity of the dissent appears to be rising - Mr. Warner made a point Tuesday of calling attention to his little-noticed opposition in a nearly empty Senate chamber over the weekend - support for the measure among Republican and conservative leaders still appears strong. In interviews, some conservatives either dismissed the argument that the vote was a federal intrusion on states' rights or argued that their opposition to euthanasia as part of their support of the right-to-life movement trumped any aversion they might have to a dominant federal government.

"There's a larger issue in play," and Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, "and that is the whole issue of the definition of life. The issue of when is it a life is a broader issue than just a state defining that. I don't think we can have 50 different definitions of life."

Other Republicans who supported the Schiavo bill said they were wrestling conflicting beliefs. Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, a former governor and a strong advocate of states' rights, decided to support the bill after determining that his opposition to euthanasia outweighed his views on federalism, an aide said.

Senator Tom Coburn, a newly elected conservative Republican from Oklahoma, said: "This isn't a states' rights issue. What we're saying is they are going to review it. The states are not given the right to take away somebody's constitutional rights."

Representative Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican who is the House majority leader, bristled on Sunday when he was asked about how to square the bill with federalist precepts.

"I really think it is interesting that the media is defining what conservatism is," Mr. DeLay said. "The conservative doctrine here is the Constitution of the United States."

The Republican Party has long associated itself with limiting the power of the federal government over the states, though this is not the only time that party leaders have veered from that position. Most famously, in 2000, it persuaded the Supreme Court to overturn a Florida court ruling ordering a recount of the vote in the presidential election between Al Gore and George Bush.

But now the Schiavo case is illustrating splinters in the conservative movement that Mr. Bush managed to bridge in his last campaign, and the challenges Mr. Bush and Republicans face in trying to govern over the next two years, even though they control Congress as well as the White House.

"The libertarian streak in me says, you know, people should have the right to die," Mr. Moore, of the Free Enterprise Fund, said. "But as so many conservatives, I'm also very pro-life. Those two philosophies are conflicting with each other."

Bob Levy, a fellow with the Cato Institute, argued that Democrats and Republicans alike were being "incredibly hypocritical" in this case: Democrats by suddenly embracing states' rights and Republicans by asserting the power of the federal government.

"These questions are not the business of Congress," Mr. Levy said of the Schiavo dispute. "The Constitution does not give Congress the power to define life or death. The only role for the court is once the state legislature establishes what the rules are, the court can decide if the rules have been properly applied."

[MavKikiNYC]

March 23, 2005
Appeals Court Refuses to Order Schiavo's Feeding Reinstated
By ABBY GOODNOUGH

PINELLAS PARK, Fla., March 23 - 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."

The lead lawyer for Ms. Schiavo's parents, David Gibbs, said this morning that an appeal was being prepared to the Supreme Court. "We anticipate having it filed later today," he said.

In a statement from Tallahassee, Gov. Jeb Bush said: "I could not be more disappointed in the decision announced this morning. Terri has been without sustenance for almost five days now. Time is of the essence and I hope all who have the ability and duty to act in this case will do so with a sense of urgency."

He added: "Terri Schiavo - like all Americans - deserves our protection and respect. I will continue to call on the Florida Legislature to pass legislation to honor patients' decisions about end of life care, protect all vulnerable Floridians, and spare Terri's life."

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.

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.

Supporters said that Ms. Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, were devastated by Tuesday's ruling in Tampa and that their daughter's condition was deteriorating as the third court in a week considered her case.

While the fate of Ms. Schiavo was argued over in court papers, the case continued to roil Washington. Some conservatives criticized the determined efforts of Congress to use the federal courts to override state rulings, saying it violated a cornerstone of conservative philosophy. In addition, the case injected another explosive element into the Congressional debate over President Bush's choices for federal judgeships.

On Tuesday, outside the hospice where the severely brain-damaged Ms. Schiavo, 41, entered her fifth day without nutrition and hydration, a spokesman for her parents said that Ms. Schiavo was "now showing signs of starving to death." And in papers filed with the appeals court, Mr. Schindler said his daughter now appeared lethargic, with her eye sockets sunken and dark and her lips and face dry.

But a lawyer for Ms. Schiavo's husband, Michael, whom a state judge granted permission to disconnect her feeding tube and let her die, said she was not suffering.

"Terri is stable, peaceful, calm," said the lawyer, George Felos.

He also responded to accusations made by supporters of the Schindlers in recent days that Mr. Schiavo had been abusive to his wife in the past, saying they were "absolutely false and untrue."

In their appeal, the Schindlers said Judge D. Whittemore of Federal District Court in Tampa "committed reversible error" on Tuesday by not ensuring that Ms. Schiavo survived long enough for them to press their full case in his court. Congress meant for a federal judge to do so when it passed the new law, they said.

The Schindlers also argued that Judge Whittemore, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, erred by basing their case's "likelihood of success" on the outcome of a seven-year state court battle between them and Mr. Schiavo. The new law, they said, intended a fresh review of the case.

But in a response brief filed at 7 p.m., in keeping with the breakneck speed of proceedings in recent days, lawyers for Mr. Schiavo asserted that Judge Whittemore ruled properly and that the law passed by Congress was unconstitutional.

State courts accepted Mr. Schiavo's testimony that his wife told him several times she would not want life-prolonging measures. She suffered extensive brain damage after her heart stopped one night in 1990 due to an undiagnosed potassium deficiency. Mr. Schiavo originally sought help for his wife, but after eight years he asked a state judge for permission to remove her feeding tube and let her die. Her parents believe she is responsive and can improve with more therapy.

In a hearing before Judge Whittemore on Monday, the Schindlers argued that their daughter's constitutional rights to due process were violated because she did not have independent legal representation while the case was in state court. Their federal lawsuit, against Mr. Schiavo and Judge George W. Greer of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court, also claims that Ms. Schiavo's religious liberties were being infringed on because Pope John Paul II had deemed it unacceptable for Catholics to refuse food and water.

Despite being rebuffed thus far by the courts, lawmakers in Washington continued to explore ways to intervene.

The Senate health committee still plans to hold the hearing next Monday for which it invited Michael Schiavo and Terri Schiavo to testify in an effort to prevent removal of her feeding tube; a spokesman said the committee would be looking at broader issues involving non-ambulatory patients. In the House, the Government Reform Committee is still weighing whether to hold its planned hearing Friday in Florida on the Schiavo case, an aide said.

In Tallahassee, Governor Bush worked to gather support for a bill that could force at least a temporary restoration of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube. A measure passed last week by the House of Representatives would outlaw the withdrawal of food and water from people in a "persistent vegetative state," as doctors have diagnosed Ms. Schiavo, who had not left specific instructions refusing artificial sustenance.

The Senate refused to take up the bill last week because they feared it was unconstitutional. Nine Republican senators joined Democrats in voting against a similar measure, and on Tuesday a poster appeared in the Capitol reading, "Wanted: The Republican 9 to Save Terri's Life."

Speaking to reporters Tuesday night, Governor Bush said, "Tomorrow's the day. If it doesn't happen then, I don't believe there's any other legislative fix that is possible."

Terence Neilan contributed reporting from New York for this article, David D. Kirkpatrick from Washington, Christine Jordan Sexton from Tallahassee and Lynn Waddell from Dunedin, Fla.

[Mavdog]

Court Rejects Schiavo Parents' Request

1 minute ago

By ELIOTT C. McLAUGHLIN, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA - For the second time in less than a day, a federal appeals court Wednesday rejected a bid by Terri Schiavo's parents to have her feeding tube re-inserted. Florida lawmakers, meanwhile, debated another last-ditch effort to prolong her life.
In a 10-2 decision, the Atlanta-based U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) refused Bob and Mary Schindler's request for an emergency rehearing by the full court. A three-judge panel from the same court ruled against the family earlier Wednesday.

The court did not give an explanation for its decision. Matt Davidson, a clerk for the court, said it normally does not make statements when it votes on whether to consider a request.

However, the dissenting judges did make statements. Judge Charles R. Wilson, who also dissented in the three-judge panel's ruling, said he still stood by his earlier rationale that Schiavo's "imminent" death would end the case before it could be fully considered. "I fail to see any harm in reinserting the feeding tube," he wrote in the earlier ruling.

The parents have vowed to take their fight to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites), which has refused to get involved previously.

Supporters of the parents grew increasingly dismayed by the developments, and 10 protesters were arrested outside Schiavo's hospice for trying to bring her water. The severely brain-damaged woman's mother pleaded, again, that her daughter be kept alive.

"When I close my eyes at night, all I can see is Terri's face in front of me, dying, starving to death," Mary Schindler said outside the hospice. "Please, someone out there, stop this cruelty. Stop the insanity. Please let my daughter live."

Terri Schiavo has not received any nourishment since the tube was pulled Friday afternoon. By late Tuesday, Terri's eyes were sunken, her skin was parched and flaking and her lips and tongue were parched, said Barbara Weller, an attorney for the Schindlers.

Doctors have said she could survive one to two weeks without the feeding tube.

A lawyer for Michael Schiavo said he was "very pleased" by the initial appeals court ruling. But he worried that, as her parents ran out of options, either Gov. Jeb Bush or lawmakers might try again to take Terri Schiavo into their custody and circumvent years of court rulings that support the husband's position. Michael Schiavo argued that his wife has no hope of recovery and would want to die.

"They have no more power than you or I or a person walking down the street to say we have the right to take Terri Schiavo," attorney George Felos said in a state court hearing.

In Tallahassee, the state capital, Bush renewed his call for the Legislature to "spare Terri's life." The governor and the head of the state's social services agency also said they have filed a petition with a Pinellas County trial court seeking to take custody of Schiavo. It cites new allegations of neglect and challenges Schiavo's diagnosis as being in a persistent vegetative state based on the opinion of a neurologist working for the state. The doctor observed Schiavo at her bedside but did not conduct an examination of her.

Bush and Department of Children & Families Secretary Lucy Hadi suggested they have authority to intervene on Schiavo's behalf regardless of the outcome of the bill in the Florida Legislature or a myriad of court decisions.

Sen. Daniel Webster was scrambling to secure votes to pass a bill that would prohibit patients like Schiavo from being denied food and water if they didn't express their wishes in writing. A similar measure brought last week by Webster was defeated 21-16.

Senate Democratic Leader Les Miller said the new bill faced a similar fate to one that was pushed through in 2003 to reconnect the tube six days after it was removed.

"By the time the ink is dry on the governor's signature, it will be declared unconstitutional, just like it was before," Miller said. "So I don't see anything or any language that can persuade my vote."

Meanwhile, President Bush (news - web sites) suggested that he and Congress had done their best to help the parents prolong Schiavo's life, and the White House said it has no further legal options.

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly from a chemical imbalance believed to have been brought on by an eating disorder. Court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

Her parents and their doctors argue that she could get better and that she would never have wanted to be cut off from food and water.

In their appeal, the Schindlers asked that the full court order the hospice in Florida where Schiavo is staying to immediately transport her to a hospital "for any medical necessary to sustain her life and to re-establish her nutrition and hydration."

"The process of dying by dehydration and starvation is not the euphoric experience (Michael Schiavo) would lead us to believe," the appeal said.

But the effort before the appeals court failed.

"There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo," the ruling by Judges Ed Carnes and Frank M. Hull said. "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."

Federal courts were given jurisdiction to review Schiavo's case after Republicans in Congress pushed through unprecedented emergency legislation over the weekend aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life.

"I believe that in a case such as this, the legislative branch, the executive branch, ought to err on the side of life, which we have," the president said Wednesday. "Now we'll watch the courts make their decisions."

But some of the Schindlers' supporters continued to try to take matters into their own hands. About a dozen people tried to bring water to Schiavo, but police arrested most of them, as they have done to others who had similar motives in recent days.

Chris Keys, 45, of Burnet, Texas, held his 2-year-old daughter, Farrah, as he prepared to get arrested with three of his other children. The toddler was taken by her mother so police could handcuff Keys and the other children.

[MavKikiNYC]

Thieves in the temple?


March 25, 2005
THE MONEY
Conservatives Invoke Case in Fund-Raising Campaigns
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Videotape of Terri Schiavo blinking at her parents has inspired donations from people around the country to the foundation set up to help pay for the family's legal battle. But many other groups are soliciting donations in her name as well, some for a much broader agenda.

"Help Save Terri Schiavo's Life!" says the Web site of the Traditional Values Coalition, a Christian conservative group best known for its campaigns against gay rights. Next to a link to the Web site of her parents' foundation is a pitch to "become an active supporter of the Traditional Values Coalition by pledging a monthly gift."

"What this issue has done is it has galvanized people the way nothing could have done in an off-election year," said Rev. Lou Sheldon, the founder of the group, acknowledging that the case of Ms. Schiavo, a severely brain-damaged Florida woman, had moved many to open up their checkbooks. "That is what I see as the blessing that dear Terri's life is offering to the conservative Christian movement in America."

Mr. Sheldon, whose organization is based in Anaheim, Calif., said his group had sent e-mail messages and direct mailings telling supporters to call elected officials about the Schiavo case and usually asking for donations as well.

Voice for Terri, a coalition of anti-abortion and Christian conservative groups, is one of several organizations that has sent e-mail messages and set up Web sites pointedly criticizing Ms. Schiavo's husband, Michael, who has fought for years to have his wife's feeding tube removed over the objections of her parents. Troy Newman, the president of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue and a spokesman for Voice for Terri, said the coalition was spending the money it raised to cover the costs of rallies, of hotel rooms and of rental cars for organizers of protests in Florida, and of e-mail and letter-writing campaigns.

"This is not something you make money off of," Mr. Newman said. "It is a tragedy."

The Web site of Ms. Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, terrisfight.org, warns visitors that their foundation and Web site are the only legitimate places to contribute to her legal defense.

"Any other source that claims to be a fund-raising effort on her behalf should be brought to our attention here," the site says.

Paul Nelson, the president of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, which certifies the accounting of many of the best-known evangelical charities, said his organization frowned on groups raising money for causes peripheral to their work. And Mr. Nelson said any accusations or criticisms against Mr. Schiavo or others that were raised on Web sites and could not be proved would stretch his organization's requirement that all fund-raising be truthful.

None of these conservative groups would say how much they had raised so far by invoking the Schiavo case.

The connections can be complicated. Ms. Schiavo's parents invited Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, who is estranged from the group, to help organize rallies and protests for their cause. Mr. Terry, in turn, asked his friends and fellow conservative activists, William Greene and Philip Sheldon - the son of Lou Sheldon of Traditional Values - to help raise money through their organization RightMarch.com.

The two founded RightMarch.com two years ago "to counter the well-financed antics of radical left-wing groups like MoveOn.org," according to the group's Web site. Often quoting Ms. Schiavo's father's endorsement of Mr. Terry, their organization has taken out advertisements in USA Today and The Washington Times, and on radio stations around the country, directing supporters to its Web site. It has also sent millions of e-mail messages to its mailing list urging "Save Terri Schiavo from starvation!" and asking for donations.

Mr. Greene, who is also president of Strategic Internet Campaign Management (the acronym is pronounced "sic 'em," according to the group's Web site), said he did not expect to raise more than the group spent on advertising and computer services for the battle over Ms. Schiavo, but any surplus would be spent on conservative causes.

"General operating procedure for anyone, I guess," Mr. Greene said.

[Mavdog]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE
DeLay's Own Tragic Crossroads
Family of the lawmaker involved in the Schiavo case decided in '88 to let his comatose father die.
By Walter F. Roche Jr. and Sam Howe Verhovek
Times Staff Writers

March 27, 2005

CANYON LAKE, Texas — A family tragedy that unfolded in a Texas hospital during the fall of 1988 was a private ordeal — without judges, emergency sessions of Congress or the debate raging outside Terri Schiavo's Florida hospice.

The patient then was a 65-year-old drilling contractor, badly injured in a freak accident at his home. Among the family members keeping vigil at Brooke Army Medical Center was a grieving junior congressman — Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

More than 16 years ago, far from the political passions that have defined the Schiavo controversy, the DeLay family endured its own wrenching end-of-life crisis. The man in a coma, kept alive by intravenous lines and oxygen equipment, was DeLay's father, Charles Ray DeLay.

Then, freshly reelected to a third term in the House, the 41-year-old DeLay waited, all but helpless, for the verdict of doctors.

Today, as House Majority Leader, DeLay has teamed with his Senate counterpart, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), to champion political intervention in the Schiavo case. They pushed emergency legislation through Congress to shift the legal case from Florida state courts to the federal judiciary.

And DeLay is among the strongest advocates of keeping the woman, who doctors say has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, connected to her feeding tube. DeLay has denounced Schiavo's husband, as well as judges, for committing what he calls "an act of barbarism" in removing the tube.

In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die.

"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old widowed mother, recalled in an interview last week. "There was no way [Charles] wanted to live like that. Tom knew — we all knew — his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."

Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay.

When his father's kidneys failed, the DeLay family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. "Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated," said his medical report, citing "agreement with the family's wishes." His bedside chart carried the instruction: "Do not resuscitate."

On Dec. 14, 1988, the DeLay patriarch "expired with his family in attendance."

"The situation faced by the congressman's family was entirely different than Terri Schiavo's," said a spokesman for the majority leader, who declined requests for an interview.

"The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him," said Dan Allen, DeLay's press aide.

There were also these similarities: Both stricken patients were severely brain-damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared from being kept alive by artificial means. And neither of them had a living will.

This previously unpublished account of the majority leader's personal brush with life-ending decisions was assembled from court files, medical records and interviews with family members.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It was a pleasant late afternoon in the Hill Country of Texas on Nov. 17, 1988.

At Charles and Maxine DeLay's home, set on a limestone bluff of cedars and live oaks, it also was a moment of triumph. Charles and his brother, Jerry DeLay, two avid tinkerers, had just finished work on a new backyard tram — an elevator-like device that would carry family and friends down a 200-foot slope to the blue-green waters of Canyon Lake.

The two men called for their wives to hop aboard. Charles pushed the button and the maiden run began. Within seconds, a horrific screeching noise echoed across the still lake — "a sickening sound," said a neighbor. The tram was in trouble.

Maxine, seated up front in the four-passenger trolley, said her husband repeatedly tried to engage the emergency brake, but the rail car kept picking up speed. Halfway down the bank, it was free-wheeling, according to accident investigators.

Moments later, it jumped the track and slammed into a tree, scattering passengers and debris in all directions.

"It was awful, just awful," recalled Karl Braddick, now 86, the DeLays' neighbor at the time. "I came running over, and it was a terrible sight."

He called for emergency help. Rescue workers had trouble bringing the injured victims up the steep terrain. Jerry's wife, JoAnne, suffered broken bones and a shattered elbow. Charles, who had been thrown head-first into a tree, was in grave condition.

"He was all but gone," said Braddick, gesturing at the spot of the accident as he offered a visitor a ride down to the lake in his own tram. "He would have been better off if he'd died right there and then."

But Charles DeLay hung on. In the ambulance on his way to a hospital in New Braunfels 15 miles away, he tried to speak.

"He wasn't making any sense; it was mainly just cuss words," recalled Maxine with a faint, fond smile.

Four hours later, he was airlifted by helicopter to the Brooke Army Medical Center at Ft. Sam Houston. Admission records show he arrived with multiple injuries, including broken ribs and a brain hemorrhage.

Tom DeLay flew to his father's bedside, where, along with his two brothers and a sister, they joined their mother. In the weeks that followed, the congressman made repeated trips back from Washington, his family said. Maxine seldom left her husband's side.

"Mama stayed at the hospital with him all the time. Oh, it was terrible for everyone," said Alvina "Vi" Skogen, a former sister-in-law of the congressman. Neighbor Braddick visited the hospital and said it seemed very clear to everyone that there was little prospect of recovery.

"He had no consciousness that I could see," Braddick said. "He did a bit of moaning and groaning, I guess, but you could see there was no way he was coming back."

Maxine DeLay agreed that she was never aware of any consciousness on her husband's part during the long days of her bedside vigil — with one possible exception.

"Whenever Randy walked into the room, his heart, his pulse rate, would go up a little bit," she said of their son, Randall, the congressman's younger brother, who lives near Houston.

Doctors conducted a series of tests, including scans of his head, face, neck and abdomen. They checked for lung damage and performed a tracheostomy to assist his breathing. But they could not prevent steady deterioration.

Then, infections complicated the senior DeLay's fight for life. Finally, his organs began to fail. His family and physicians confronted the dreaded choice so many other Americans have faced: to make heroic efforts or to let the end come.

"Daddy did not want to be a vegetable," said Skogen, one of his daughters-in-law at the time. "There was no decision for the family to make. He made it for them."

The preliminary decision to withhold dialysis and other treatments fell to Maxine along with Randall and her daughter Tena — and "Tom went along." He raised no objection, said the congressman's mother.

Family members said they prayed.

Jerry DeLay "felt terribly about the accident" that injured his brother, said his wife, JoAnne. "He prayed that, if [Charles] couldn't have quality of life, that God would take him — and that is exactly what he did."

Charles Ray DeLay died at 3:17 a.m., according to his death certificate, 27 days after plummeting down the hillside.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The family then turned to lawyers.

In 1990, the DeLays filed suit against Midcap Bearing Corp. of San Antonio and Lovejoy Inc. of Illinois, the distributor and maker of a coupling that the family said had failed and caused the tram to hurtle out of control.

The family's wrongful death lawsuit accused the companies of negligence and sought actual and punitive damages. Lawyers for the companies denied the allegations and countersued the surviving designer of the tram system, Jerry DeLay.

The case thrust Rep. DeLay into unfamiliar territory — the front page of a civil complaint as a plaintiff. He is an outspoken defender of business against what he calls the crippling effects of "predatory, self-serving litigation."

The DeLay family litigation sought unspecified compensation for, among other things, the dead father's "physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and trauma," and the mother's grief, sorrow and loss of companionship.

Their lawsuit also alleged violations of the Texas product liability law.

The DeLay case moved slowly through the Texas judicial system, accumulating more than 500 pages of motions, affidavits and disclosures over nearly three years. Among the affidavits was one filed by the congressman, but family members said he had little direct involvement in the lawsuit, leaving that to his brother Randall, an attorney.

Rep. DeLay, who since has taken a leading role promoting tort reform, wants to rein in trial lawyers to protect American businesses from what he calls "frivolous, parasitic lawsuits" that raise insurance premiums and "kill jobs."

Last September, he expressed less than warm sentiment for attorneys when he took the floor of the House to condemn trial lawyers who, he said, "get fat off the pain" of plaintiffs and off "the hard work" of defendants.

Aides for DeLay defended his role as a plaintiff in the family lawsuit, saying he did not follow the legal case and was not aware of its final outcome.

The case was resolved in 1993 with payment of an undisclosed sum, said to be about $250,000, according to sources familiar with the out-of-court settlement. DeLay signed over his share of any proceeds to his mother, said his aides.

Three years later, DeLay cosponsored a bill specifically designed to override state laws on product liability such as the one cited in his family's lawsuit. The legislation provided sweeping exemptions for product sellers.

The 1996 bill was vetoed by President Clinton, who said he objected to the DeLay-backed measure because it "tilts against American families and would deprive them of the ability to recover fully when they are injured by a defective product."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


After her husband's death, Maxine DeLay scrapped the mangled tram at the bottom of the hill and sold the family's lake house.

Today, she lives alone in a Houston senior citizen residence. Like much of the country, she is following news developments in the Schiavo case and her son's prominent role.

She acknowledged questions comparing her family's decision in 1988 to the Schiavo conflict with a slight smile. "It's certainly interesting, isn't it?"

She had a new hairdo for Easter and puffed on a cigarette outside her assisted-living residence as she sat back comparing the cases.

Like her son, she believed there might be hope for Terri Schiavo's recovery. That's what made her family's experience different, she said. Charles had no hope.

"There was no chance he was ever coming back," she said.

[FishForLunch]

I think it is time to give the politicians who want it both ways the boot. Using the Right only for voting and then discarding them after the elections. I guess the repulcians are following the democrat way like how they use blacks for votes and then discard them after elections.

[MavKikiNYC]

March 30, 2005
Appeals Court Again Refuses to Intervene in Schiavo Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 3:44 p.m. ET

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (AP) -- With time running out for Terri Schiavo, a federal appeals court Wednesday rejected her parents' latest attempt to get the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube reconnected.

The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to consider an emergency bid by Bob and Mary Schindler for a new hearing in their case, raising a flicker of hope for the parents after a series of setbacks in the case. But the court rejected the bid 15 hours later -- the fourth time since last week the court ruled against the Schindlers.

``Any further action by our court or the district court would be improper,'' Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr. wrote. ``While the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate discharge of duty.''

Birch went on to scold President Bush and Congress for their attempts to intervene in the judicial process, by saying: ``In resolving the Schiavo controversy, it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution.''

To be granted, the parents' request would have needed the support of seven of the court's 12 judges. The court did not disclose the vote breakdown.

The Schindlers visited their daughter Wednesday morning at her hospice and urged their supporters to keep trying. ``I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw,'' Bob Schindler said. ``So she's still fighting, and we'll keep fighting.''

``We know that some of her organs are still functioning. ... It's not too late,'' he said.

In requesting a new hearing, the Schindlers argued that a federal judge in Tampa should have considered the entire state court record and not whether previous Florida court rulings met legal standards under state law. The Schindlers' motion also said the federal appellate court in Atlanta didn't consider whether there was enough ``clear and convincing'' evidence that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to die in her current condition.

[dude1394]

Birch went on to scold President Bush and Congress for their attempts to intervene in the judicial process, by saying: ``In resolving the Schiavo controversy, it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution.''

--- Why is this a bad thing when a convicted killer gets federal review? Why is it the purview of the federal couts to decide NOT to explicitly do a re-review of the facts of this case when our elected representatives decide that it is something that needs doing?

I feel much better now knowing that it is now constitutional for the state to put my daugther/son to death if their husband/wife who has moved in with another person for 10 years or so and had fun babies decides she doesn't want to live anymore over my objections and willingness to take care of them. And that I have no recourse in a higher court to address the matter. Much better.

[Mavdog]

A trial is held only once. After that it is an appeal, based on new considerations. new evidence, faults in the first trial, etc. I believe that a death sentence, by the finality of the punishment, is reviewed.

There have been several cases heard on this subject, and the judgements have been consistent in their conclusions. her case has been reviewed many times.

frankly, the personal life of the husband has nothing to do with the court's decisions. why you or anyone else interject that in the discussion of if she is not in a vegatative state, and if she would want to be kept alive in that situation, is ridiculous. I'm sure that if he divorced her these same people would be calling him names for that, too.

It wasn't his decision on if to continue with her feeding, it was a decision by the court that she is in a persistant vegetative state, and also (with his and others testimony) that she would want the feeding to stop.

[dude1394]

How can you so completely discount the personal life of the husband in this instance when the sole reason he has any say in this is because of his marriage to teri (and legal rights thereof) yet for all intents and purposes his marriage ended many years ago and he is basically in a common-law marriage, with children, with another woman. It seems that in THIS case his personal life has nothing to do with the court decisions and that to me is the court deciding they don't want to take the whole of the matter in hand, like they do for almost every other decision they make.

As you know the review of her case has been on appeal and whether the case was adjudicated properly. There has been NO instance where the facts of the case were re-reviewed which is what the congress had asked for, the courts decided on their own to ignore that request.

And it IS his decisions about continuing with her feeding, he is the only reason she is being starved to death, because he is pushing for the state to kill her, all the while it seems refusing to let other tests to be run to prove without a shadow of a doubt.

Don't you have the least bit of issue with someone being put to death against the wishes of family members who have stepped up to provide her care after a CAT test 9 years ago or so was taken? Wouldn't you maybe want to re-vamp some of these tests in light of either new technology or just a double-check?

I would, judges don't think so I guess. Only in this case have I seen a court so unyielding when making an irreversible decision.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
How can you so completely discount the personal life of the husband in this instance when the sole reason he has any say in this is because of his marriage to teri (and legal rights thereof) yet for all intents and purposes his marriage ended many years ago and he is basically in a common-law marriage, with children, with another woman. It seems that in THIS case his personal life has nothing to do with the court decisions and that to me is the court deciding they don't want to take the whole of the matter in hand, like they do for almost every other decision they make.

The questions and answers have NOTHING to do with the husband's conduct. First, is Terri Schiavo in a persistent vegatative state, and second if the answer to that question is yes, does she have a testimony that directs her wishes as to how she should be treated if such a case occured. With the testiment absent, the court (as her Guardian) determines what her wishes about being kept alive would be.

As you know the review of her case has been on appeal and whether the case was adjudicated properly. There has been NO instance where the facts of the case were re-reviewed which is what the congress had asked for, the courts decided on their own to ignore that request.

You should do more research in the case, as there has been a review in Feb 2000; October 2002: December 2003 (Ad Litem report).

The Courts have followed the legal process and have acted to protect the integrity of the process, Congress overstepped the framework of our "Balance of Powers" by attempting to interject themselves into the proceedings.

And it IS his decisions about continuing with her feeding, he is the only reason she is being starved to death, because he is pushing for the state to kill her, all the while it seems refusing to let other tests to be run to prove without a shadow of a doubt.

The Court has ruled that it was HER decision. It has little to do with his wishes.

Again, you need to review the number of tests done. It is substantial. Some as recently as 2003.

Don't you have the least bit of issue with someone being put to death against the wishes of family members who have stepped up to provide her care after a CAT test 9 years ago or so was taken? Wouldn't you maybe want to re-vamp some of these tests in light of either new technology or just a double-check?

I would, judges don't think so I guess. Only in this case have I seen a court so unyielding when making an irreversible decision.

It isn't what her family members want, the question is what would She want, which is what the court's decision was made upon.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - You may be technically and legally correct in some of the arguments you're making, but you're being incredibly anal and asinine about this whole subject. There is absolutely no question that if Michael Schiavo didn't want Terry Schiavo dead, she would still be alive right now. For you to say it's not about what he wants may be legally correct, but it's practically and realistically ridiculous and insulting to the intelligence of everyone in this forum.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Mavdog - You may be technically and legally correct in some of the arguments you're making, but you're being incredibly anal and asinine about this whole subject. There is absolutely no question that if Michael Schiavo didn't want Terry Schiavo dead, she would still be alive right now. For you to say it's not about what he wants may be legally correct, but it's practically and realistically ridiculous and insulting to the intelligence of everyone in this forum.

It is incredible to read your assertion that "Michael Schiavo...want[s] Terry Schiavo dead". That is in itself an accusation which stretches the situation to absurdity.

It is indeed partially a question of what he wants, he wants HER wishes and desires fulfilled.

Does Michael Schiavo want her dead? I am going out on a limb to say that he dearly wants her alive, for his devotion to the end of this circus clearly shows such devotion; as was said by a poster in the other thread Terri Schiavo died 15 years ago when her body didn't supply oxygen to her brain for several minutes. talk about "insulting to the intelligence" of those on the forum....

[kg_veteran]

It's not absurd at all. If he had wanted her to live, she would be alive right now. He is the one who has fought for a decade in the courts to try and take away her feeding tube and hydration.

If he had not gone to court to get her feeding tube removed, it wouldn't have happened. Period.

You are going out on a limb to say that he wants her alive, when his actions for the past decade plus indicate to the contrary.

By the way, I'm glad you've revealed your true feelings. Terry really died 15 years ago, right? So in your way of thinking, we should remove the feeding tubes from all people in a similar situation, right? They're not really alive, right?

This is exactly the slippery slope I have talked about here before. When you and others like you start deciding that somebody is "better off dead" or "dead already", we're headed down a dangerous path.

[Mavdog]

I agree that without his seeking the court's involvement Terri Schiavo would still be breathing, hooked up to a feeding tube, and still in a vegatative state.

However, to take his goal of seeing her taken off the feeding tube as "wanting her dead" is a mischaracterazation. That is the point to which you directed your post, and that assertion is not only conjecture but not supported by his statements.

Are you making the claim that for the past 15 years Terri Schiavo was a thinking, responsive person? There have been multiple physicians who disagree with you if you do.

I feel strongly that if a person wishes to not be kept alive should their condidtion become one of a vegatative person that person should be allowed to pass on. I know that if I were in such a condition I would NOT wish to be kept alive artificially. The courts have determined that this was Terri Schiavo's wish.

I feel as strongly that if a person wishes that they were in such a condidtion and wished to be kept alive that their wishes should be respected as well.

There is no "slippery slope", and I NEVER have said that "she'd be better off dead". That thought is very callous. very cold.

[kg_veteran]

You said she died 15 years ago. You're the one who decided she was already dead.

As for his motives in getting her feeding tube removed, we all have to guess, court decision or not. The judge had to guess, too. What we don't have to guess about, however, is the fact that he wanted to remove the tube. He wanted her to die. You claim that his motives were altruistic and respectful of her wishes. But you don't know that. You're just guessing. All we KNOW is that he wanted her to die.

By the way, what do you expect him to say? I want her dead so I can move on with my life with the woman I've been living with and had children with over the past decade? What he said means nothing.

There are physicians on both sides of this argument, as you are well aware. What we know, however, is that she was alive. Except according to you, I suppose. You say she died 15 years ago.

Keep on sliding down that slippery slope, Mavdog.

[Drbio]

I volunteer to assist mavdookie in reaching the vegetative state. Reading his stream of posts over the past year or so has induced several in this forum towards that point already.

[Mavdog]

We can both agree that thru the effort of others her physical body was alive. Do you assert that she was mentally alive?

I have read through the physician reports by those who examined her and none say that she retained any cognitive ability. There were physicians who made statements that through some yet undiscovered therapy they may see her brain function again, but I have found none who physically examined her and pronounced her cognitive functions intact.

What do "I expect him to say"? I don't have the same negative glasses thru which you view him, so I don't really have any expectations. I do believe that if he didn't love her he would have divorced her a decade ago and moved on. He hasn't craved the publicity like her parents, he has not sought the limelight, he has acted like a devoted spouse. He has not made sorid accusations about her parents like they have done with him (such as saying he must have abused her), to the contrary he has kept his words short.

From your "slippery slope" argument you must feel that 1) people do not have the right to decide their own death, and 2) the court did not follow the law in their decisions. That in itself is a slippery slope that I don't wish to see. We do have the right to make the decision of being maintained artifically and we should respect the rule of law. I'm surprised that you disagree on both of these.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
I volunteer to assist mavdookie in reaching the vegetative state. Reading his stream of posts over the past year or so has induced several in this forum towards that point already.

oh no, your posts lacked any semblence of thought from way before I came on board.

[dude1394]

Procedure used by the state of florida to put to death serial murderer Ted Bundy who murdered 16 people.

When this method is used, the condemned person is usually bound to a gurney and a member of the execution team positions several heart monitors on this skin. Two needles (one is a back-up) are then inserted into usable veins, usually in the inmates arms. Long tubes connect the needle through a hole in a cement block wall to several intravenous drips. The first is a harmless saline solution that is started immediately. Then, at the warden's signal, a curtain is raised exposing the inmate to the witnesses in an adjoining room. Then, the inmate is injected with sodium thiopental - an anesthetic, which puts the inmate to sleep. Next flows pavulon or pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes the entire muscle system and stops the inmate's breathing. Finally, the flow of potassium chloride stops the heart. Death results from anesthetic overdose and respiratory and cardiac arrest while the condemned person is unconscious.

Procedure used by the state of florida to put to death Terri Sciavo.

Starvation

Never thought I'd be on the side of Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader and the unaninimous Democratic Senate Contingent but I'm glad that I am.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
From your "slippery slope" argument you must feel that 1) people do not have the right to decide their own death, and 2) the court did not follow the law in their decisions. That in itself is a slippery slope that I don't wish to see. We do have the right to make the decision of being maintained artifically and we should respect the rule of law. I'm surprised that you disagree on both of these.

Wrong. I feel that one person shouldn't decide when it's time for another one to die.

If you had been paying attention to my comments on this subject, you'd know that I believe that the law as it stands in Florida (and Texas) should be changed. I said right up front that the judge acted within the rule of law. That doesn't mean that I think what he did, or more importantly, what the law allowed he and Michael Schiavo to do, is right.

When you move past written documents declaring a person's wishes or desires, you invariably move into a situation where other people are claiming to know what that person wanted or would have wanted. And that invariably leads to deciding whether the person should die or not. I don't think that's a decision that people should be empowered to make.

So yes, I believe that you should have the right to announce your desire, via a living will (advanced directive), that you don't want to be kept alive if you are in a persistent vegetative state. I don't believe someone else should have the right to make that decision for you (unless you give them that right, in writing).

[MavKikiNYC]

Wrong. I feel that one person shouldn't decide when it's time for another one to die.

KG, isn't this essentially what happens when a person leaves end-of-life healthcare decisions to the judgment of a medical proxy?

As we discussed the other day, a living will/advance directive in and of itself does not guarantee that a person's end-of-life wishes will be followed, and the stronger form involves naming a medical proxy to make precisely that type of decision.

Would the decision be less controversial if the Schindlers had been in agreement with Michael Schiavo that Terry Schiavo's life should not be prolonged by artificial means? Even if the certainty of her wishes were no more (or less) certain?

Would a situation where a person was keeping a spouse alive against his/her wishes be as controversial? I have a very uneasy sense that much of the controversy would dissipate in the latter instance.

A Living Will Won't Guarantee
Your Wishes Will Be Followed
March 23, 2005

After Josef Weissberg suffered a heart attack in 2001, following a battle with cancer, his son Ted was comforted that his father had prepared a living will.

But as Ted soon discovered, a living will can't prevent a loved one from trying to pursue passionate beliefs. When it became clear Josef would die unless doctors intervened, Ted's uncle, Norbert Weissberg, began appealing to doctors to save his brother. "He just couldn't let his brother go," Ted says.

At the time, "I was unaware that anyone other than my brother's wife had consented" to the advance directive, Norbert says. "It wasn't clear to me that the children had given their consent."

In the end, Josef's "do not resuscitate" directive was followed, but "it was a very difficult moment and at the time there was a good deal of anger all away around," says Ted of Brooklyn, N.Y. Since then, the family members have resolved their differences.

While living wills detail the type of medical care individuals want in the event they become incapacitated or are near death, it doesn't guarantee that a patient's wishes will be followed. It's not uncommon for family members -- or doctors -- to disagree on the appropriate course of action, which may go against the guidelines in an advance directive.

Among the factors that are taken into consideration when deciding on whether to abide by a patient's stated wishes are the prognosis and quality of life, as well as the wishes of family or friends, according to a study from the Loma Linda University Medical Center, in Loma Linda, Calif. "Advance directives are used in decision making, but in practice probably not as absolutely as the document might imply," says Steve Hardin, an assistant professor of medicine who oversaw the study.

As a result, families can find themselves battling health-care providers, or each other, amid already devastating emotional anguish. But there are ways to ensure a patient's wishes are followed without resorting to legal battles. This week's Fiscally Fit looks at what family members can do when doctors, or other relatives, aren't abiding by or disagree about a patient's last wishes.

Going Beyond the Documents

Most living wills describe typical scenarios involving catastrophic care, such as whether or not to resuscitate or use life-sustaining technologies. "But because you can't predict what type of illness or injury you'll face, advance directives can be open to interpretation," says Patti Spencer, an attorney who specializes in estate-planning law in Lancaster, Pa.

Unfortunately, interpretation can lead to family conflicts, and a situation like the Terri Schiavo case can wind its way through the legal system.

"Sometimes, if it's a large family and there are long-standing differences, the loved one's care becomes the catalyst for which to bring those differences to a head," says Barbara Filner, director of the training institute at the National Conflict Resolution Center in San Diego. Instead of working together to resolve the conflict "families end up dealing with each other as enemies," she says.

Since advance directives generally don't cover all contingencies, it's critical to name a health-care agent -- a spouse or other family member or friend you designate by health-care proxy or durable power-of-attorney to make decisions on your behalf if you are incapacitated. The agent should first determine whether health-care providers are aware of the living will, and be sure that its directions are explained to all staffers providing care.

The rules for advance directives vary by state. Become incapacitated in Colorado, for example, without designating a health-care agent, and by law your doctor is required to round up a committee of "interested family members" to determine who shall make decisions for you, says Albin Renauer, a legal editor at Nolo.com, a Berkeley, Calif., publisher of books and software for nonlawyers. Read more about state rules on advance directives and living wills11.

An ombudsman program run by Kaiser Permanente, a health maintenance organization that operates in California and other states, focuses on just this type of conflict in its training courses, says Carole Houk, an attorney and consultant in Alexandria, Va., who oversees the ombudsman-training program for Kaiser in hospitals around the U.S.

"We deal with the family conflict in a neutral ombuds setting, where family members and physicians meet and explain everyone's concerns," Ms. Houk says. Many hospitals and nursing homes have ethics committees or ombudsmen on staff to mediate problems. If your hospital doesn't have an ombudsman, families can turn to clergy, a neutral third-party friend, a local family counselor or mediator to help find consensus.

Mr. Renauer of Nolo.com says the best way to avoid this kind of conflict is for the drafter of the living will to recognize the potential for conflict within your family, and to make your wishes known to the rest of your family.

"If you have a family member who is deeply religious and who may have problems with your desire to forgo life-sustaining care, make sure you make your wishes clear to the person now," he says. "It will save the person you name as your agent a lot of headaches during what will obviously be a very emotional situation."

Make Your Loved One's Case

If a patient's wishes aren't being followed, the health-care agent should ask the doctor why he or she is taking that course of action. If you still want to, request that the advance directive be followed, says Alan Meisel, professor of law and psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

If the doctor or hospital refuses, obtain copies of the living will and meet with the hospital or nursing home administrator, he says. "It helps to drop 'by law' and 'legally' into the conversation, so the administrator is aware that you know the patient has rights," he says.

But be aware that some hospitals base decisions about advance directives on religious beliefs. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops state in its Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health-Care Services12 that its institutions "will not honor an advance directive that is contrary to Catholic teaching," such as an act that would result in death in order to alleviate the patient's suffering or the withholding of food and water.

If the health-care provider continues to balk at the patient's wishes, contact your state oversight board and ask that officials intervene on behalf of the patient. Once the state is contacted, it's rare that loved ones will be forced to involve the courts when directives aren't being followed, says Mr. Renauer. "In most states, by law, the hospital is required to move a patient to another facility if the doctor or hospital refuses to provide the care as directed by a living will," he says.

A Change of Heart

Sometimes, it's the patients themselves who decide that their failing health warrants a change in their own advance directives. The desire to have "all heroic measures" taken to save your life may fade after suffering through a protracted, painful illness that drains your loved ones' finances. That can result in a situation where it's just as important for a patient struggling with an illness to make clear to the family members, as well as the health-care providers, about a change of heart.

A patient who wants to revoke an advance directive can do so verbally, conveying the decision to the physicians, says Prof. Meisel. However, convincing family members that is your true desire, and the best course of action, can be far more difficult. "In these cases, it's always best to have the original directive destroyed and have the facility draft a document that states you want your living will revoked," he says.

Often, in situations like these, where a change in treatment could result in the end happening in hours or days, "people generally are so emotionally distraught that it's tough for family members to make decisions with a clear head," he says. By putting your desire to revoke a living will in writing, you can help to ease your family's suffering by providing proof the decision was your own.

[dude1394]

Good grief she was 26 or something when she had her heart attack. thinking that a person this young is going to do anything legal is nutty. Also I can imagine someone this young saying casually...

"I wouldn't want to live like that" when talking about someone on life support. If it's not in writing NO ONE has the right to kill her, and not giving her water is killing her.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

KG, isn't this essentially what happens when a person leaves end-of-life healthcare decisions to the judgment of a medical proxy?

Right. That's why I qualified my post at the end by saying, "I don't believe someone else should have the right to make that decision for you (unless you give them that right, in writing)."

Would the decision be less controversial if the Schindlers had been in agreement with Michael Schiavo that Terry Schiavo's life should not be prolonged by artificial means? Even if the certainty of her wishes were no more (or less) certain?

Sure, it would be less controversial and probably wouldn't be a news story, but that wouldn't change my position.

Would a situation where a person was keeping a spouse alive against his/her wishes be as controversial? I have a very uneasy sense that much of the controversy would dissipate in the latter instance.

If the person has a living will, Texas law requires the physician and/or the family members to make decisions in accordance with the living will.

[MavKikiNYC]

Smells Like Beltway
The real reason Tom DeLay is in political trouble.

Monday, March 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

By now you have surely read about House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ethics troubles. Probably, too, you aren't entirely clear as to what those troubles are--something to do with questionable junkets, Indian casino money, funny business on the House Ethics Committee, stuff down in Texas. In Beltway-speak, what this means is that Mr. DeLay has an "odor": nothing too incriminating, nothing actually criminal, just an unsavory whiff that could have GOP loyalists reaching for the political Glade if it gets any worse.

The Beltway wisdom is right. Mr. DeLay does have odor issues. Increasingly, he smells just like the Beltway itself.

Here is the abbreviated rap sheet against Mr. DeLay. First, we have the imbroglio with the House Ethics Committee, which last year rebuked him on three occasions. Among his sins: He offered to endorse outgoing Representative Nick Smith's son in a GOP primary if Mr. Smith would vote "yes" on the Medicare prescription-drug bill. (Mr. Smith declined the offer; his son lost the primary.) Mr. DeLay has since changed Committee rules so that it can no longer launch investigations on a party-line basis, and by packing the Committee with loyalists.

Next, there is the Texas business. Ronnie Earle, the district attorney for Travis County (which contains Austin), last year indicted three DeLay associates involved in his Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee for money laundering and illegal campaign contributions. Mr. Earle also will not rule out a possible indictment of Mr. DeLay himself.

Mr. Earle, a partisan Democrat, has a record of making suspect accusations: In 1993, he indicted newly elected Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on evidence so weak the case was never brought to trial. The indictments of Mr. DeLay's associates came just six weeks before November's elections; Mr. Earle's primary aim, it seemed, was to derail Mr. DeLay's ultimately successful efforts to achieve the first Republican majority in the Texas delegation to the U.S. House since Reconstruction. Still, the "odor" stuck; last year Mr. DeLay had to fend off a stiff challenge from a complete unknown to keep what otherwise would have been his safe seat.

Finally, there are the junkets, three in particular. In December 1997, Mr. DeLay visited the Northern Marianas Islands in the company of lobbyist pal Jack Abramoff, now under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee, who just happened to be representing the garment industry there. Mr. DeLay later led a legislative effort to extend the Islands' exemption from U.S. immigration and labor laws.

In May 2000, Messrs. DeLay and Abramoff took a $70,000 trip to the U.K. (including a golf outing to the St. Andrews course in Scotland) in the company of two House colleagues and some staff and spouses. Depending on which account you believe, Mr. DeLay's expenses were picked up either by an outfit called the National Center for Public Policy Research, on whose board Mr. Abramoff then sat, or by Mr. Abramoff directly, who later charged the trip to his clients, the gambling Mississippi Choctaw nation. Under House rules, members are not allowed to have their travel expenses covered by a lobbyist.

In August 2001, Mr. DeLay and several House colleagues (including four Democrats) visited South Korea on a trip sponsored by the Korea-United States Exchange Council, which has close ties to former DeLay staff chief Ed Buckham and was registered as foreign agent just days before the trip. House rules forbid members from traveling at their expense, but it is unclear whether Mr. DeLay or his colleagues were aware of the Korean Exchange Council's status at the time of their departure.

Taken separately, and on present evidence, none of the latest charges directly touch Mr. DeLay; at worst, they paint a picture of a man who makes enemies by playing political hardball and loses admirers by resorting to politics-as-usual.

The problem, rather, is that Mr. DeLay, who rode to power in 1994 on a wave of revulsion at the everyday ways of big government, has become the living exemplar of some of its worst habits. Mr. DeLay's ties to Mr. Abramoff might be innocent, in a strictly legal sense, but it strains credulity to believe that Mr. DeLay found nothing strange with being included in Mr. Abramoff's lavish junkets.

Nor does it seem very plausible that Mr. DeLay never considered the possibility that the mega-lucrative careers his former staffers Michael Scanlon and Mr. Buckham achieved after leaving his office had something to do with their perceived proximity to him. These people became rich as influence-peddlers in a government in which legislators like Mr. DeLay could make or break fortunes by tinkering with obscure rules and dispensing scads of money to this or that constituency. Rather than buck this system as he promised to do while in the minority, Mr. DeLay has become its undisputed and unapologetic master as Majority Leader.

Whether Mr. DeLay violated the small print of House Ethics or campaign-finance rules is thus largely beside the point. His real fault lies in betraying the broader set of principles that brought him into office, and which, if he continues as before, sooner or later will sweep him out.

[MavKikiNYC]

US Sen: DeLay May Have Broken Law In Threatening Judges
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
April 1, 2005 6:08 p.m.

NEW YORK -- U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg on Friday called for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to renounce his comments about how judges handled the Terri Schiavo case, saying that the Texas Republican's remarks may have violated federal laws banning the threatening of federal judges.

After the brain-damaged woman died Thursday, DeLay lashed out at state and federal judges who rejected repeated legal appeals from Schiavo's parents to have their daughter's feeding tube reinserted.

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today," DeLay was quoted as saying, adding that the grieving for Schiavo and her family was the priority.

Lautenberg, D-NJ, wrote: "Threats against specific Federal judges are not only a serious crime, but also beneath a member of Congress. "In my view, the true measure of democracy is how it dispenses justice. Your attempt to intimidate judges in America not only threatens our courts, but our fundamental democracy as well."

Lautenberg pointed to the case of U.S. Judge Joan H. Lefkow of Illinois, whose mother and husband were recently murdered by a man who was disgruntled over how she ruled on his case. He also cited the murder earlier this month of a Georgia state judge and two others in the courthouse.

According to a statement from Lautenberg, the law provides for prison terms of up to six years for threatening U.S. judges over how they decide cases.

A spokesman for the congressman said that DeLay was only alluding to congressional action.
Click to format this article for printing Click to format this article for printing View a list of most popular articles on our site Find out about distributing multiple copies of this article Find out about distributing multiple copies of this article

[dude1394]

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today," DeLay was quoted as saying, adding that the grieving for Schiavo and her family was the priority.

As it surely will. It may have to wait until they are standing in front of the pearly gates themselves trying to explain how they starved a woman to death however.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: dude1394

As it surely will. It may have to wait until they are standing in front of the pearly gates themselves trying to explain how they starved a woman to death however.

Ha. Congressman Terminix trying to cop an overwrought line from Gladiator? He may have to answer for his own corrupt behavior long before he's even in sight of any pearly gates. Here's hoping his political Judgment Day comes before the next election.

As for issues before a Higher Court, if I saw one line with those 20 jurists and one with Tom DeLay, I know which one I'd want to be in.

[dude1394]

Last time I looked Tom Delay didn't starve to death anyone for 14 days, not even letting someone put a sliver of ice on her tongue. You pick your heroes, I'll have to NOT pick your heroes.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Last time I looked Tom Delay didn't starve to death anyone for 14 days, not even letting someone put a sliver of ice on her tongue. You pick your heroes, I'll have to NOT pick your heroes.

Did you not read the article above about DeLay's father? I respect the DeLay family's decision to allow him to die, yet the contradiction (nee hypocrisy) when you hear Tom DeLay's pandering is revealing.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Last time I looked Tom Delay didn't starve to death anyone for 14 days, not even letting someone put a sliver of ice on her tongue. You pick your heroes, I'll have to NOT pick your heroes.

Unlike you, Dude, I don't need heroes. Haven't since I was about 14. And I sure wouldn't be looking in any legislative chamber for one if I did.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Did you not read the article above about DeLay's father? I respect the DeLay family's decision to allow him to die, yet the contradiction (nee hypocrisy) when you hear Tom DeLay's pandering is revealing.

let's see, in a coma, on a ventilator, no opposing medical opinion about possibility of recovery, no opposing family opinion about wishes of the patient
sounds different to me.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

let's see, in a coma, on a ventilator, no opposing medical opinion about possibility of recovery, no opposing family opinion about wishes of the patient
sounds different to me.

IMO the only difference between the two situations is the family consensus. The rest is splitting hairs. Coma vs PVS? ventilator vs feeding tube? hope for future recovery thru unknown means?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
IMO the only difference between the two situations is the family consensus.

is that not enough?

The rest is splitting hairs. Coma vs PVS? ventilator vs feeding tube? hope for future recovery thru unknown means?

Those are some big fat hairs.

[dude1394]

In once case electricity was removed, in another food and water was removed for 14 days. Yea, i'd say those are pretty big hairs. But the promoters of teri's death would like to change the subject from their inhuman act.

I don't remember this going on with terri (that is until she was starved to death)

When his father's kidneys failed, the DeLay family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. "Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated," said his medical report, citing "agreement with the family's wishes." His bedside chart carried the instruction: "Do not resuscitate."

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

is that not enough?

Those are some big fat hairs.

really?
For one, there have been cases of patients coming out of a coma, there are not any cases of people determined to be in a PVS of emerging.
Ventilators are different than a feeding tube of a vegatative person? how? they both sustain the patient and in both cases the patient would not survive their removal.
Hope for recovery? as I mentioned, in a PVS person that hasn't happened. It has in a coma.

thinest of thin hairs.

As for the family, that's very difficult. We can't argue about her wishes, the only thing to do in that regard is to accept the court's determination. If she did want to not be kept alive in her condition, do you feel someone else has the right to keep her alive?

[dude1394]

Ventilators are different than a feeding tube of a vegatative person? how?

Well let's think about it for a moment. In one case the patient dies in about 10 minutes. The other case takes about 14 days or so while they starve to death.

Maybe you are right, they are exactly the same. Pathetic.

[Mavdog]

yeah, the results are so different. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

[MavKikiNYC]

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Reining In the G.O.P.'s Parade
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: April 9, 2005

David Brooks

READERS' OPINIONS

The Republican Party is running into a problem: the conservatism of the American people. Over the past decade, the Republicans have set themselves up as the transformational party. That's fine for a party with big ideals.

But the American people, who can be quite bold when it comes to transforming their personal lives, tend to be temperamentally conservative and cautious when it comes to government. They have a taste for order and a distrust of those who want too much change on too many fronts too quickly.

It's become increasingly clear that the Republicans are bumping into some limits.

First, there's the Terri Schiavo case. Republicans charged boldly forth to preserve her life and were surprised by how few Americans charged along behind them. Fewer than a third of the American people opposed removing her feeding tube.

Being conservative, most Americans believe that decisions should be made at the local level, where people understand the texture of the case. Even many evangelicals, who otherwise embrace the culture of life, grow queasy when politicians in Washington start imposing solutions from afar, based on abstract principles rather than concrete particulars.

Then there is Social Security reform. Republicans set forth with a plan to give people some control over their own retirement accounts. Here, too, Republicans have been surprised by the tepid public support.

Americans understand that there is a big problem, but right now most oppose personal accounts invested in the markets. According to a Wall Street Journal poll this week, a third of Republicans currently oppose them.

Being conservative, many Americans are suspicious of bold government initiatives, especially ones that seem complicated and involve borrowing. Being conservative, they prefer the old and familiar over the new and untried.

Then there is the Tom DeLay situation. Conversations with House Republicans in the past week leave me with one clear impression: If DeLay falls, it will not be because he took questionable trips or put family members on the payroll. It will be because he is anxiety-producing and may become a political liability.

Being conservative, the American people don't want leaders who perpetually play it close to the ethical edge. They don't want leaders who, under threat, lash out wildly at beloved institutions like the judiciary. They don't want leaders whose instinct is always to go out wildly on the attack. They don't want leaders so reckless that even when they know they are living under a microscope, they continue to act in ways that invite controversy.

House Republicans like what DeLay has done, and few have any personal animus toward him, but his aggressiveness makes them - and his own constituents - nervous. Only 39 percent of DeLay's Texas constituents said they would stick with him if he were up for re-election today, a Houston Chronicle survey found.

Then there's the lavish public spending, which offends the conservative sensibility. Then there is the talk of going to the nuclear option on judges' confirmations, which smacks of the radical confrontationalism that led to last decade's government shutdown. All in all, intellectual conservatism is bumping up against dispositional conservatism.

This does not mean good news for Democrats. That party is at risk of going into a death spiral. The Democrats lost white working-class voters by 23 percentage points in the last election, and now the party is being led by people who are guaranteed to alienate those voters even more: the highly educated and secular university-town elites who follow Howard Dean and believe Bush hatred and stridency are the outward signs of righteousness.

According to a Democracy Corps poll, the Democratic Party's standing has dropped eight percentage points since the election.

Nor does it mean that Republicans should abandon their ideas, but it may be time to think about methods. Public opinion is not always right, but it is always worth respecting. And the message the public seems to be sending these days is that there is a need for prudence. The world is risky enough. Leaders who want to change things had better not give off the impression that they love change for its own sake.

The public face of the Republican Party these days should be, when he recovers from minor surgery, the House speaker, Denny Hastert. This is a moment for leaders who seem stolid and secure, a moment for tortoises, not hares.

[dude1394]

Democrat Party = Michael Moore = Moveon.com = George Soros = Affirmitive Action Bigotry = Late Term Abortion = Anti-globalization left...

I like my chances okay. Brooks makes some points but he's also sort of echoing the current conventional wisdom and the current "campaign" to get delay and try to prop up the democrats as having something since they have few new ideas or solid principles.