Barack Obama Would Take Back Vote Helping Terri Schiavo Avoid Euthanasia

[Wretched Excess]

Barack Obama Would Take Back Vote Helping Terri Schiavo Avoid Euthanasia

Cleveland, OH (LifeNews.com) -- Senator Barack Obama debated his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night and said his biggest mistake was voting with a unanimous Senate to help save Terri Schiavo. Terri is the disabled Florida woman whose husband won the legal right to starve her to death.

In March 2005, just weeks before Terri died from a painful 14-day starvation and dehydration death, Congress approved legislation allowing her family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop the euthanasia from proceeding.

Terri was not on any artificial breathing apparatus and only required a feeding tube to eat and drink. Her family had filed a lawsuit against her former husband to allow them to care for her and give her proper medical and rehabilitative care.

The Senate unanimously approved a compromise bill, which the House eventually supported on a lopsided bipartisan vote and President Bush signed, to help the disabled woman.

During the Tuesday debate, Obama said he should have stood up against the life-saving legislation.

“It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped,” Obama said.

“And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better,” he added.

This isn't the first time Obama has said the biggest mistake he made as senator was voting to help try to stop Terri from being euthanized.

During an April 2007 debate, Obama said, "I think professionally the biggest mistake that I made was when I first arrived in the Senate. There was a debate about Terri Schiavo, and a lot of us, including me, left the Senate with a bill that allowed Congress to intrude where it shouldn't have.”

"And I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought more for making sure [Terri's parents couldn't take their case to federal court to save her life]," he explained.

Since Terri’s death, the Schindler family has established a foundation to help disabled and elderly patients obtain proper medical care and legal and other assistance when they are denied it.

Link

on my list of things to do was to look up the background on a comment The BarackStar! made in one of the last debates.   well, I just got around to this one.

I'm not exactly sure I was comfortable with the federal legislature getting involved in an individual's life like it did, but for heaven's sake.  I realize that his senate career has been awfully brief to have acquired too many regrets, but this is his biggest regret?

[Chris_]

ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.

I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. 

[Wretched Excess]

ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.

I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. 

they starved her to death.

I wasn't sure I heard it right in the first broadcast of the debate, and caught it on the rebroadcast.  and it was such a bizarre thing to say, that I wanted to follow up on it.  it turns out he meant it.

[Chris_]

I'm not exactly sure I was comfortable with the federal legislature getting involved in an individual's life like it did, but for heaven's sake.  I realize that his senate career has been awfully brief to have acquired too many regrets, but this is his biggest regret?

If it is, it tells me volumes about his lack of respect for human life.  Not that Clinton is better in any way, but at least she's not dumb enough to admit it.

[Chris_]

ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.

I swear I am going to have a stroke WE.  :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

Dearest, this is where we part philosophical company.

Shaivo was brain dead and every law in the USA allowed him to deal with her as her guardian.  You may not have liked how he conducted himself, but the law was clear.

If I was brain dead, I would want my wife to let me go and it would not bother me if she had someone to keep her company.

That was about law.  I want you to ask yourself -- if you left specific instructions about what should happen should your ability to think go away, would you want a bunch of strangers intruding?

[Chris_]

ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.

I swear I am going to have a stroke WE.  :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

they starved her to death.

I wasn't sure I heard it right in the first broadcast of the debate, and caught it on the rebroadcast.  and it was such a bizarre thing to say, that I wanted to follow up on it.  it turns out he meant it.

They allowed her to pass.  It was her wish (as it would be mine).  If I was in her brain dead situation, it would PISS ME OFF that strangers would interfere with my spoken desires to my wife (let me go).  The law allows the spouse to make this decision.  It is a bright line rule.

But from Shaivo, we have learned to make our intent known in writing -- so it is not all bad.

[Wretched Excess]

ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.

I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. 

Dearest, this is where we part philosophical company.

Shaivo was brain dead and every law in the USA allowed him to deal with her as her guardian.  You may not have liked how he conducted himself, but the law was clear.

If I was brain dead, I would want my wife to let me go and it would not bother me if she had someone to keep her company.

That was about law.  I want you to ask yourself -- if you left specific instructions about what should happen should your ability to think go away, would you want a bunch of strangers intruding?

you presume that the florida legislature has never passed a bad law, which is demonstrably and manifestly untrue, and that her instructions were actually her instructions, which, considering the character of her husband, seems no more likely than about even money.  and the brain is a bit of a mystery even to modern medical science.   no one can say definitively what capacity she had remaining.

[Wretched Excess]

ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.

I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. 

they starved her to death.

I wasn't sure I heard it right in the first broadcast of the debate, and caught it on the rebroadcast.  and it was such a bizarre thing to say, that I wanted to follow up on it.  it turns out he meant it.

They allowed her to pass.  It was her wish (as it would be mine).  If I was in her brain dead situation, it would PISS ME OFF that strangers would interfere with my spoken desires to my wife (let me go).  The law allows the spouse to make this decision.  It is a bright line rule.

But from Shaivo, we have learned to make our intent known in writing -- so it is not all bad.

they starved her to death.  and thankfully, the rest of the world doesn't necessarily judge the ethics or morality of a situation by hypothetically inserting themselves into it and attempting to guess what their reaction would be.

[Chris_]

ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.

I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. 

Dearest, this is where we part philosophical company.

Shaivo was brain dead and every law in the USA allowed him to deal with her as her guardian.  You may not have liked how he conducted himself, but the law was clear.

If I was brain dead, I would want my wife to let me go and it would not bother me if she had someone to keep her company.

That was about law.  I want you to ask yourself -- if you left specific instructions about what should happen should your ability to think go away, would you want a bunch of strangers intruding?

She was a disabled woman. Yea the disabled people can put a crimp on the rest of us who want to get on with our lives. Life can suck that way.

When given the choice between life and death, what should we as a moral people default to?

She never left specific instructions. But, if it were me, I guarantee you I would never choose to die by dehydration. The only difference between that and a bullet to the head is about 2 weeks. I'd take the bullet.

[Chris_]

you presume that the florida legislature has never passed a bad law, which is demonstrably and manifestly untrue, and that her instructions were actually her instructions, which, considering the character of her husband, seems no more likely than about even money.  and the brain is a bit of a mystery even to modern medical science.   no one can say definitively what capacity she had remaining.

So what law would you suggest to not have someone's closest relatives deal with their final disposition when they are brain dead?  In the absence of any directives?  Of you were brain dead, doesn't it make sense to make your spouse have the first say?  Or is there some other guideline?  I love and trust my wife.  The law recognizes that and assumes (properly) that is our relationship. 

You would have the law create a relationship that trumps my love and trust if I somehow get my brain damaged tonight (lets say that there was a carbon monoxide leak or something like that in my hotel).  Pretend I am now medically brain dead -- you want to create a right out of whole cloth to undermine my wife's decision to let me go (which is what I have asked her to do) since you know more than she does?  Even if you suspect (and that is it) that she will benefit from that decision? 

The law is crystal clear.  Who are you to interfere with both the law and my stated desire?

This ain't FLA law -- it is the law everywhere.  And it is a good law.

[Wretched Excess]

you presume that the florida legislature has never passed a bad law, which is demonstrably and manifestly untrue, and that her instructions were actually her instructions, which, considering the character of her husband, seems no more likely than about even money.  and the brain is a bit of a mystery even to modern medical science.   no one can say definitively what capacity she had remaining.

So what law would you suggest to not have someone's closest relatives deal with their final disposition when they are brain dead?  In the absence of any directives?  Of you were brain dead, doesn't it make sense to make your spouse have the first say?  Or is there some other guideline?  I love and trust my wife.  The law recognizes that and assumes (properly) that is our relationship. 

You would have the law create a relationship that trumps my love and trust if I somehow get my brain damaged tonight (lets say that there was a carbon monoxide leak or something like that in my hotel).  Pretend I am now medically brain dead -- you want to create a right out of whole cloth to undermine my wife's decision to let me go (which is what I have asked her to do) since you know more than she does?  Even if you suspect (and that is it) that she will benefit from that decision? 

The law is crystal clear.  Who are you to interfere with both the law and my stated desire?

This ain't FLA law -- it is the law everywhere.  And it is a good law.

you need to stop projecting yourself into these situations and arguing as though you were personally invloved.  it's a sure fire recipe for getting yourself worked up unnecessarily. 

Terri Schiavo was killed because it was inconvenient to her "husband" for her to be alive.

[Chris_]

She was a disabled woman. Yea the disabled people can put a crimp on the rest of us who want to get on with our lives. Life can suck that way.

When given the choice between life and death, what should we as a moral people default to?

She never left specific instructions. But, if it were me, I guarantee you I would never choose to die by dehydration. The only difference between that and a bullet to the head is about 2 weeks. I'd take the bullet.

Well, that covers it.  Had busybodies with no legal standing not intervened, Terri Shaiivo would have been able to pass without the harder death.  But since she had no ability to "feel" anything it is a difference without a distinction.

Please read my upstream post.  And think about it.  When you get married, you legally transfer your relationship from your parents (which relationship was essentially severed from the age of majority anyway) to your spouse. 

If you become incapacitated, do you want the State or a bunch of people you never met making decisions for you?  Or do you want the person you chose to be your life partner to make those decisions?  (yeah, I know what a shrinking violet you are -- your decisions aren't worth crap (sarcasm honey!)).

Now, stand back.  Every marriage is different.  Most are great -- a wonderful partnership between soulmates.  Some are less than that.  But, the decision to become married creates a legal relationship that creates the presumption of love and equality.

If you let The Man challenge the Shaivo marriage and the decisions therein, then you allow that same intrusion on your everyday life.

A final note: If there was evidence of abuse that led to Terri Shaivo's condition, that is a different situation.  But there is no such evidence.

Last question: Who decides your fate?  The person you chose as your legal live partner?  Or others?

[Chris_]

you need to stop projecting yourself into these situations and arguing as though you were personally invloved.  it's a sure fire recipe for getting yourself worked up unnecessarily. 

Terri Schiavo was killed because it was inconvenient to her "husband" for her to be alive.

My friend, there are serious issues here.  If you were incapacitated, whom would you have make decisions on your behalf?  Your spouse?  Or someone else?

(ps: you assume facts not in evidence. Terri Shaivo was not "killed" and there is no LEGAL proof her husband found her to be "inconvenient.")

[Wretched Excess]

you need to stop projecting yourself into these situations and arguing as though you were personally invloved.  it's a sure fire recipe for getting yourself worked up unnecessarily. 

Terri Schiavo was killed because it was inconvenient to her "husband" for her to be alive.

My friend, there are serious issues here.  If you were incapacirtated, whom would you have make decisions on your behalf?  Your spouse?  Or someone else?

(ps: you assume facts not in evidence. Terri Shaivo was not "killed" and there is no LEGAL proof her husband found her to be "inconvenient.")

I didn't say there weren't serious issues at play.  and you have loaded the entire discussion down with "facts" that are either questionably true or ultimately unknowable, from her stated preference to never be kept alive via life support to you somehow knowing exactly how much mental capacity she had at the end.

but she was in fact starved. her feeding tube was removed, and she died.  it's bizarre to try to argue that she somehow wasn't killed. 

[Chris_]

I didn't say there weren't serious issues at play.  and you have loaded the entire discussion down with "facts" that are either questionably true or ultimately unknowable, from her stated preference to never be kept alive via life support to you somehow knowing exactly how much mental capacity she had at the end.

but she was in fact starved. her feeding tube was removed, and she died.  it's bizarre to try to argue that she somehow wasn't killed. 

Well, let's roll this up accordingly:

1. We don't know her final desires.  But there was a legal presumption that her spouse did and that presumption is and was undeniable.
2. She was medically pronounced brain dead.
3. She was allowed to expire, which was in accordance with the legality of #1, which was a presumption of her desires

Again, I ask -- if you were incapacitated, who should LEGALLY be able to decide your fate?  Your mommy and daddy or your spouse? 

It is a crystal clear question. 

I have already said my wife should and will decide for me.  Who should decide for you?

[Chris_]

f/d I am about ready to pop you one.

Terry Schiavo was not terminally ill, she was brain damaged. The fact that she hung on to her life for 2 weeks says something about her will to live. There were other options for Mr. Schiavo if he didn't want to be burdened by his wife. The point is, he wanted his non-terminally ill wife killed in a state-sanctioned murder. If he had any honor at all, he would have done the deed himself and served the time.

They don't even put dogs down in such fashion.

Ah, dear I know how much it hurts you to see someone you love as much as you love me me contradicts you.

But, mine is a LEGAL argument.  It disturbs me when people get in the middle of the sanctity of the covenant of marriage.  This case is about whether she was brain dead (she was) and whether her husband had the legal right to let her go (he did).  He said that was her desire (and who is anyone to say otherwise?). 

As I have asked upstream, would you want your husband's decision on your final wishes to be challenged?  If there was "questionable circumstances" I would be the first to be there to get the bad guy.  There was no such situation here.

And if anything happens to me someday, please let me go and don't let me be a goof on TV vacuously watching a balloon. That was really disgusting by the family.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Her husband had too mny conflicts of interest.

Michael Schiavo sued the hospital for malpractice damages with the expressed intent of paying for her indefinite care but then almost immediately went about seeking her death.

He went on to have have children with another woman. Granted he's allowed a new life but that also severs his marriage to his previous wife...because of the conflict of interests.

And she was not allowed to pass. If her body was as crippled as Michael's pro-euthanasia doctor pretends then it would not have taken days for her to die of thirst...an absolutely horrendous death.

[Chris_]

Her husband had too mny conflicts of interest.

Michael Schiavo sued the hospital for malpractice damages with the expressed intent of paying for her indefinite care but then almost immediately went about seeking her death.

He went on to have have children with another woman. Granted he's allowed a new life but that also severs his marriage to his previous wife...because of the conflict of interests.

And she was not allowed to pass. If her body was as crippled as Michael's pro-euthanasia doctor pretends then it would not have taken days for her to die of thirst...an absolutely horrendous death.

But the law doesn't say "a spouse is in full control unless he/she is deemed by others to be immoral."  Nor should it.

[Chris_]

Ah, dear I know how much it hurts you to see someone you love as much as you love me me contradicts you.

But, mine is a LEGAL argument.  It disturbs me when people get in the middle of the sanctity of the covenant of marriage.  This case is about whether she was brain dead (she was) and whether her husband had the legal right to let her go (he did).  He said that was her desire (and who is anyone to say otherwise?). 

As I have asked upstream, would you want your husband's decision on your final wishes to be challenged?  If there was "questionable circumstances" I would be the first to be there to get the bad guy.  There was no such situation here.

And if anything happens to me someday, please let me go and don't let me be a goof on TV vacuously watching a balloon. That was really disgusting by the family.

I apologize for saying I was going to pop you one. 

If you changed one thing about the circumstances in this case, I would agree with your legal argument. The problem I have with this case is that she was not allowed to expire naturally - she was actively euthanised. She was a woman who could not advocate for herself and she was sentenced to death without due process.

WE and Snuggles summed up the case specifics in a much better non-emotional argument than me. Read their posts.

[Chris_]

Ah, dear I know how much it hurts you to see someone you love as much as you love me me contradicts you.

But, mine is a LEGAL argument.  It disturbs me when people get in the middle of the sanctity of the covenant of marriage.  This case is about whether she was brain dead (she was) and whether her husband had the legal right to let her go (he did).  He said that was her desire (and who is anyone to say otherwise?). 

As I have asked upstream, would you want your husband's decision on your final wishes to be challenged?  If there was "questionable circumstances" I would be the first to be there to get the bad guy.  There was no such situation here.

And if anything happens to me someday, please let me go and don't let me be a goof on TV vacuously watching a balloon. That was really disgusting by the family.

I apologize for saying I was going to pop you one. 

If you changed one thing about the circumstances in this case, I would agree with your legal argument. The problem I have with this case is that she was not allowed to expire naturally - she was actively euthanised. She was a woman who could not advocate for herself and she was sentenced to death without due process.

WE and Snuggles summed up the case specifics in a much better non-emotional argument than me. Read their posts.

If I was ever to be popped one, I would prefer it be you.  I understand their arguments, but we'll never know if someone who is brain dead "feels" anything.  But, again legally, there is no other way to let her go except by withholding treatment.  Her spirit is free and not chained to lump of flesh.  It was a kindness to release her.

[Sammyboy]

ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.

I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. 

Dearest, this is where we part philosophical company.

Shaivo was brain dead and every law in the USA allowed him to deal with her as her guardian.  You may not have liked how he conducted himself, but the law was clear.

If I was brain dead, I would want my wife to let me go and it would not bother me if she had someone to keep her company.

That was about law.  I want you to ask yourself -- if you left specific instructions about what should happen should your ability to think go away, would you want a bunch of strangers intruding?

I agree with you, and well said.  IMO, the way they took out the feeding tube and made her starve sets up a good argument for euthanasia.

[TheSarge]

I agree with you, and well said.  IMO, the way they took out the feeding tube and made her starve sets up a good argument for euthanasia.

Oh Christ...I thought this place had standards.

[Chris_]

I agree with you, and well said.  IMO, the way they took out the feeding tube and made her starve sets up a good argument for euthanasia.


Oh Christ...I thought this place had standards. :whatever:

It does?  NOW you tell me (think Groucho Marx).

[Lauri]

ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.

I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. 

Dearest, this is where we part philosophical company.

Shaivo was brain dead and every law in the USA allowed him to deal with her as her guardian.  You may not have liked how he conducted himself, but the law was clear.

If I was brain dead, I would want my wife to let me go and it would not bother me if she had someone to keep her company.

That was about law.  I want you to ask yourself -- if you left specific instructions about what should happen should your ability to think go away, would you want a bunch of strangers intruding?

you presume that the florida legislature has never passed a bad law, which is demonstrably and manifestly untrue, and that her instructions were actually her instructions, which, considering the character of her husband, seems no more likely than about even money.  and the brain is a bit of a mystery even to modern medical science.   no one can say definitively what capacity she had remaining.

which is why i was never comfortable including myself in this particular debate. i dont know her wishes, or what they spoke of privately.

her parents, while an agonizing thing to watch, were not her next of kin.

the whole thing was far too political for me, but with both sides pitted against each other, it couldnt have gone any other way. the law had to step in. that it went all the way up to the Congress was a bit strange though.

[Chris_]

ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.

I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. 

Dearest, this is where we part philosophical company.

Shaivo was brain dead and every law in the USA allowed him to deal with her as her guardian.  You may not have liked how he conducted himself, but the law was clear.

If I was brain dead, I would want my wife to let me go and it would not bother me if she had someone to keep her company.

That was about law.  I want you to ask yourself -- if you left specific instructions about what should happen should your ability to think go away, would you want a bunch of strangers intruding?

you presume that the florida legislature has never passed a bad law, which is demonstrably and manifestly untrue, and that her instructions were actually her instructions, which, considering the character of her husband, seems no more likely than about even money.  and the brain is a bit of a mystery even to modern medical science.   no one can say definitively what capacity she had remaining.

which is why i was never comfortable including myself in this particular debate. i dont know her wishes, or what they spoke of privately.

her parents, while an agonizing thing to watch, were not her next of kin.

the whole thing was far too political for me, but with both sides pitted against each other, it couldnt have gone any other way. the law had to step in. that it went all the way up to the Congress was a bit strange though.

That was singularly bizarre, I agree.