I agree. The best, most concise and to-the-point bit I have read on this so far.

Thanks for pointing me to that article. It is a good and thoughtful one.

I do think more thought is needed before amending laws, though. Krauthammer suggests considering "granting authority not necessarily to the spouse but to whatever first-degree relative (even if in the minority) chooses life and is committed to support it. Call it Terri's law. It would help prevent our having to choose in the future between travesty and tragedy."

On its surface this sounds fine (as long as the relative is truly going to support the care required, no taxpayer $$$ involved). But relatives could have questionable reasons for keeping someone alive, just as some question Michael Schiavo's decision to let his wife die.

The federal court decisions seem correct, and not especially difficult to reach although the effect is great. The claims proposed by the family would only appeal to judicial activists, the kind who adore Roe v. Wade.

... if I'm ever in a PVR or similarly incapacitated, as determined by the diagnosis of a qualified specialist ...

Isn't what you say above the crux of the argument? To my knowledge, no licensed healthcare provider familiar with this case has come forward and said Terri Schiavo should or should not be allowed to die. It's only lawyers and judges who are making determinations.

There's more to this case than whether or not Terri Schiavo is brain dead. Her husband's behavior is seriously flawed and he shouldn't be allowed to let her die and dispose of the evidence by having her cremated before a thorough investigation is conducted by an impartial panel of expert medical and legal professionals, who actually examine the patient and all the controversy surrounding her, then based on their findings, make the determination on whether she should live or die.

Restore the feeding tube and let the experts conduct their inquiry. That way the parents and public can be sure that Terri got a fair hearing and whatever they decide will be what's best for her, not her parents, not her husband, and not the media.

Krauthammer's views certainly mesh with mine. If there is a reasonable supposition to be made from these sets of fact, it is that Terri would not stay married to Michael after he fathered two children with another woman. If a supposition can be used to bring about her death, then why couldn't a more logical supposition be used to bring about her divorce? It boggles the mind. Why is Michael still allowed to stand as her husband and control her fate? If she was allowed to divorce him much of this would resolve and her parents would likely gain control of her care and interests.

Yeah. If this case has taught me anything, it's that I'm going to want to put it in writing, very specific: "If comatose with little hope of recovering, or irrepairably braindead, pull the plug or pull the feeding tube--just put me down goddammit" so they'll be no disputing it.

Great article, but Bill Hobbs said it best...

www.billhobbs.com

This is, indeed, a deeply tragic case. There is no way to "celebrate" a victory on either side; if Terri's body joins here cerebral cortex in dying in the next week, what, we who believe Michael Schiavo has done the right thing are supposed to have a party? How obscene.

Yet, how many of us have not, as Bill has done here, in conversations with friends and/or family, declared we would not wish to be kept alive in a PVS state? I have never heard anyone say: "Do all you can to keep me alive if I lose my higher brain functioning and cannot interact with my environment and loved ones." Never. (And I do consort with some religious people.) That is why I am predisposed to accept, as the courts repeatedly have, the testimony of Michael and others in the Schiavo family that Terri expressed the same views I have commonly heard.

I feel for her parents on a most empathetic level, for I have buried a (19-yr-old)child of my own. He died in impact in a car crash; had he not, I would not have maintained him in the condition Terri is in, and nor would he have wanted me to. All the evidence is that when her father speaks of Terri "attempting to make verbal contact with him," he is engaging in wishful thinking. This is profoundly understandable, but should not be permitted to trump the wishes most people commonly state, and which courts have repeatedly ruled that Terri did, in fact, state.

Many conservatives have become furious at our legal system, most recently at Judge Whittemore in the FL federal district court, and the 11th Cir. that uphled his refusal to grant an injunction ordering that Terri's feeding tube be reinserted. I've practiced in federal courts, and as has any other lawyer who has done so can assure you, the "substantial likelihood of previaling" as a prong that MUST be satisfied to secure injunctive relief, is long-standing, bedrock law in federal (and many state) courts. Adhering to this standard is the complete opposite of "judicial activism."

Hugh Hewitt and a few other lawyer bloggers nevertheless excoriate Whittemore, but they do not disagree that he has applied a proper legal standard, and Hewitt even concedes the Schindlers may well not have prevailed; thus, no one is arguing that there is a substantial likelihood they would have prevailed and that Whittemore therefore erred in his application of the standard test. They simply think an exception should have been made given that Congress seems to have wanted another full hearing on the merits. But Congress did not, and should not have, up-ended longstanding and controlling case law regarding the test for granting injunctions. It is the conservatives here asking for a departure from well-settled law, i.e., who advocate judicial activism.

And for the record: if I'm ever in a PVR...

Careful what you wish for. If you appear appear on national television, you're bound to end up in somebody's PVR. Mine, for example, as I have a TiVo box in every room.

Or perhaps you mean PVS? :)

appear appear = ever appear

Gotta love the irony of me making an embarassing typo while making fun of someone else for making an embarassing typo.

After the inevitable happens, will there be an autopsy?

And what can it tell us about Terri's condition before she died?

I have to agree with Bill Bennett and Brian Kennedy.

The "auxiliary precautions" of Florida government — in this case the Florida supreme court — have failed Terri Schiavo. It is time, therefore, for Governor Bush to execute the law and protect her rights, and, in turn, he should take responsibility for his actions. Using the state police powers, Governor Bush can order the feeding tube reinserted. His defense will be that he and a majority of the Florida legislature believe the Florida Constitution requires nothing less. Some will argue that Governor Bush will be violating the law. We think he will not be violating the law, but if he is judged to have done so, it will be in the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr., who answered to a higher law than a judge's opinion. In so doing, King showed respect for the man-made law by willingly going to jail (on a Good Friday); Governor Bush may have to face impeachment because of his decision.

If Jeb won't do it, his older brother should.

There is a principle here which has been defended before - at Gettysburg, Normandy, Selma, and Fallujah to name a few. The principle that each life has value. Now it is time to defend that principle again.

I respect the opinions of those who think this is point of view extreme. Let's have that argument. But not while an innocent and helpless woman is being starved to death, as her parents are forced to watch.

" I have never heard anyone say: "Do all you can to keep me alive if I lose my higher brain functioning and cannot interact with my environment and loved ones." Never."

Well, allow me to be the first person you'll hear it from. And, just to note, I'm non-religious, pro-choice, and believe that a person has a right to die if they so choose. But speaking for myself, I can envision no medical circumstances in which I would want to have my feeding tube removed and be left to die of starvation/dehydration. If that means I need to live on in a permanently vegetative state, then so be it. There's no point in rehashing the Schiavo case, since points of view on both sides are so hardened that no one is listening to those they disagree with. But I did want to point out that not everyone shares what you falsely assume to be a universal outlook on living on as a vegetable.

if I'm ever in a PVS or similarly incapacitated, as determined by the diagnosis of a qualified specialist (not a heart surgeon senator via video tape analysis), please pull my feeding tube.

Just so we're clear, what if specialists are split roughly 50-50, and a non-medical judge makes the call for you? Would it be alright for a qualified specialist Senator to look into it?