The Schiavo Battle II

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Cerek I'm going to break IW rules here because you and both know there are higher rules that we go by, and as I'm instructed as an older Christian in dealing with a younger Christian. Is that the position you really want to face our Creator with? That because she doesn't know what is going on around her it's ok to kill her? But it is not ok to keep somebody that is not aware of what is going on alive? (Remember NOT aware ie: Chicken with their head cut off)When there are people willing to bare the burden?

I wasn't going to interject in this argument as it seems like a peculiarly American one, but this riled me somewhat. I'd just like to make a basic plea for secularism, as in religion out of government. You can believe that God's going to go mad over this if you want. On a personal and private level you can believe anything you want about God. For all I care you can believe that you are God, just keep it out of politics and government. If we start supporting ultimately constitutional arguments over the limits and nature of personal and familial responsibility with unprovable metaphysical claims then quite frankly we're all screwed. Keep religion out of government, keep it out of politics, and I'd advise you to keep it out of Ironworks as well, or no amount of mispellings, capital letters, and Good-ole-southern-boy affectations will help you.

On a more positive and general note this case, from what little I know about it, seems to me like quite a nice example of seperation of powers at work, and that just clarifies for me how concerning it is that we don't have any! This kind of thing would have been decided in a completely different way over here no doubt, but then again we don't have quite so much of a strong religious right as you guys. Chances are this kind of case would have been handled very differently all round over here, with differences both for good and for bad in my opinion. It really is a peculiarly American phenomenon, something the rest of this post should convince the more hostile reader I do not mean in a bad way.

[Aragorn1]

Well, this is a kong one as there is alot to comment on, that's what you get for living on the otherside of the pond and missing the majority of the IW member's day... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Azred: The Legislature creates the law, the Executive enforces the law, and the Judiciary interprets or measures the validity of the law. Simple.

This is-in correct. The executive, i.e. the government, creates laws, the legislature, Parliament/Congress, passes and scrutinises legislation and the judicary enforces and interprets and/or constructs when necessary.

Originally posted by John D. Harris: Overstepping his bounds no more them a judge in a black robe sitting in Washington D.C. is overstepping his bounds. 2) interpt what the legislature WROTE, not decide if the legilature was right in Writing the law! there is a big differance.

1. the judge was within his bounds, deciding a legal, not poltical matter, despite it poloitical impact. If the politcians don't like it, pass a statute.
2. Judges, through judicial reveiw do indeed have the power to scrutinise legislation. I think this power is greater in the US than here, but i don't know al that much about the US legal system.

Originally posted by John D. Harris: I've been watching this with ammusement, the Murder Terri crowd's agrument can be boiled down to 2 things: FEAR and stupidity. Fear as best represented by the satement "I wouldn't want to live that way" followed immeditly(sp?) By the Statement "She' dead already" Well dummy if she's dead then you have NOTHING to worry about LIVING THAT WAY, brain children you can not be dead and be living that way at the same time!!!!!!(for those that didn't know that's the stupidity part) The real world doen't work that way. So what they are really saying is let's kill this woman that is aware of what is going on, or let's kill this body that is being kept alive by machines. The real reson they say they don't want to live that way is they are afraid that one day they may be in a coma and FULLLLLLLLLLYY aware of what is going on without any control of they own body. BUT that flies in the face of the logic they try to put forth with she has no brain activity, well if she has no brain activity WHAT the HALE does it matter if she's got a feeding tube or not? COME ON people give me one single Lgical reason it would matter if a person that as you claim is UNAWARE and Brain dead gets food or not!! THEY DON"T HAVE a CLUE they are BRAIN DEAD (shouting intended.)

Well, i'm still young and under the delusion of the immortality or youth, i have no fear that i shall end up like her. I just think its wrong keeping here alive when there is no hope and when it is impacting on the lives of those still living. Anyway, death has changed. There is no one definition of death (even legally over here,other than waht recent medical dictum is). A body that would have been considered dead in the past, e.g. their heart has stopped, would no longer be considered so now given medical advancement. At the moment the ceasing of activity in the brain stem is considered death. But, suppose medical advancemnt continues, which is likely, and this may be stimulated, a kind of brain and ife support. No one would die if treated in time, even thought they would be in PVS. YOu would have legions of the living dead, not truely alive but kept alive because they can be. And if it does matter as you say, why not turn her off and save tax payers money, this surely is the real root of your arguement.

Also re: the constitution, it is in its self contrdictary, it needs interpretation. If it was read literally as you suggest it would not functions and that would destroy the country as its found principles would be invalidated.

Originally posted by John D. Harris: Cerek I'm going to break IW rules here because you and both know there are higher rules that we go by, and as I'm instructed as an older Christian in dealing with a younger Christian. Is that the position you really want to face our Creator with? That because she doesn't know what is going on around her it's ok to kill her? But it is not ok to keep somebody that is not aware of what is going on alive? (Remember NOT aware ie: Chicken with their head cut off)When there are people willing to bare the burden?

Isn't this a personal, moral choice. Some may say you going against the will of God by artifically keeping alive one who he has chosen to die.

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Keep religion out of government, keep it out of politics, and I'd advise you to keep it out of Ironworks as well, or no amount of mispellings, capital letters, and Good-ole-southern-boy affectations will help you.

Un-necessary and uncalled for. This is in my opinion personal and not pertinant to the issues.

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: On a more positive and general note this case, from what little I know about it, seems to me like quite a nice example of seperation of powers at work, and that just clarifies for me how concerning it is that we don't have any! This kind of thing would have been decided in a completely different way over here no doubt, but then again we don't have quite so much of a strong religious right as you guys. Chances are this kind of case would have been handled very differently all round over here, with differences both for good and for bad in my opinion. It really is a peculiarly American phenomenon, something the rest of this post should convince the more hostile reader I do not mean in a bad way.

THis is titally un-true, we do have the separation if powers here and it is reflected by the ntaure of govenment. It is not perfect, but no country that i know of has perfect separation, policians appoint Supreme Court judges in the US for example.

Also, i would have been decided, in fact has already been decided in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, in exactly the same way, unless it made it to the House of Lords and they changed their mind using the Practice Statement, which they are reluctant to do due to the Doctrine of Precdent, and order it to be re-inserted, although in this case, which i think to be preferable, the case was heard before the tube was removed.

[ 04-19-2005, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Aragorn1 ]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Aragorn1: Well, this is a long one as there is alot to comment on, that's what you get for living on the otherside of the pond and missing the majority of the IW member's day... [img]smile.gif[/img] quote: Originally posted by Azred: The Legislature creates the law, the Executive enforces the law, and the Judiciary interprets or measures the validity of the law. Simple.

This is-in correct. The executive, i.e. the government, creates laws, the legislature, Parliament/Congress, passes and scrutinises legislation and the judicary enforces and interprets and/or constructs when necessary.[/QUOTE]This in not the way it works in the US, Azred is correct. The executive can make suggestions and issue executive orders (which have the force of law for things the executive branch has authority over, ie military and federal government issues), but for actual laws, it is up to the legislature to legislate (write new laws).

Originally posted by Aragorn1: Also re: the constitution, it is in its self contrdictary, it needs interpretation. If it was read literally as you suggest it would not functions and that would destroy the country as its found principles would be invalidated.

Interesting assumption, read the federalist papers, the declaration, and the US Constitution and come back to me with how this is so.

[ 04-19-2005, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Cerek]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Cerek, so both thw people you listed as examples, were not aware of what was going on? That's the position you wnat to take, I just want to be clear on that. Your position is that since neither of them knew what was going on we should KILL them. Answer me this then if neither of them were aware of what was going on around them then what the HOT MONKEY SEX does it matter if their bodies still recieve food, water, oxygen, and the blood is pumped for them? WHAT DOES IT MATTER? By your OWN words and standards they don't know what is going on they are no more then a chicken with their head cut off. That's the position you want?

First of all, I did not say that people in the condition I mentioned should be killed. The point I was making is that I have seen nursing home residents first-hand who were in a similar physical state as Terri Schaivo; incapable of any conscious movement or action, unable to control involuntary muscle responses, and completely unaware of their surrounding environment or circumstances. The purpose of the comparison was to address the "quality" of life that Terri Schaivo was experiencing.

Having seen it first hand, I DO assert they don't know any more about what is happening around them than the chicken with it's head cut off. However, I did not advocate that this is sufficient reason to "kill" either of the ladies in my example (as you so eloquently put it).

What I did was to contradict your assertion that the judges who ruled over and over again that the feeding tube should be removed "overstepped" their bounds. The BIG difference between Terri Schaivo and the nursing home resident I mentioned is that - according to Michael Schaivo - Terri had given explicit instructions that she did NOT want to continue living if she should ever be reduced to such a state. You claim this is "fear" - perhaps it is. But Michael claimed that Terri had the same "fear" as expressed by most people who have commented on this case, regardless of which side they supported. By YOUR own words, MOST people have said "I would not want to live in that condition" - but then quickly added that they can't speak for Terri's wishes based on thier own views.

And THAT is the crux of the entire Schaivo case. Michael Schaivo claimed Terri had this same "fear" and did not want to be kept alive in a permanent vegetative state. Terri's parents disputed and contested that claim and countered that their daughter would wish to cling to life under ANY circumstances. And that is why the judges in black robes were brought in...to listen to evidence from BOTH sides so that they could render an objective evaluation of what Terri's true wish would have been. That IS the job of the judiciary - to adjuticate(?) disputes and differences of opinion. Not only is it within their bounds, it is the essence of their job description.

Originally posted by John D Harris: Cerek I'm going to break IW rules here because you and both know there are higher rules that we go by, and as I'm instructed as an older Christian in dealing with a younger Christian. Is that the position you really want to face our Creator with? That because she doesn't know what is going on around her it's ok to kill her? But it is not ok to keep somebody that is not aware of what is going on alive? (Remember NOT aware ie: Chicken with their head cut off)When there are people willing to bare the burden?

I do have many shortcomings as a Christian, and make no denial of that fact. As I've pointed out, you seem to have misinterpreted my position somewhat. I have no problem with you questioning my stance from a Christian perspective, but I am comfortable with my position on this issue.

Originally posted by John D Harris: Don't even try to give me this Poor Mikey crap, the BOY, as in not a man, was taking care of her my ass. He couldn't live up to his word to honor and remain faithful to her until she was dead. Before he started bumb'n uglies with another woman. Don't even try the he needed closure crap either, I can Gar-ron-tee that mikey had closure from Terri about the first time he heard his new squeeze moun in pleasure from sweat covered passion. As I wrote Fear and stupidity is the basis for the murder Terri arguements.

And your anger and disgust towards Michael seem to be at least part of the basis for your argument against fulfilling Terri's wishes to refuse unwanted medical treatments that extended her life beyond a point she did not wish to pass.

It is definitely an emotional issue regardless of which side you support.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Aragorn1: THis is titally un-true, we do have the separation if powers here and it is reflected by the ntaure of govenment. It is not perfect, but no country that i know of has perfect separation, policians appoint Supreme Court judges in the US for example. Also, i would have been decided, in fact has already been decided in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, in exactly the same way, unless it made it to the House of Lords and they changed their mind using the Practice Statement, which they are reluctant to do due to the Doctrine of Precdent, and order it to be re-inserted, although in this case, which i think to be preferable, the case was heard before the tube was removed.

Our seperation of powers is a little bit worse than "not perfect", in my opinion. There is complete overlap between all three branches of government, and our constitution is so flexible that if there was a will to distort the existing seperation then little could probably be done to stop it. Especially now when there is little official opposition. Pretty much all the checks and balances on government rely on the official opposition being strong, rather than in American where they rely on legal constraints. We have legal constraints, but they are all so loose that they mean pretty much whatever the government wants them to, unless they are forced to do things differently by the opposition.

As for the case you sight, my point was that over here the lack of a religious right means there was no outcry, no uproar, no indignation. As such the nature of the event completely changed, and it didn't become the media circus that it did in the US. But if it had become that media circus then there is very little legally stopping any politician with sufficient clout from making capital off of it. As I understand it Bush tried to enforce his will on the issue. The fact that he did this indicates the difference between American and UK politics, as over here a fundamentalist would never have been elected, and there would have been no percentage in playing to that particular gallery anyway. But if for some bizzare reason the same indiganation occurred and the same machinations were attempted by politicians then the seperation of powers would have seemed pretty flimsy. When was the last time the judiciary stood up to the executive? Thatcher?

We have a seperation of powers in name alone.

[shamrock_uk]

JD, you say that pulling the plug would be killing this woman. Surely this is about whether there comes a point when you are no longer human - simply a shell. To all intents and purposes, the headless chicken analogy is a good one - her body was just a shell that was acting purely involuntarily - there is no 'human' left in her, just her body going through the motions.

Hence, the vital powers of an animal are, in addition to the nutritive power, the growing power, the reproductive power, these three: the sensing-power, the appetizing-power, and, usually, the power of local movement. By these powers the animal exercises the vital operations of: Nutrition, Growth, Vital Generation, Sensation, Appetition, and Locomotion.

It's highly unlikely that Terri after her accident even qualified under these most basic of criteria for animal life.

If we extend our criteria to include sentience then it becomes even more clear:

A sentient being is a living body which has all the perfections and operations of a plant and, in addition, has the essentially different and superior powers of knowing and of acting on knowledge.

A sentient body has not only the power of knowing by means of a sense or of senses; it has the power to act on knowledge. That is, it has the power to tend towards the attaining of what is senses as desirable or good, and away from what is sensed as undesirable or bad.

Do you really think Terri satisfied any of these conditions?


One thing I can't understand about American Christians is the obsession with a person's mortal shell. Both my mother and sister are very devout Christians yet their opinions are completely at odds with the pro-lifers in America.

Their view is that
(i) Because Terri could not keep herself alive, God had clearly chosen the time for her to die
(ii) Keeping her alive when she would die otherwise and would never get better is therefore acting against God's will
(iii) Once a person dies, assuming they had a good life they'll spend eternity in heaven with the Lord - why is this something to be afraid of? It's a wonderful transition for her! And certainly much better than the pathetic existence she was being held into.
(iv) The Bible tells us that the body is just a temple for the spirit - it's the spirit that is the important part, not the body.
(v) The Bible also tells us that at the end of time, her body shall be resurrected anyway.

How long would you keep Terri on that machine then JD? Another 10 years? 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years? At what point does pulling the plug on this shell of a human being become 'not immoral'?

[Aragorn1]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: quote: Originally posted by Aragorn1: THis is titally un-true, we do have the separation if powers here and it is reflected by the ntaure of govenment. It is not perfect, but no country that i know of has perfect separation, policians appoint Supreme Court judges in the US for example. Also, i would have been decided, in fact has already been decided in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, in exactly the same way, unless it made it to the House of Lords and they changed their mind using the Practice Statement, which they are reluctant to do due to the Doctrine of Precdent, and order it to be re-inserted, although in this case, which i think to be preferable, the case was heard before the tube was removed.

Our seperation of powers is a little bit worse than "not perfect", in my opinion. There is complete overlap between all three branches of government, and our constitution is so flexible that if there was a will to distort the existing seperation then little could probably be done to stop it. Especially now when there is little official opposition. Pretty much all the checks and balances on government rely on the official opposition being strong, rather than in American where they rely on legal constraints. We have legal constraints, but they are all so loose that they mean pretty much whatever the government wants them to, unless they are forced to do things differently by the opposition.

As for the case you sight, my point was that over here the lack of a religious right means there was no outcry, no uproar, no indignation. As such the nature of the event completely changed, and it didn't become the media circus that it did in the US. But if it had become that media circus then there is very little legally stopping any politician with sufficient clout from making capital off of it. As I understand it Bush tried to enforce his will on the issue. The fact that he did this indicates the difference between American and UK politics, as over here a fundamentalist would never have been elected, and there would have been no percentage in playing to that particular gallery anyway. But if for some bizzare reason the same indiganation occurred and the same machinations were attempted by politicians then the seperation of powers would have seemed pretty flimsy. When was the last time the judiciary stood up to the executive? Thatcher?

We have a seperation of powers in name alone. [/QUOTE]Sorry, mis-understanding re: the reaction, yes, i agree with you.

As for the separtion of powers, we do not have 'total overlap' there is not one boday that makes and enforces law on its own. We do not live in an autocracy or an Oligocracy. THere are a fair few overlaps, the Lord Chancellor, the Law Lords etc, but if you look their power in one or other of the fields is limited. There is not in my opinion a threat to the democratic process. The main threat i feel comes in the form of the Parliament Acts, which can by-pass the HoL's decision. However, if it were really undemocratic, I would hope that the monarch would refuse to sign it, if it was against the will of the people which they have a duty to protect. WOuld lead to an interesting constitutional crisis as well. Also, judges can intervene in Government matters, through the process of judicial review, and they now also have the power to overturn any legislation tat breaches Human Rights Legislation.

Edit: found an interesting site: herehttp://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch10I.html, in which it is said,"If the goal is liberty--that is to say, individual safety--the model to follow (Montesquieu suggested) is that of the English constitution portrayed in his pages. But one might pursue an alternative goal with more or less separation of powers and more or less happiness--like "the monarchies we are acquainted with."

@Morgeruat, i'm interested, the separation of powers is different in the US, with the branches having different functions? I didn't know this. However i still find it hard to beleive that the executive enforces, i.e. makes judgement on, the law, as Azred caimed. Perhaps i am mis-interpreting. Isn't legislating the passing of laws as i have said, not writing, or coming up with their concept as you seem to be impling?

[ 04-20-2005, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Aragorn1 ]

[Morgeruat]

hmm, I wonder if there's a place to watch the old Schoolhouse Rock videos online ("I'm just a bill" explains the process quite well).

The Legislature writes laws (although as I said the executive (ie President) often makes suggestions), they then vote, rewrite, tack on extras, clarifications, etc before sending the laws up to the President for ratification, he either signs them into law, or vetoes (and recently the use of a line item veto has been used, in which part of a bill is excised but the rest is passed into law).

In the case of a veto, a 2/3's majority vote in the house and senate (Legislative branch again) can overturn a veto and enact a bill into law (this is a very infrequent occurance as only a simple majority is needed to get a bill up to the president and mustering enough support for 66% of the House and Senate to vote yes for the proposed law.

The Executive has the authority to enforce laws, using the federal law enforcement agencies as well as the military (Waco, the Whiskey Rebellion, Ruby Ridge, etc)

If a law oversteps the bounds of the constitution or it's amendments/Bill of Rights the Judiciary branch can strike it down, or provide a ruling on how much of it is legal, (ie Brown vs the Board of Education, Roe vs Wade, or any number of other examples that Timber could provide)

Having appointed judges means that they are not able to be influenced by current political trends and don't have to curry favor with special interest groups. They are selected by the President, but must be accepted by the Senate (providing a check from both other groups on who will fill the bench). At least in theory.

I hope this made sense, and if there are errors feel free to call me on them (much as I like to think it, I am not perfect).

[ 04-20-2005, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Aragorn1]

Thanks for the explaination. IS see what you mean by enforce now, as in direct law enforcemnt through the police, not enforcement in the courts as i was interpreting it. I think in the UK it is Government, through the cabinet that proposes the laws to the Houses, although private memvers and private Bills can be proposed by MPs of any party and by public interest groups repectively.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: hmm, I wonder if there's a place to watch the old Schoolhouse Rock videos online ("I'm just a bill" explains the process quite well).

They are available on DVD, if memory serves me correctly. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

Back on topic....the Schindlers should have let go of Terri years ago. They were blinded by grief into hanging on to false hope; some of that false hope was being given to them by their "spiritual advisors" who were pursing their own agendas.