Life Matters!

Ecumenical Euthanasia: Galluping to Death

2005-05-17T22:17:00.000-05:00

"Reporting a number that will surprise some," Editor & Publisher informs us, "the Gallup Organizations today said its latest poll found that 75% of Americans support euthanasia—allowing a doctor to take the life of a patient who is suffering from an incurable disease and wants to die. This, Gallup noted, was up 6% since 2004."

While the anti-life media casts the fight against euthanasia as a cause of "rightwing fundamentalists" in the divide-and-conquer strategy described in my latest op-ed for Spero News, faith-based opponents often play into their hands by stereotyping euthanasia supporters as "leftwing secular humanists." Yet Gallup reports that "even evangelical Christians said they backed euthanasia, at 61%, as did 71% of rural residents."

Weekly churchgoers also support the concept (51%). So do self-described conservatives (63%), though that trails liberals (82%).

The wording of poll questions is crucial, but one would have to swallow camels while straining at gnats to find much solace in Gallup's query:

When a person has a disease that cannot be cured, do you think doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient's life by some painless means if the patient and his family request it?

Even more disturbing is the conclusion of Editor & Publisher's account:

In another interesting finding, 59% of the overall sample said they would consider ending their own life, if in severe pain, by some painless means.

The man who is prepared to murder himself—under the "appropriate" circumstances—will be quite willing to sanction ending the lives of others, whose condition is worse than his own, especially when it is rationalized by secularists and religious alike in the practice CURE calls "ecumenical euthanasia."

Supplemental Reading:

For a more detailed breakdown of the survey results, see David Moore, "Three in Four Americans Support Euthanasia," Gallup News Service, May 17, 2005.

Euthanasia: The Power To Kill

2005-05-10T19:10:00.000-05:00

As posted on Blogs for Terri:

"'Euthanasia' is an act most often practiced on our pets," Ken Concannon begins his column in the Arlington Catholic Herald.

We have them "put down," or "put to sleep," or "euthanized" when they become so ill that there is no likelihood that they will ever get better. We tell ourselves that we deliberately end their lives to end their suffering. And maybe we do, [but] then again, a crippled and incontinent German Shepherd in your house can be incredibly inconvenient. When we end his suffering we also end ours, while telling ourselves we’re doing it for him.

In the end, it is a matter of power.

Regardless of whether we euthanize our disabled pets to ease their suffering or to end the inconvenience they cause, we do it because our society recognizes euthanizing pets as acceptable behavior. We do it because the lives of animals are not sacred. We do it because they have no inalienable right to life. We do it because we can.

On the other hand, Concannon continues:

Christian tradition, combined with the awful history of the Nazi euthanasia programs of the last century, has taught us that euthanizing human beings is inherently wrong. Human life is considered sacred. We are consequently held to a higher standard when it comes to caring for the weakest among us. We cannot euthanize the sick and the elderly when they become incontinent and are in pain—even to end their suffering. Euthanasia for human beings is illegal almost everywhere.

On the books, that is—scarce consolation to its growing number of victims, for as Concannon reports, "the efficacy of euthanizing human beings is now discussed in university classrooms, in legislative bodies, and in court rooms."

The euthanasia movement is on the rise. It is now legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. Assisted suicide, a form of passive euthanasia, is legal in Oregon. American courts have lately been siding with what Pope John Paul II called the "culture of death." Our courts have recently thwarted federal efforts to undo Oregon’s assisted suicide program, and to save a disabled Florida woman from "right to die" activists.

Terri Schindler Schiavo's "awful death" serves as a testament to the deceit inherent in the Culture of Death that is engulfing the West, Concannon concludes.

While euthanasia activists spin euphemisms about the "quality of life" and the "right to die," they are trying to get us to forget that our lives, unlike those of animals, are sacred.

Alas, they are succeeding.

TLC Defies British Law To Arrange Murders for Hire

2005-05-08T22:04:00.000-05:00

"A secret organisation headed by a retired family doctor is illegally providing terminally ill British people with thousands of pounds to enable them to travel to a Swiss suicide clinic," Daniel Foggo reports in today's London Telegraph.

The Last Choice—or TLC—was set up two months ago by Dr Michael Irwin, a former chairman of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES), to operate as an underground benevolence network for British people seeking to kill themselves.

Some benevolence!

TLC has been covertly channelling funds to them to finance trips to the clinic in Zurich, run by the controversial Swiss charity, Dignitas, which provides people with "doctor-assisted suicides."

Some charity!

Payments of up to £2,000 per person are allocated to cover flights, hotels, cremation and doctors' fees...

TLC...has also been providing escorts to accompany the clients to the clinic and has been offering them advice on how to arrange their own deaths at Dignitas.

"Such actions," The Telegraph notes, "are criminal offences under the 1961 Suicide Act, which states that anyone who 'aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another' is liable to up to 14 years' imprisonment."

Dr Irwin, 73, from Cranleigh, Surrey, is not a stranger to the attentions of the police. Eighteen months ago, he resigned as chairman of the VES after admitting conspiring to help to end the life of a man in the Isle of Man. Dr Irwin, who was arrested but not charged over the incident, had travelled to Patrick Kneen's home at his request, armed with a lethal dose of sleeping tablets, but had found Mr Kneen too ill to ingest them.

Irwin should have been charged with his crimes long ago. It is high time to remedy that error!

CURE to Greer: "We Are Not Your Friends"

2005-05-06T22:12:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Judge George Greer was rewarded with an engraved clock—today's equivalent of 30 pieces of silver—by the West Pasco Bar Association. The Special Justice Award was bestowed "in part for his handling of the emotionally and politically charged Schiavo case," according to Lisa Davis and Geoff Fox in The Tampa Bay Tribune, who noted that not everyone approved the dubious honor.

Some of the same protesters who stood vigil outside a Pinellas Park hospice as Terri Schiavo slipped away moved north Thursday, trying to keep her memory—and their mission—alive. As they displayed signs outside the security gate of Heritage Springs Golf and Country Club, they wanted Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge George Greer to hear them loud and clear: "Jesus Would Feed Terri,'' one sign read.

And Nuremberg would have hung Greer, since Terri did not "slip away" but was starved and dehydrated to death by her murderers.

As Greer and banquet attendees approached Heritage Springs, they passed the 15 protesters and their signs with slogans such as "You Are Awarding A Murderer'' and "Wanted: Honest Men for Black Robe Jobs.'' One girl held a sign that read: "Judge Greer Should Say Sorry to God.''

Perhaps, it was one of the Kimball girls.

Mary Kimball, of Tampa, held signs with her husband and seven of her children, ages 12 years to 18 months. "The injustice goes on,'' Kimball said. "They're spitting on Terri's grave. That's what this is.''"They're putting a big toad on her grave,'' added Kimball's daughter, Rosie, 10.

If Terri even has a grave. Notwithstanding a court order, her parents have not been told where—if anywhere—it is. And, in any case, there is no body to bury.

"Upon accepting his award, Greer received a standing ovation," Davis and Foxx report, which tells you a great deal about the lawyers and judges inside.

As for the people in the street, Greer acknowledged their presence to his fan club. As Terri's stalwart defender, Cheryl Ford, reminds us, Greer callously joked "as he digested a meal at his banquet and received an award for signing the execution via dehydration and starvation of a disabled woman":

These past several years have been a bit trying. You see my friends out there at the gate. I thank you for not inviting them in.

We are not your friends, Judge Greer. We are Terri's, and we shall remain so. And we shall fight your brand of TAB tyranny as long as God gives us breath.

Texas "Futility" Law Stalks Latest Victim, Baby Knya

2005-04-30T18:13:00.000-05:00

As posted on Blogs for Life by my co-author Richard (and also on Hyscience):

Once upon a time you could go to a doctor and a hospital and count on them to do everything to save a life. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore, and "checkbook euthanasia" seems to be more and more the order of the day. That is something that all of us must do everything possible to reverse!

Houston's ABC affiliate, Channel 13, reports:

The mother of a critically ill baby is trying to figure out where to take her child after being told by doctors at Memorial Hermann Hospital that they would stop treating her in 10 days.

The five-month-old little girl was diagnosed with leukemia just weeks after her birth. Since then, she's undergone a number of different medical treatments and contracted an infection. Doctors and her parents disagree on what should happen next....

"Her mind is fully there," said the baby's mother, Tamiko Dismuke-Howard. "She knows when we are there. I can't give up because she won't give up."

Tamiko picked up a letter from Memorial Hermann Thursday night. It says simply that doctors believe all medical treatment, other than to ease Knya's pain and suffering, would be useless. Her parents have 10 days to find another hospital for Knya or her medical care will stop.

"We will not give up," said Charles Howard, the baby's father. "We are going all the way."

CURE urges our readers—bloggers, in particular—to heed Richard's plea to "please help to pass this around the Internet!!!"

"I Came Into Nursing To Save Life, Not To End It"

2005-04-26T08:49:00.000-05:00

Nursing leaders in Great Britain have refused to support any change in the law that would legalize euthanasia, despite calls by a number of nurses, Nigel Hawkes reports in today's issue of The Times.

During an impassioned debate at the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) annual congress in Harrogate, at least half of those who spoke called for a change in RCN policy....

The college recently had sought the views of its members to respond to the House of Lords select committee on Lord Joffe’s assisted dying Bill, and 70 per cent had indicated their opposition to a softer line.

The Times Health Editor writes that Maura Buchanan, RNC Vice-President, has indicated that college would not change its stance.

"It’s easy to parade views on why the law should be changed, but the law is there to protect vulnerable people. I came into nursing to save life, not to end it," Buchanan declared, concluding, the whole relationship between patients and nurses is at issue.

Judge Stays Montefiore's Termination of Taran

2005-04-24T22:31:00.000-05:00

As posted on Blogs for Terri:

New York City's ABC affiliate, Channel 7, is reporting overnight developments in the case of Taran Francis, who would have been dead by now—that is, truly dead—had Montefiore's plans to deny the 13-year-old boy the ventilatory assistance he needs to live not been thwarted by his loving family and a seemingly judicious judge.

As Eyewitness News' Ken Rosato reports:

It was a dramatic scene here last night, with the judge coming here at almost literally the 11th hour and meeting with the family and the hospital. In the end, he decided to keep the child alive, at least until Monday....
Judge Douglas McKeon arrived at Montefiore Hospital late last night for an emergency hearing.

After a heartwrenching meeting with the family of Taran Francis, the judge decided to keep the 13-year-old alive with the help of a [ventilator]....

After hours of prayers, and Judge McKeon's meeting, the family's wishes were granted.

Patsy Gouldbourne, family attorney: "The mother's there, the aunt's there, the brothers, the sisters—relatives are just coming, it's non-stop. He has a very large family, and very supportive."

Continuing its efforts to support Taran's family in defending his life, CURE has faxed (718-561-2162) pertinent materials to the office of Robert Genis, the family's attorney, whom we have been unable to reach by phone (718-561-4444).

"All parties concerned will now meet with the judge on Monday," Rosato reports, concluding:

Because of the judge's order, the child will be allowed to stay on life support until Monday. But at that point, the hospital does have the right to pull the plug. The hospital is insisting that this child is "brain-dead," that there is no hope he can ever recover from this horrible incident.

But there is no right to murder—neither Terri Schindler Schiavo nor Taran Francis. Nor should any one have to meet some arbitrary standard of recovery to justify his life. It is sufficient to survive. Finally, if Taran were truly dead, he would have suffered rigor mortis by now. Would they bury a breathing boy with a beating heart in the ground? Then why murder him?

Clara Martinez: Saved From Death or Stay of Execution?

2005-04-24T20:56:00.000-05:00

"Let It Be as God Wishes," proclaims the headline in La Raza, whose crusading editor, Jorge Mederos, continues:

That was how Salvador Martínez reacted to the forces unleashed by La Raza, which in 24 hours had obligated him to change his decision to suspend feeding for his wife Clara. After 30 days he authorized reconnecting the feeding tube. The women who the physicians had declared beyond hope is now receiving food and water, while her future is being discussed at the family level.

In other words, "God's wishes" may yet be trumped by man's, as Clara's life remains in the hands of others in negotiations that include the man responsible for her being starved for more than 30 days!

The impact of the information published on the front page last week and on La Raza Online was felt immediately. The situation of this 39-year-old Mexican woman who a year and a half ago suffered the debilitating consequences of a stroke has shaken Chicago’s Latin community and had repercussions throughout the United States.

Because of its similarity to the situation of the American Terri Schiavo, pro-life and anti-euthanasia groups were immediately alerted by Internet. The information from La Raza was also picked up by other press media in the city and within 24 hours several of them had echoed it with a wide emphasis. By Friday night it was already publicly known that this mother of two children aged five and seven years had gone for 30 days without food, and the next day she was reconnected to the feeding tube.

Thank you La Raza for demonstrating the power of a free press and showing up the mainstream media, which like Telemundo had shamefully ignored the story, which apparently conflicted with their anti-life agenda.

Her husband...had signed a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order and ordered feeding withheld. The woman survived through all those days with only water.

However, although the physicians had disconnected the feeding machine, they left the feeding tube in place for the case that the husband were to change his mind. The DNR was hung in full sight of everybody at the head of the bed.

Sort of like, "INRI" hung over the cross of Jesus Christ.

According to Pastor Guillermo Espinoza of the Hispanic Evangelical Church, who serves as chaplain at an area hospital and became aware of Clara’s case while she was interned in a nursing home, Salvador Martínez always maintained that his wife would not want to go on living under these conditions.

However, there is nothing in writing to document this wish. Clara’s mother, Gregoria Ruano, and other relatives were against the decision of Salvador, who has been acting as his wife’s legal guardian.

As long as Salvador Martinez remains Clara's legal guardian, her life remains in danger, particularly, should he subsequently move to evict Clara's mother from the house he owns.

Last Sunday at three in the afternoon, some 40 people got together in front of the house for a vigil, praying and singing hymns. Inside several of Clara’s relatives had gathered in a kind of "conclave."

The day before the house had been visited by a Human Services inspector, concerned by the news that there was a woman there who was dying of starvation. Following this visit, Clara’s feeding was resumed, although sources in government explained that no official action had been taken because, in such situations, a judge is the only authority who can overrule the will of the legal guardian.

In other words, a legal guardian can starve you to death unless a judge—like Judge Greer, for instance?—overrules him. You see why Clara's life, why no man's life, is safe when murder is a private act and no longer treated as a crime.

Salvador Martínez and the rest of the family has avoided speaking to reporters. According to what Pastor Espinoza told La Raza, “There is still some resentment, but what is important is that Clara is well....”

Earl Appleby, Director of Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE), has offered legal support to Clara’s family in the event that they decide to take the case to court.

That offer still stands. Indeed, CURE has been in touch with an attorney in Chicago, who has offered to assist the family in defending Clara Martinez's life.

Behind the News: Why the Rush to Murder Taran Francis?

2005-04-23T20:44:00.000-05:00

As posted on Blogs for Terri:

The attack on young Taran Francis reported below—what the ABC New correctly dubbed "Terri in the Bronx"—-came to CURE's attention last night, and I have been endeavoring to contact the family's attorney, Robert Genis, to offer CURE's assistance and support for the family in defending the life of Taran Francis, who is very much alive.

Living organs must be harvested from living human beings, and the dehumanization of this young man by means of the medical and legal fiction of so-called "brain death" is a classic, if horrid, example of the utilitarian euthanasia referenced in my Author's Note below, introducing "Brain Death"—The Hoax That Won't Die," which should be read by anyone concerned with what is being done in this case. As the title notes, the lie of "brain death" will not die, but its innocent victims like Taran Francis do.

Steve Osborne is right to note that a "disservice" is being done to Taran's family, but it is not being perpetrated by Mr. Genis, who is ably serving his clients and the interest of justice, but rather by Osborne's employer, Montefiore Hospital, and its ultimate victim is Taran Francis, a young man who would be utterly defenseless were it not for his loving family and their dedicated attorney.

Pray and act for Taran.

Bronx Family Fights To Save Son

2005-04-23T08:07:00.000-05:00

As reported by CURE advisor Tim Ruchti on Blogs for Terri:

Several people have sent me the following story that has been changing by the hour. Here is the latest from Newsday:

An emergency hearing was held at a Bronx hospital Friday night after the family of a brain-dead boy alleged that the hospital had threatened to remove him from life support against their wishes.
The unusual hearing came after relatives of Teron Francis, 13, obtained a court order prohibiting Montefiore Medical Center from disconnecting his respirator.

About two dozen relatives stood outside the hospital, prevented by police from attending the closed hearing. A hospital spokesman said the hearing was being held in a small conference room, with only the judge, attorneys, doctors, the boy's mother, Marcerlyn Francis, and a stenographer in attendance.

"Brain Death"—The Hoax That Won't Die

2005-04-22T20:39:00.000-05:00

As posted on Blogs for Terri:

Author's Note: In an article posted below, Carl Rossini rightly indicts "persistent vegetative state" as "a very useful term if you are an advocate of euthanasia." The same indictment, however, applies to "brain death," a medical and legal fiction coined to promote utilitarian and other forms of euthanasia. In this regard, the following article should prove enlightening.

"Brain Death"—The Hoax That Won't Die
by Earl E. Appleby, Jr.

Whether you are classified as dead or alive depends upon your attending physician's understanding of the concept of death. The radical departure from the traditional cardiorespiratory standard of death inherent in "brain death" has, in Capron and Kass's words, brought "extramedical concepts to the forefront of concern." Moreover, "medical judgments," as Lamb reminds us "are informed by philosophical presuppositions, whether or not the latter are explicitly formulated." The following article explicates the "philosophical presuppositions" underlying the "extramedical concepts" of brain death as articulated by its proponents.

If as propagandist par excellence, Joseph Goebbels maintained, a lie repeated often enough is soon believed, the brainwashed public's blind faith in "brain death" is telling testimony to the pervasive power of the big lie. Regrettably, while the medical myth of brain death won't die, its victims do.

Brain death, a prominent proponent attests, is "a creation of prevailing medical technologies." Ironically, these "technologies" have nothing to do with the ability to determine death and everything to do with the ability to sustain life.

Read the rest.

Dangers of "Living Will" and "Brain Death"Exposed on Florida Talk Show

2005-04-21T19:47:00.000-05:00

Appearing last night on the David Allen Show, which airs on AM 1320 in Jacksonville, FL, and across the world via the Internet, Dr. Paul Byrne described the dangers of the misnamed "living will," which he said "has nothing to do with living and everything to do with dying."

Dr. Byrne is a neonatologist and physician in practice for more than 30 years. He has authored medical text books on death and dying, and has appeared before numerous state legislatures in defense of life.

An uncompromising opponent of euthanasia, Dr. Byrne presented the medical truth behind the legal fiction of "brain death" and the transplantation of vital organs it was concocted to facilitate.

Returning to the matter of advance directives, the past president of the Catholic Medical Association endorsed CURE's Life Support Directive, as the directive affording the greatest degree of protection to its users.

Supplemental Resources

You may listen to or download, Allen's interview with Dr. Byrne on the show's website.
You may request a free copy of the Life Support Directive by e-mailing CURE.

"Thanks Be to God, Our Sister Is Being Cared For"

2005-04-17T20:12:00.000-05:00

Jorge Mederos' article cited below has been published by La Raza.

"By the intervention of the State of Illinois government, feeding was resumed for Clara Martinez," the paper's editor reports. "She had been 30 days without food per her husband’s decision."

Some forty people were brought together by the Hispanic Evangelical Church for a vigil of prayers and hymns. They were greeted with the news that she was once again receiving nutrition. "Thanks be to God, our sister is being cared for,” said Bolivian Pastor Guillermo Espinoza.

Sources at the state’s Department of Human Services told the EFE wire service that the woman’s gastric feeding tube was ordered reconnected after the visit by an inspector to the house where she is being attended. Authorities would otherwise have ordered her moved to a hospital.

According to Espinoza, the state’s intervention resulted from pressure by the press and right-to-life organizations in the United States....

The case, made public by La Raza newspaper, had immediate repercussions in the community of almost a million Mexicans who live in Illinois.

Furthermore, several right-to-life organizations, especially the movement that emerged with the Terri Schiavo case, pressured authorities with threats of recourse to a restraining order for legal protection for the Mexican woman.

These organizations also offered legal assistance to the family of Clara Martínez to fight in court against her husband’s decision.

Editor's Note:

CURE's offer of assistance to Clara Martinez and her family, of course, still stands. Winning a battle should not be confused with ending the war.

A Pastor and a Paper Partner To Save a Life!

2005-04-17T17:06:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor Tim Ruchti on Blogs for Terri:

I have just received confirmation from Jorge Mederos, editor of the Chicago newspaper La Raza, that Clara Martinez has had her feeding tube reconnected and is receiving nourishment.

The Human Services Inspector General's Office of the Governor, who contacted him yesterday, intervened.

We will link to Jorge's article with the details when it is available.

Your prayers, phone calls, and public attention made a tremendous difference.

Our highest respect to Pastor Espinoza for courageously raising his voice in defense of Clara Martinez's God-given right to life. Our compliments to Mr. Mederos and La Raza for exposing this covert crime in the making, which is no longer hidden thanks to their professional reporting.

Editor's Note:

Tim speaks for the entire CURE family, when we express our heartfelt gratitude to Pastor Espinoza for his courage, Jorge Mederos for his integrity, and all who joined us in praying and acting for Clara. Above all, we thank the One Who answered those prayers.

Your Constituent Needs You Now, Senator!

2005-04-17T08:33:00.000-05:00

As posted this morning by CURE advisor Tim Ruchti on Blogs for Terri:

Yesterday morning, I spoke with the press agent for Martin A. Sandoval, Illinois State Senator to the 12th district. He represents Clara Martinez and lives just blocks away from her. I haven’t received a public statement from his office, which is what I was seeking, but was given the impression that the Senator is concerned and looking into the situation. It is possible that he may also be present at the prayer meeting.

Please, contact Sen. Sandoval. Politely inform him about Clara’s situation and ask him what he is doing to help her. Respectfully ask him to take a public stand on her behalf.

Senator Martin Sandoval
12th District Senate Office
4843 W. Cermack Rd.
Cicero, IL 60804
Office Phone: 708-656-2002
Fax: 708-656-7608
E-mail: sandoval@senatedem.state.il.us

Editor's Note:

Readers in the Chicago should call Sen. Sandoval. Every reader should, at least, e-mail him. I called on behalf of CURE yesterday, but, like Tim, I have yet to hear back. Meanwhile, Clara Martinez has been without food and water for 30 days!

With all due respect, Senator, what are you waiting for? Rev. Jesse Jackson went to Florida to defend Terri Schiavo. Could you please walk a few blocks to defend Clara Martinez?

The Fight for Clara: A Battlefront Update

2005-04-16T14:46:00.000-05:00

From the pages of Blogs for Terri . . .

I just got off the phone speaking with Pastor Guillermo Espinoza, a godly man who is doing his best to defend the life of Clara Martinez.

A few clarifications around some of the details in response to questions raised in reponse to Tim's latest report below.

It appears that the family, including the mother lives in the husband's home. Moreover, there is a "caregiver" that presumably works for the husband. In CURE's experience, it would not be surprising if she were to act as the enforcer or, at any rate, the snitch for the husband. Speculative, no doubt, but not exactly a wild guess.

Pastor Espinoza again appealed to the husband's conscience within but a few hours, but his pleas fell on death ears. A "religious" man, Martinez is hell-bent to follow his murderous course, just as Michael Schiavo was.

Accordingly it is imperative to publicize this murder in the making as widely as possible, as was done to good end in protecting the life of Mae Magouirk.

Anyone in the Chicago area should make every effort to attend the prayer rally outside the crime scene tomorrow. If you have friends or family in the area, please contact them now!

Meanwhile, CURE is working behind the scenes on legal, media, and governmental venues. Stay tuned to Blogs for Terri for critical updates and keep your readers up to date, if you have a blog.

Pray and act for Clara!

Taking Action for Clara: Fighting Against the Odds

2005-04-16T12:53:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor Tim Ruchti on Blogs for Terri:

Action Item—Please distribute:

What: Join Pastor Espinoza at a Prayer Meeting/Rally!
Why: To pray for Clara Martinez (who has been without food for 29 days) and make known her plight to the community
Where: 3939 West 59th Place, Chicago (near Pulaski Avenue)
When: Sunday, April 17, 3 pm Central Time

Background:

Pastor Guillermo Espinoza knows that he is fighting against the odds for the life of Clara Martinez, a stroke victim who has been purposefully deprived nutrition for close to 30 days. As pastor of a church in her neighborhood, he has chosen to speak out on her behalf.

Following a debilitating stroke one and half years ago, Clara has been incapacitated but able to consume water orally. She was cared for in the University of Illinois at Chicago Medical Center and an intermediate care facility before being taken to her home.

Until recently, she received nourishment through a gastro-intestinal tube that was connected to an external pump. As reported by La Raza, her husband Salvador Martinez, 35 years old and also Mexican, resolved that his wife should not live "artificially." He signed a "Do Not Resuscitate" order to keep her from being revived and and is now withholding nutrition.

Continue reading "Taking Action for Clara"

Pastor Exposes Spousal Starvation

2005-04-15T22:32:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor Tim Ruchti on Blogs for Terri:

Several people have emailed me the following story about Clara Martinez, a Chicago woman who is reportedly being starved to death.

Martinez suffered a debilitating stroke a year ago, and her husband signed a "Do-Not-Resuscitate" order that led to the disconnection of her feeding tube. She is able to consume liquids through her mouth and, so far, has survived for thirty days without food.

Under "normal" circumstances her situation would have gone unnoticed had it not been for the intervention of a pastor of the Hispanic Evangelical Church. Her family also opposes the husband's decision.

I spoke to the article's author, Jorge Mederos. He said the family feels "powerless" and has called the media without response. "No one is paying attention," he said. "The family is planning a protest tomorrow or over the weekend."

Here is the first portion of the article.

In a house on Chicago’s southeast side, a Mexican family is going through a heartbreak like the tragedy that befell the American Terri Schiavo’s family and deeply affected both those who defend the right to life and partisans of euthanasia. But no voices had been raised so far in this case because very few knew about the situation concerning the 39-year-old Latin woman whose husband decided to disconnect the tube that had been feeding her during her three and a half years in a vegetative state.
As of the close of this edition, Clara Martinez, 39 years old and mother of two children—aged five and seven years—had been almost 30 days without food and was still alive, taking only water. For the last year she has been cared for in her home, with special medical equipment installed in the living room, while the rest of the family try to go on with their lives.
This woman has remained in this condition since suffering a stroke. She was cared for in the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) Medical Center, later at an intermediate care facility, then at the hospital again, and finally she was taken to her home. At that time the physicians had judged her condition to be irreversible.
Under these conditions her husband Salvador Martinez, 35 years old and also Mexican, resolved that his wife should not live artificially. He signed a "Do Not Resuscitate" order to keep her from being revived artificially and disconnected the feeding machine. Under these conditions the woman should have died by withdrawal of feeding and the case would have gone unnoticed, had it not been for the intervention of a pastor of the Hispanic Evangelical Church at 4340 W. 87th St....

[The pastor] said that when he was with the wife, "she moved, opened her eyes, and when we prayed and sang together by her bedside, she blinked as though she was listening." He said it was also significant that, in spite of her condition, the woman was still "able to take water."

Read the rest of Jorge Mederos' article in La Raza.

Editor's Note:

Tim has been in touch with Pastor Guillermo Espinoza, and CURE is offering its assistance to the family. May God bless Pastor Espinoza for raising his voice in defense of Clara Martinez's God-given right to life. Our compliments to Mr. Mederos and La Raza for exposing this covert crime in the making, which is no longer hidden thanks to their professional reporting.

Bloggers March as Mae Flees Hospice Death Camp

2005-04-09T17:39:00.000-05:00

As recently reported by my Blogs for Terri fellow author Richard here and elsewhere:

Just received telephone call (3:00 pm ET) from Ken Mullinax, nephew of Mae [Magouirk], followed by this e-mail:

Thanks to the support of all friends of Terri, my aunt Mae Magouirk has been air-lifted to the University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center...and [is] receiving IV fluids, nourishment and some of the finest medical care available in the United States! Praise be the name of the Lord God...

Thanks to Terri's friends... It would never ever have been possible without bloggers who love life and the truth!! I am racing from my home to UAB now and will type a detailed update after I see my Aunt Mae! Thanks, guys, your calls, emails, blogs and prayers did it all!!!

I so love you, guys!!!!!!!!!!

Ken Mullinax, nephew of Mae

It is not over yet—the opposition is still trying to get her back to the hospice—so keep fighting, bloggers and readers!

Editor's Note:

Ken, it looks like Cousin Beth may be suffering from "Michael Schiavo syndrome," whose chief symptom is a persistent urge to cause a family member to die prematurely.

Meanwhile—while it is we who salute you—not everyone shares your kind and generous assessment of our efforts, as witness the following rant that CURE is honored to have played its part in engendering:

Today a bunch of rightie bloggers are worked up over the case of a Georgia woman who they say is neither terminal nor comatose but is being deprived of care by a grandaughter who, naturally will inherit a bunch of money when Granny dies. In other words, they've found their new Terri Schiavo. [Editor's Note: They're not hard to find, just visit almost any hospice and most hospitals and nursing homes.]

Now, if the facts of the case are as the bloggers describe them, poor Granny is indeed being callously and cruelly starved to death. However, if the facts of the case are as the bloggers describe them, I will eat my sneakers.

Adidas, no doubt. Pass the salt! And remember, as Richard reminds us, keep fighting!

"Terri Saved My Brother's Life"

2005-04-08T22:18:00.000-05:00

As we honor Terri's legacy by fighting for Mae Magouirk,
it is encouraging to note one life already spared. –Editor

by Callie S. Baillie

My brother went into acute respiratory failure a year ago September at 45 years old. By the time I got the phone call, he was on a [ventilator] in the ICU of a small hospital several hours from my home. Think SARS without the contagious aspect and you’ll get some idea of what condition he was in: as the Merck site puts it:

The survival rate for patients with severe ARDS who receive appropriate treatment is about 60%; if the severe hypoxemia of ARDS is not recognized and treated, cardiopulmonary arrest occurs in 90% of patients.

There was the usual story: long drives, long nights, phone ringing at any old hour—"You’d better come, and do you want us to resuscitate if his heart stops before you get here?"—that sort of thing, but he kept reviving despite every expectation to the contrary.

One or the other of us showed up there every day, right on through Christmas, and he got off oxygen, and then he had his trach tube removed, started eating again, and went to physical therapy. And one January day, lo and behold, he went home. Wobbly, frail, confused, forgetful, but home.

Two months later, he was buying books and shopping at Wal-Mart. He’ll be on a lot of medicine for the rest of his life, but that’s a minor detail. And the reference to the news?

If I hadn't been seething for weeks over the attempted murder of Terry Schiavo, my brother would now be ashes.

Editor's Note

The newest member of CURE's Board of Advisors, Callie Baillie writes from Winslow, NC, where she hosts Christianity and Middle Earth.

Deja Vu in Georgia: Court-Sanctioned Starvation Stalks New Victim

2005-04-07T22:43:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back (with additional links):

85-year-old Mae Magouirk of LaGrange, GA, is currently being deprived of nutrition and hydration at the request of her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy. Mrs. Magouirk suffered an aortic dissection 2 weeks ago and was hospitalized. Though her doctors have said that she is not terminally ill, Ms. Gaddy declared that she held medical power of attorney for Mae, and had her transferred to the LaGrange Hospice. Later investigation revealed that Ms. Gaddy did not in fact have such power of attorney.

Furthermore, Mae's "living will" provides that nutrition and hydration are to be withheld only if she is comatose or vegetative. Mae is in neither condition. Neither is her condition terminal.

Furthermore, under Georgia law, if there is no power of attorney specifying a health care decisionmaker, such authority is given to the closest living relatives. Mae's brother, A. B. McLeod, and sister, Lonnie Ruth Mullinax, are both still alive and capable of making such decisions. They opposed Mae's transfer to hospice, and are fighting to save her life. But in spite of the lack of a power of attorney, and the fact that there are closer living relatives who should be given precedence by Georgia law, Ms. Gaddy sought an emergency appointment as guardian from the local probate court.

The probate judge, Donald Boyd—who, I am told, is not an attorney and does not have a law degree—granted Gaddy's request, thereby giving her the power to starve and dehydrate Margourik to death, though such an action is contrary to the provisions of the living will.

I have spoken to Kenneth Mullinax, Mae's nephew, and he has confirmed all the above. He also tells me that he believes that Ms. Gaddy has no bad motives, but is simply misguided and mistaken. Mullinax said that Ms. Gaddy has testified in court that she has "prayed over" Mae, and is convinced that it is "time for her to go". Whether the fact is relevant or not remains to be seen, but apparently Ms. Gaddy is also the sole beneficiary of Mae's will. [Editor's Note: Mae Magouirk will be just as dead regardless of her murderer's "misguided" or malevolent motive.]

Kenneth has told me that they need help in getting the word out, and bringing Mae's case to the media's attention. Given the amount of coverage of the Holy Father's death, that may be difficult. But we have to raise the visibility of this case. They have another hearing coming up, and Kenneth indicated that they also may need expert assistance, both legal and medical.

The similarities of Mae Magouirk's situation and Terri Schiavo's are obvious: Once again we have a family divided over what care should be given to a seriously ill relative. And once again, we have a judge playing God with someone's life. But what is different—and in a sense worse—is that Mae is being deprived of food and water in clear contravention of her own stated wishes, and at the request of someone who should have no standing under Georgia law.

More information is available at Blogs for Terri. If you want to contact Kenneth Mullinax to get more information or to offer help, you may e-mail him at mockingbird@compuhelp.net.

Editor's Note:

CURE has e-mailed Mr. Mullinax to offer our assistance. Further developments will be posted here and on Blogs for Terri. Pray and act for Mae!

Revealing the Hidden Agenda: Checkbook Euthanasia

2005-04-06T21:37:00.000-05:00

Q: How can you tell when a euthanasia advocate is telling the truth?

A: When he disgusts you even more than usually.

Consider biological psychologist Hal Herzog, writing in the Asheville, NC, Citizens-Times on the moral, social, and legal issues raised not by Terri Schindler Schiavo's imposed death, but by her inadequate care.

Noting that "most commentators...have ignored the troubling inescapable financial consequences of severe irreversible brain damage to affected families and to taxpayers," Herzog proceeds to make the same case for checkbook euthanasia that Professors Karl Binding and Erich Hoche raised in Germany's Weimar Republic some 80 years ago in their seminal work The Destruction of Life Devoid of Value.

"Here are the facts," Herzog ominously begins:

According to a 2002 report in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, the frequency of persistent vegetative state in the United States is 64 to 140 per million people. Thus, somewhere between 538 and 1,176 North Carolinians are probably afflicted with this condition. At a cost of about $80,000 a year per person, this translates to an annual financial burden to the North Carolina health-care system of $43 million to $94 million—enough to hire between 1,500 and 3,500 additional public school teachers.

That last propaganda ploy, i.e., comparing the costs of caring for persons with disablities with the cost of funding productive laborers is right out of the euthanasia playbook. As Mark Mostert observes in the Fall 2002 issue of the Journal of Special Education:

In Binding and Hoche's terms, [the former] were "useless eaters" whose "ballast lives" could be tossed overboard to better balance the economic ship of state. In speaking of those with disabilities, and explicitly advocating involuntary euthanasia, Binding and Hoche wrote:
Their life is absolutely pointless, but they do not regard it as being unbearable. They are a terrible, heavy burden upon their relatives and society as a whole. Their death would not create even the smallest gap--except perhaps in the feelings of their mothers or loyal nurses.

Just like today!

Furthermore, Binding and Hoche drove home the economic argument by calculating the total cost expended in caring for such people. They concluded that this cost was "a massive capital in the form of foodstuffs, clothing and heating, which is being subtracted from the national product for entirely unproductive purposes."

As their disciple Herzog continues:

The life expectancy of a young adult in a persistent vegetative state is 11.5 years, making their lifetime health-care costs about $1 million. With a median family income of $38,000, few North Carolina families can bear this burden. Who should pay to keep people like Terri Schiavo alive?

Could this be why Judge George Greer ruled so consistently for Terri's eradication? After all, the Republican judge's conservatism was scarcely the compassionate sort.

Living Will--No! Will to Live--Yes!

2005-04-05T22:42:00.000-05:00

As posted on Blogs for Terri:

As has been noted here and elsewhere, the suicidal "living will" is part of the problem, not part of the solution to epivalothanasia (imposed death).

CURE's Statement of Purpose recalls that two Advisory Board members who lived in coma for decades "taught us volumes about the will to live, infinitely preferable to the living will."

As I observed in "Life...Choose It or Lose It!" (HLI Reports, July 1992):

Those who have signed the misnamed "Living Will" have already chosen death, however unknowingly. "The Will," as the Washington Post's, B.D. Colen (no closet pro-lifer) writes, "would authorize the murder of virtually anyone who filled out a Will, lost consciousness for a period of time, and would in some way be incapacitated on regaining consciousness."

Living Will victims cited by Colen include "a person who suffers a stroke, loses consciousness for a few days, and then regains consciousness and recovers to walk with a limp," "the person who is confined by accident or illness to a wheelchair, although he may be perfectly normal in every other respect," and "the person who suffers a partial loss of sight or vision."

"But are these candidates for what is clearly euthanasia?" he asks. "They may not think they are, but if they have filled out Living Wills," he concludes, "they are completely at the mercy of whomever may be responsible for their health, welfare, or affairs."

Read the rest.

Lessons Learned When Lives Are Lost

2005-04-04T19:29:00.000-05:00

The lessons learned in the fight against euthanasia come at a very dear price, and if we ignore them, the cost will be higher still.

A Saintly Salmagundi's Fr. Bryce Sibley has kindly called our attention to several media "textbooks" worthy of our review.

Wrong Questions Yield Wrong Answers

For all the attention we have paid to the Schiavo case, we have asked many of the wrong questions, living as we do on the playing field of modern liberalism. We have asked whether she is really in a persistent vegetative state, instead of reflecting on what we owe people in a persistent vegetative state. We have asked what she would have wanted as a competent person imagining herself in such a condition, instead of asking what we owe the person who is now with us, a person who can no longer speak for herself, a person entrusted to the care of her family and the protection of her society. –Eric Cohen, "How Liberalism Failed Terri Schiavo," The Weekly Standard, March 25, 2005.

The Most Dangerous Branch of Government

Alexander Hamilton's famous last words in The Federalist described the judiciary as the "least dangerous branch," because it had neither force nor will. Now the judiciary is the most dangerous branch. It doesn't need force because it has smoke and mirrors and a lot of people defending the moronic scribblings of any judge as the perfect efflorescence of "the rule of law." –Anne Coulter, "The emperor's new robes," March 31, 2005.

The Most Derilect Branch of Government

Despite the outward appearance of deliberation, what we witness now as an ongoing feature of the conduct of the judiciary at every level amounts to a judicial riot, in which judges and justices take it upon themselves to disregard the prerogatives of the other branches in order to assert an exclusive and tyrannical control of public standards and conduct....
But in a constitutional system based on checks and balances, one branch can run riot only if some other branch fails to exert the power necessary to constrain its actions within constitutional bounds. This means that the rise of judicial tyranny represents a failure elsewhere in the government....

In the end, the constraint of judicial abuse is especially the responsibility of the executive branch of government, since the executive has both the opportunity and the obligation to act without the interference of the judiciary, provided that in doing so he consults the political will of the legislative power.

Until and unless the people elected to wield executive power in our national and state governments recognize and act upon this responsibility, the judiciary will go unchecked, destroying the balance of power among the branches and with it our system of free, representative self-government. –Alan Keyes, "Judicial review and executive responsibility," March 28, 2005.

License to Kill: An Uncivil Liberty

While lawyers and judges have engaged in a minuet of death, the American Civil Liberties Union, which would be passionately criticizing state court decisions and demanding due process if Terri were a convict on death row, has shamefully served as co-counsel for her husband, Michael Schiavo, in his insistent desire to have her die....
As David Gibbs, the lawyer for Terri's parents, has pointed out, there has been a manifest need for a new federal, Fourteenth Amendment review of the case because Terri's death sentence has been based on seven years of "fatally flawed" state court findings—all based on the invincible neglect of elementary due process by Judge George Greer.

I will be returning to the legacy of Terri Schiavo in the weeks ahead because there will certainly be long-term reverberations from this case and its fracturing of the rule of law in the Florida courts and then the federal courts. –Nat Hentoff, "Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder," The Village Voice, March 29, 2005.

And we, too, shall be return to it—again and again—in months and years to come.

The Murder of Terri (Day 14): Grieve Today, Fight Tomorrow!

2005-03-31T11:55:00.000-05:00

The tragic, as in tragically unnecessary, death of our beloved sister Terri stirs a sea of emotions in our hearts.

While righteous anger is definitely among them—lest our veins run with ice and not blood—today we are joined in profound sorrow with the grief that pierces the heart of Mary Schindler, as it pierced the heart of another Mary millenia ago. Indeed, our love and prayers are with each of the Schindlers in their inconsolable loss.

May Theresa Marie's courageous soul rest, at last, in peace!

And may we never rest in this world until her murderers are brought to justice and her brothers and sisters are protected from extermination by a Culture of Death that is the enemy of all that is decent and humane.

Death to the Culture of Death!

The Murder of Terri (Day 13): Left & Right, Unite and Fight!

2005-03-30T22:55:00.000-05:00

At CURE we often say that there is Democrat euthanasia and there is Republican euthanasia. The liberals will murder you in the name of false compassion, while the conservatives will murder you in order to balance the budget. The problem is you are just as dead in either instance.

As the Supreme Court turns its back on Terri Schindler-Schiavo for the sixth(and final) time and godly men bearing water for a defenseless woman dying of thirst are brutalized for their corporal works of mercy, evil triumphant descends on Terri and America.

And yet amidst the enveloping darkness, a flickering candle of human decency casts a ray of hope for a brighter day, however faintly.

That light arises from the coming together of concerned citizens, across political lines, to support Terri Schindler-Schiavo's right not to be murdered merely because she has a disability.

In the pages of today's Kansas City Star, John Kennedy reports from Tallahassee, FL, on the latest example of this rare people-above-politics collaboration:

The emotional drama of Terri Schiavo's final days sparked another extraordinary event Wednesday, as two bitter political rivals, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Gov. Jeb Bush, huddled behind closed doors feverishly looking for ways to keep her alive.

Yesterday, in Pinellas Park, FL, Rev. Jackson stood side by side with Randall Terry outside the Woodside hospice to to demand justice for the woman imprisoned within. As Andrew Metz writes in Newsday, "the two men standing arm-in-arm...were an odd pairing even by these standards."

Here were the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Randall Terry, from opposite ends of the activist spectrum, generating energy from the supercurrent of the Terri Schiavo case. Though divided on issues and style, the liberal Democrat and the confrontational ultra-conservative highlighted how the debate over Schiavo's fate has roused convictions beyond the evangelicals who have been most outspoken.

"This is a moral issue, and it transcends politics and family disputes," the civil rights leader rightly declared, adding "Conservatives and liberals can find common ground."

We had better before the only common ground we share is the mass grave of the unwanted and powerless. Left and right, unite and fight for Terri!

The Murder of Terri (Day 12): The Whole World Is Watching

2005-03-29T23:42:00.000-05:00

. . . just watching, I'm afraid.

United Kingdom: A Political Stunt?

Christian activists flew to Washington last night to confront legislators about Terri Schiavo after the disabled woman was given her last rites.

Supporters made a final effort to save her by appealing to politicians on Capitol Hill to enforce a congressional subpoena which, they say, makes Mrs Schiavo, 41, a legally protected federal witness. Issued 11 days ago to prevent Mrs Schiavo’s feeding tube from being withdrawn, the subpoena was rejected by Florida judge George Greer, triggering a political wrangle over the constitutional separation of powers in the US.

"Were the subpoenas a political stunt or do they plan to enforce them?" asked Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defence Coalition, at a rally outside the White House. –Jacqui Goddard, "Christians Rally at White House for Schiavo," The Times, March 29, 2005.

Australia: Schiavo Gives Water...to Protestors

Outside the hospice, more than 25 protesters staged an Easter Sunday service. Three were later arrested as they tried to enter the hospice. More than 30 activists, many carrying cups of water, have been arrested for trespass since last week.
A small group of protesters went to Mr Schiavo's home to lay symbolic dying roses on his lawn. Someone inside the house turned on the lawn sprinklers, drenching the demonstrators. –Richard Luscombe, "No RIP for Schiavo," The Age, March 29, 2005.

New Zealand: Rearguard Action

Supporters of Bob and Mary Schindler again appealed for federal or state intervention.

"This is about the soul of our nation, the soul of our church," said Michael McMonagle, spokesman for the Pro-Life Union of Southeastern Pennsylvania, as around two dozen protesters gathered in a park across from the White House.
Outside the hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida, where Schiavo is being cared for [sic], the protesters were dismissive of Michael Schiavo's plans for an autopsy.

"It's a way to cover his behind," said Randall Terry, an anti-abortion activist speaking for the Schindlers. –"Schiavo to undergo autopsy to end debate says lawyer," The New Zealand Herald, March 29, 2005.

India: Terri Did Not Choose To Be Murdered

Fueled by deeply held religious beliefs and connected nationwide through a sophisticated political network using e-mail and telephone, conservative activists have convinced Congress and President Bush to intervene on behalf of Schiavo's parents.

>Arrayed against such social conservatives are husband Michael Schiavo and liberal leaders, including Howard Simon, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Florida chapter.

"How can a small, well-organized group which is basically the anti-choice lobby capture the machinery of government so that theological extremists are shaping public policy? That's what's going on,'' Simon said. –"Battle over brain-damaged woman emerges as latest chapter in U.S. moral divide," The Hindu, March 30, 2005.

Pakistan: Needed—A Man of Courage

Terri Schiavo's parents appealed desperately to Florida Governor Jeb Bush on Monday to intervene as their brain-damaged daughter slipped toward death 10 days after her artificial feeding was halted by court order.
But the last-ditch effort by the parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, seemed unlikely to succeed as Bush has already ruled out such action. Their appeal came after the Schindlers ran out of judicial options over the weekend in their bitter seven-year legal fight against Schiavo's husband to prolong her life.

"Bob and Mary Schindler are begging Governor Bush to step in and take custody of Terri," said [Brother] Paul O'Donnell, a Franciscan monk who is a spiritual adviser to the parents.

"We're begging the governor to step in, to be a man of courage and to put an end to this barbaric practice that's taking place in Florida," he told reporters outside the Florida hospice. –"Schiavo's parents seek governor's intervention," Dawn, March 29, 2005.

Canada: Terri Hasn't Given Up—Nor Should We

"Everyone is willing to write this woman's obituary except one person and that's Terri Schiavo herself," said Paul O'Donnell, a Roman Catholic Franciscan monk and a family spokesman.
Terri Schiavo smiled, raised her hands and made guttural sounds late Sunday while being visited by her father, Bob Schindler, and a friend, who was talking about how she liked to go out dancing, O'Donnell said outside Schiavo's hospice Monday. –Mark Long, "Schiavo's parents dealing with reality of daughter's imminent death: spokesman," Mark Long, Canadian Press, March 28, 2005.

The Murder of Terri (Day 11): Send in the Feds!

2005-03-28T00:00:00.000-05:00

"I don't give a damn about the Republican Party.
I care about a woman being put to death."
Chris Matthews: We're short of time here. An ABC poll shows two-thirds of the American people think this is all politics.

Pat Buchanan: Well, I think they're dead wrong with regard to the president of the United States.

What George Bush ought to do right now is send federal marshals in and pick up Terri Schiavo and put that breathing tube back into her—excuse me, the food and hydration tube back into her, as this is taken up to the United States Supreme Court. He took an oath, Chris, to defend the Constitution of the United States. He has got an obligation, as well as these judges do, to defend that Constitution. And that means to protect this woman's life.

Matthews: What happened to the 10th Amendment?

Buchanan: Look, the 10th Amendment has been dead as a door nail, Chris.

Matthews: Well, it's our Constitution.

Buchanan: The point is, the president of the United States—there's a woman dying, sentenced to death because she's brain-damaged. She's committed no crime. She's having food and water denied to her. That is a violation of human rights and the president of the United States has an opportunity, as does the governor of Florida, to step in as executives and act.

Matthews: Should the president of the United States reviews every case in which a family is deciding when to stop feeding a beleaguered, dying family member and bring in federal marshals in such cases?

Buchanan: If a husband and a judge have conspired to kill a woman who is simply brain-damaged.

Matthews: Conspiring?

Buchanan: Exactly. They've worked together on this thing.

Matthews: Pat, I thought you were a strict constructionist. What happened to the 10th Amendment?

Buchanan: I'm in favor of human life, if innocent life is being taken, Chris.

Matthews: What does the 10th Amendment say?

Buchanan: The 10th Amendment said the rest of the rights belong to the states and the people.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel: But this case has been litigated for seven years. It has been heard by 19 judges in six courts. It has gone to the Supreme Court three times.

Buchanan: It is irrelevant.

Vanden Heuvel: But, you know, Pat, what is happening is, you're seeing the implosion of your party.

Buchanan: I don't give a damn about the Republican Party. I care about a woman being put to death.

["Hardball," MSNB, March 23, 2005, courtesy of An Aid to Memory]

The Murder of Terri (Day 10): With Terri to the End

2005-03-27T07:00:00.000-05:00

From the desk of CURE advisor Cheryl Ford, R.N., a friend of Terri to the end and beyond:

March 26, 2005
11:00 p.m. ET

Dearest Friends of Terri,

I am very distraught this evening. I have contemplated whether to send this information to the people who have remained steadfast and very dedicated in their fight to free Terri from her captors. However, after great consideration, I feel it is only right that I share with you, Terri's supporters, the information I have been given this evening by Terri's family.

As we all have come to know, Terri Schindler is a strong woman who has an incredible will to live. Despite the daily inhumane torture that is inflicted upon her by estranged spouse, Michael Schiavo, (the man who has allowed her to lay in a bed with no food and water for the past eight days,) she has been fighting very hard to remain alive. Last Friday, in spite of her not being permitted therapy since 1993, Terri even tried to articulate the words "I Waaaaaa " in a very loud voice, in response to Attorney Weller saying to her, "All you have to do Terri, is tell us you want to live, and this whole thing can be over Terri."

Under normal circumstances, considering how well hydrated and nourished Terri has been due to receiving the balanced nutritional elements in enteral feedings, it would seem reasonable for Terri to live for another week, or so. However, what was reported by her family tonight, has presented my worst fears. Terri's breathing has changed and has recently become very labored. I am assuming this is happening so quickly because of the possible initiation of Woodside's "exit protocol." A protocol which delivers to her nebulized morphine, a narcotic which suppresses respirations. The "exit protocol" was obviously written to enhance her death process. Woodside claims morphine was to be administered to provide her with so-called "comfort" measures. Odd, however, they would find it necessary to administer morphine to a patient who [Michael] Schiavo and [George] Felos have declared all along has no pain, is without any feelings, and is "brain dead."

Go figure!

In simple English, it appears they are killing Terri faster than she has the ability to fight to stay alive any longer. Terri's family are physically and emotionally worn out. They feel disappointed and deserted by government leaders who they once supported. They pleaded for help from them to save their daughter's life, but were repeatedly turned down by judges who chose to err on the side of death, as opposed to life, sadly, leaving them alone to stand by and witness their daughter fighting against the inhumane death of starvation and dehydration.

The callous, cruel and bizarre behaviors we have also witnessed from Schiavo in his determination to rapidly kill the wife he claims to love; leads us to assume he may now be on a rapid mission to leave Terri's parents with the memory of her death on Easter.

Please pray that God continues to protect Terri. Pray that He will provide Terri with peace as she struggles to take her final breaths. Please pray that He allows her family to feel confident that they did everything possible to save her life. Please pray that He allows them to know how much she loves them for the valiant fight they have made on her behalf. Please pray that if Terri is forced to take her final breaths, it can be with her family by her bedside and not Michael Schiavo. Pray that someday soon she will be capable of inhaling the beauty of LIFE, in a place where no more harm will come to her.

As Terri now lays taking labored breaths, I, myself, am given a sense of peace in knowing if she dies, she will soon be free from Michael ever bringing harm to her again. I will no longer have to worry about what he may do to her; or, how she has had to stay locked up in a room away from her family and the beautiful sounds of the earth we all are able to enjoy every day. I will pray for each of you that you find peace within yourself in knowing you have helped Terri in your own special way.

In the meantime, please know, for as long as Terri is alive and fighting, I will continue to pray for a miracle and will keep on fighting for her until her final breaths are taken.

I ask that you all join me in doing the same. [emphasis added]

Thank you so much for being an enormous strength for Terri's family. They continue to appreciate the love and dedication you continue to show to Terri, and to each of them.

I will keep you posted.

Respectfully, and with great admiration,

Cheryl Ford, R.N.

The Murder of Terri (Day 9): Open Appeals to Closed Minds

2005-03-26T07:30:00.000-05:00

As Terri dies and human hope dies with her, no comments save prayers are needed on the following desperate appeals to men in high places with hearts that have been touched, but minds that have been closed far longer.

It Is About Life!

I just heard a blurb on CNN from Bush, whining about how he is doing all that he can under the scope of the "law."
Well that's noble except for one thing, no one in Michael's camp is obeying the law!!!
The [politicians] are turning this into a political issue—excuse me while I barf! It is not about politics! It is not about religion! It is about morals! –KC, Random & Politically Incorrect Thoughts!

Minister to Bush: Disobey Court Order!

With all legal remedies apparently exhausted, a prominent evangelical Christian leader is urging Jeb Bush to disobey a judge's order barring the Florida governor from intervening to save the life of Terri Schiavo.

In a statement [released] shortly after Judge George Greer's decision [of March 24], Ft. Lauderdale, FL, minister D. James Kennedy pointed to Bush "as the only legal authority who can save the life of Terri Schiavo." –Ed, EdStoffel.com

The Right Thing To Do

It's time for Jeb Bush and little brother President Bush to "Cowboy Up."
Do they really stand by their convictions, and do they really believe that there is a God? If so then they need to use their executive power to go and save Terri's life.
God's laws outweigh man's laws when it comes to a situation like this, and anyone in their right mind that would put everything else aside and take Terri's case personally without regard to politics, courts, or anything else would surely choose to save her.
Jeb and George might lose their jobs. They may get impeached or go to jail for contempt of court, but it would simply be the right thing to do. –Crimeboss, SolveCrime.com

May God Have Mercy, When Men Have None

It is now in the hands of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State of Flordia to step in and order Terri Schiavo rescued from this unlawful execution.
Mr. President, Mr. Governor, I pray that you will do the right thing.
May God's will be done. and may God have mercy on Terri. –John Bowden, Adjutorium Nostrum + In Nomine Domini

Not Dead Yet: Where There Is Life, There Is Hope

Terri Schiavo is dying, but there is still hope!Keep pounding away at Jeb Bush!
Governor Bush's email: jeb.bush@myflorida.com
Phone: 850-488-4441
Fax: 850-487-0801

The phones are very busy but don't give up! Keep trying until you get through and politely tell his office you know Governor
Bush has the power to intervene.
"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." –Edmund Burke
And please remember to pray for Terri and her family. –Janette Stripling, Common Sense Runs Wild

Editor's Note:

We are rushing against the clock to press the fight to Terri's final breath—there is no other way to fight and mean it. Thus we have rushed this into cyberspace and welcome updates from our readers.

I'll simply note that with the exception of our old friend John Bowden, each of these Blogs for Terri are published by new friends in our common cause. May their tribe increase!

And, as always, pray and act for Terri!

The Murder of Terri (Day 8): Love & Tears

2005-03-25T12:00:00.000-05:00

For Terri With Love

On the day Terri's current starvation began, our 5-year old daughter, Ana Maria, brought me a picture she had colored. She had signed it "For Terri With Love."

"Could you please send it to Terri for me, Papi?" she asked with the innocence that believes her father can do all things.

Ana prays for Terri because she loves Terri with a child's heart that embraces life, and for the same reason she will cry when she dies.

A Lamentation for Terri

To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, a Psalm of David

My God, my God, why hast Thou me foresaken?
Woe me, from me, why is Thy presence taken?
So far from seeing, mine unhealthful eyes,
So far from hearing to my roaring crys.

O God, my God, I cry while day appeareth:
But, God, Thy ear my crying never heareth.
O God, the night is privy to my plaint
Yet to my plaint Thou hast no audience lent.

But Thou art holy, and dost hold Thy dwelling
Where Israel Thy lauds is ever telling.
Our fathers still to Thee their trust did bear;
They trusted, and, by Thee delivered were.

They were set free, when they upon Thee called,
They hoped on Thee, and theywere not appalled.
ButI, a worm not I of mankind am,
Nay shame of men, the people's scorning game.

The lookers now at me, poor wretch, be mocking;
With moues and nods, they stand about me flocking.
Let God help him (say they) Whom he did trust:
Let God save him in Whom was all his lust.

And yet from the womb Thy Self didst take me:
A mother's breasts, Thou dids good hope betake me.
No sooner my child's eyes could look abroad,
Then I was given to Thee, Thou wert my God.

O be not far, since pain so nearly presseth,
And since there is not one who it redresseth.
I am enclosed with young bulls madded rout;
Nay Bashan mighty bulls close me about.

With gaping mouths, these folks on me have charged
Like lions fierce, with roaring jaws enlarged:
On me all those, who do like water slide
Whose loosed bones quite out of joint be wried;

Whose heart, with these huge flames, like wax o'erheeated
Doth melt away, though it be inward seated:
My moistening strength is like a potsherd dried,
My cleaving tongue, close to my roof doth bide.

And now am brought, alas, brought by Thy power
Unto the dust of my death's running hour:
For bawling dogs have compassed me about,
Yea, worse than dogs, a naughty, wicked, rout.

My humble hands, my fainting feet they pierced:
They look, they gaze, my bones might be rehearsed;
Of my poor weeds they do partition make,
And do cast lots who should my vesture take.

But be not far, O Lord, my strength, my comfort,
Hasten to help me, in this deep discomfort.
Ah, from the sword, yet save my vital sprite,
My desolated life from dogged might.

From lion's mouth (O help) and show to hear me,
By aiding, when fierce unicorns come near me:
To brethren, then, I will declare Thy fame,
And with these words, when they meet, praise Thy name.

Who fear the Lord, all praise and glory bear Him:
You Israel's seed, you come of Jacob, fear Him.
For He hath not abhorred, nor yet disdained
The silly wretch, with foul affliction stained,

Nor hid from him His face's fair appearing;
But, when he called, this Lord did give him hearing:
In congregation great, I will praise Thee:
Who fear Thee shall my vows performed see.

The afflicted then shall eat, and be well pleased,
And God shall be, by those His seekers, praised.
Indeed, O you, you that be of such mind,
You shall the life that ever-liveth find.

But what? I say, from earth's remotest border
Unto due thoughts, mankind his thoughts shall order
And turn to God, and all the nations be
Made worshippers before Almighty Thee.

And reason, since the crown to God pertaineth,
And that by right upon all realms He reigneth,
That they be made, even fat, with earth's fat good,
Shall feed, and laud the giver of their food.

To Him shall kneel even whom to dust be stricken,
Even he whose life no help of man can quicken;
His service shall from child to child descend,
His dooms one age shall to another send.

("The Twenty-Second Psalm," Philip Sidney)

The Murder of Terri (Day 7): Failure of the Good Ensures the Triumph of Evil

2005-03-24T22:58:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, CURE warned that Terri Schindler-Schiavo will die unless Bush intervenes to prevent her court-imposed execution for the crime of having a disability.

Today, in the wake of the Supreme Court's rejection of the Schindlers' desperate appeal on behalf of their fast-fading daughter, Maya Bell, Sean Mussenden, and Ken Ma, staff writers for the Orlando Sentinel, begin their report with the following words, affirming that judgment:

Barring any unprecedented action by Gov. Jeb Bush, it appears that no person, no court and no law stands in the way of Terri Schiavo's death.

Today also, in Tallahassee, conservative activists Alan Keyes and Larry Klayman met with a Bush aide to press their view that the governor had a constitutional obligation to defy court and legislative actions that could result in Terri Schiavo's death. As Keyes declared outside the state Capitol:

"The judges don't get to tell the governor what is constitutional in his use of executive power. He is oath-bound to make that judgment for himself."

Meanwhile, hundreds stood before the Woodside Concentration Camp a.k.a. Hospice where Terri is being starved and dehydrated to death, chanting the demand of every decent American: "Give Terri water! Give Terri water!"

Standing apart from the crowd, David McMullen, 14, whose mother drove him down from Tracey City, Tenn., Thursday, looked somber in a dark suit. He urged the president and his brother to take Terri Schiavo into protective custody.

"If they don't," he said, "it is the end for her.

And the end of a once noble nation that surrendered its birthright to the Darwinian laws of the jungle.

The Murder of Terri (Day 6): Killer Courts Will Murder Terri Unless Bush Intervenes

2005-03-23T04:37:00.000-05:00

In the wee hours of this morning, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, GA, callously denied the Schindlers' increasing desperate appeal on behalf of the life of their daughter Terri now enduring her sixth day of court-imposed starvation and dehydration. Fox News reports:

The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 to deny the request, a day after a federal judge in Florida rejected a similar appeal.
In its ruling, the panel said the woman's parents "failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims."...

But in the dissenting opinion, Judge Charles R. Wilson expressed concern that Schiavo's "imminent" death would end the case before it could be fully considered.

"In fact, I fail to see any harm in reinserting the feeding tube," he wrote.

Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, vowed to file yet another appeal later today.

What could be sensed in the shadows is now crystal clear.

Terri Schindler-Schiavo, like Paul Brophy, Christine Busalacchi, and God knows how many others before her, will be executed by court order for the crime of disability, unless Bush intervenes to commute her unjust sentence by exercising not merely the right, but the duty, of a civilized state to protect the lives of its innocent citizens.

Which Bush, you ask? Either, or better yet, both.

Neither a president nor a governor should allow a rogue judiciary to tyrannically impose its murderous will on a defenseless woman despite unprecedented and extraordinary efforts by the executive and legislative branches to protect her.

America stands in the dock, and the judgment, which will be handed down in time—as surely as Terri will die—will be severe indeed and ever so richly deserved.

The Murder of Terri (Day 5): Justice Delayed, Then Denied

2005-03-22T19:40:00.000-05:00

Federal District Judge James D. Whittemore lost little time in signaling his intentions in yesterday's two-hour hearing in Tampa, FL, as Terri Shcindler Schiavo entered her fourth day of starvation and dehydration.

Although attorney David Gibbs III pointedly reminded the judge that "Terri may die as I speak," "he seemed cool to the argument of the parents, who believe Schiavo should live," Vickie Cachere reported for the Associated Press.

"I think you'd be hard pressed to convince me that you have a substantial likelihood" of the parents' lawsuit succeeding, said Whittmore, nominated by former president Clinton in 1999.

In his predictable and reprehensible ruling, which incredibly held that Terri's life had been adequately protected by Florida's state courts, not only did Judge Whittemore deny Terri any semblance of due process, but he callously waited until the next day to do so, knowing full well "the gravity of the consequences of denying injunctive relief."

As the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, who has commented on behalf of the Schindlers in the past, rightly declared today:

The arrogance of Judge Whittemore is extraordinary. How dare he wait 24 hours to issue this ruling? He shows a profound lack of respect for the disabled of America by denying [Terri] her constitutional rights. He has robbed Terri's legal team of literally a day and a half of the appeals process.

Judge Whittemore also blatantly ignored the clear intent of Congress to grant impartial and full consideration to the Schindlers' appeal on their daughter's behalf before she dies at the hands of her court-sanctioned murderers.

Warning that Terri Schiavo was “fading quickly” and might die at any moment, her parents begged a federal appeals court in Atlanta to order Terri's feeding tube be reinserted, as Jan Barton writes for the Associated Press.

"Where, as here, death is imminent, it is hard to imagine more critical and exigent circumstances," Gibbs said in the appeal filed electronically with the court. “Terri is fading quickly and her parents reasonably fear that her death is imminent.”

There was no immediate indication of when the appeals court might rule.

Nor when Terri might succumb to the barbarous death that is being inflicted upon her.

The Murder of Terri (Day 4): May God Grant Terri a Just Judge at Last

2005-03-21T04:13:00.000-05:00

As reported by CURE advisor Cheryl Ford, R.N., Terri's intreprid warrior, at 2:20 a.m. ET:

President Bush signed the bill into law at 1:11 AM ET.

The attornies here in Florida will need to locate a Federal Judge now who will agree to hear the case. I've been told that the judge is chosen through a random process. Once a judge is assigned, we believe the Federal judge will sign a protective stay and will authorize permission to have Terri's feeding tube reinserted. The attorney's are still awake and are working to quickly obtain the necessary signatures so they can be prepared to move forward with the next legal step.

The Schindlers are very tired but are holding up remarkably well. They are at the hospice facility. Their primary focus at this time is on their daughters safety and having her feeding as soon as possible.

Mrs. Schindler reports that Terri is doing fine. He said Terri is alert and her skin is cool. He said she appeared a bit more tired today, however, she is still doing well.

Terri's parents are very grateful for all the support they have received from every one here on the internet. They know that it was due to all of your hard work calling and writing the Senate that helped to have Terri's story heard in Congress.

Please note, Terri's situation is not over until we have a judge who is willing to give a protective stay, and we are assured that her her feeding tube can be reinserted.

Editor's Note: And not over then, of course, but, Deo gratias, beginning again.

The family requests that you please continue to pray for Terri's safety and health.

Editor's Note: A request in which CURE joins.

I will keep you posted as I hear anything new from the Schindlers.

Thank you again for the dedication and caring you continue to provide to the Schindler family. You are an amazing group of people, and I personally thank you as well.

Cheryl Ford R.N.

Editor's Note: And thank you, Cheryl, from the bottom of our hearts for all you have done and continue to do for Terri. You are an amazing friend of our dear sister and thus our friend for life. May God grant Terri, at long last, a just judge!

The Murder of Terri (Day 3): Will the Sacrifice of Many Save One?

2005-03-20T18:09:00.000-05:00

The Senate has passed a bill that could prolong Terri Schindler-Schiavo's life, while a Federal court considers her case, as the House of Representatives scrambles to bring enough Members back to its chambers for an emergency vote shortly after midnight, Jim Abrams reports for the Associated Press. Meanwhile, President George W. Bush is rushing back to the White House from his ranch in Crawford, TX, to be on hand to sign the bill into law as soon as it reaches him.

"We ought to err on the side of life in a case like this," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Asked about a bill that would cover a single person, he said, "I think most people recognize that this case involves some extraordinary circumstances." [emphases added]

"The extraordinary circumstances" can scarcely be the fact that a defenseless and innocent citizen is being starved to death with legal immunity, as happened to Clarence Herbert in 1981—or even by court order, as happened to Paul Brophy in 1986. Indeed, countless victims of epivalothanasia (imposed death) have been starved and dehydrated to death in hospitals, hospices, and nursing homes across America over the past quarter century.

No, what has been extraordinary is the massive outpouring of public support mobilized on Terri's behalf by disability rights, anti-euthanasia, and pro-life activists, and other friends of Terri— a working collaboration with the common, if limited, goal of saving Terri's life that the Culture of Death and its bioethics priesthood are desparate to divide.

Combined with the growing involvement of hundreds of Blogs for Terri and other counter-cultural media, this has led in turn to uncommonly candid words from an unlikely source, viz., politicians—on Capitol Hill and elsewhere—and, what is rarer yet, persistent attempts to back up those words with deeds [aude]—however inadequate to the task thus far.

While the Senate insisted on "a bill that would cover a single person," the original bill passed by the House, to its credit, would have protected other victims targeted for extermination by the anti-life Euthanasia Axis.

Thus, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI). chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was absolutely right when he declared on the day before Terri's starvation began:

The House last night passed legislation that ensures that Terri Schiavo—and anyone else ever in such a terrible situation—has the full protection granted to each individual under the Constitution and federal law. Regrettably, Senators Harry Reid and Ron Wyden opposed this legislation, preventing the Senate from passing it and sending it to President Bush.

"The House has completed its business and has adjourned. The Senate has a decision to make: it can pass the House legislation passed last night to ensure Terri Schiavo's civil rights are protected or it can allow Ms. Schiavo to starve to death beginning tomorrow." [emphases added]

And thus, CURE asks:

Congress, ever ready to compromise, has surrendered countless lives in further weakening an already compromised bill, ostensibly to save one life—a precious life indeed, albeit no more precious than the others—but will it do so? And who, if anyone, on Capitol Hill will defend the next victim after Terri and the next hundred victims, whose deaths will imposed imposed far from the public attention that she, thank God and thanks to her heroic family, has achieved?

The Murder of Terri (Day 2): A Crime of Violence

2005-03-19T13:56:00.000-05:00

As Terri's starvation and dehydration recommences, her Exit Protocol begins, as Fr. Rob Johansen details on Thrown Back.

The CURE advisor revisits the infamous "recipe for murder" concocted by hospice executioners, by way of recalling the hell to which Terri is being subjected by an unfaithful husband and nation.

As previously reported on Life Matters!, in 1986, nearly two decades ago, Paul Brophy, a 45-year-old fireman, became the first person to be starved to death on court order.

In his dissent to the death sentence imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on Brophy, whose crime, like Terri's, was having a disability, Judge Lynch—no relation to Bishop Lynch—described without equivocation the effects of that order:

The removal of the G-tube would likely create various effects from the lack of hydration and nutrition, leading ultimately to death.
Brophy's mouth would dry out and become caked or coated with thick material.
His lips would become parched and cracked.
His tongue would swell, and might crack.
His eyes would recede back into their orbits and his cheeks would become hollow.
The lining of his nose might crack and cause his nose to bleed.
His skin would hang loose on his body and become
dry and scaly.
His urine would become highly concentrated, leading to burning of the bladder.
The lining of his stomach would dry out and he would experience dry heaves and vomiting.
His body temperature would become very high.
His brain cells would dry out, causing convulsions.
His respiratory tract would dry out, and the thick secretions that would result could plug his lungs and cause death.
At some point within five days to three weeks his major organs, including his lungs, heart, and brain, would give out and he would die.

The judge found that death by dehydration is extremely painful and uncomfortable for a human being. The judge could not rule out the possibility that Paul Brophy could experience pain in such a scenario.
Paul Brophy's attending physician described death by dehydration as cruel and violent.

The Murder of Terri (Day 1): Leaders Must Lead—Not Merely Plead!

2005-03-18T23:15:00.000-05:00

Talk

We're very disappointed by the Florida court's decision to allow Terri Schiavo's feeding tube to be removed. The House and Senate leadership are committed to reaching an agreement on legislation that provides an opportunity to save Mrs. Schiavo's life. —Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL)

The House last night passed legislation that ensures that Terri Schiavo - and anyone else ever in such a terrible situation - has the full protection granted to each individual under the Constitution and federal law. Regrettably, Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) opposed this legislation, preventing the Senate from passing it and sending it to President Bush.
The House has completed its business and has adjourned. The Senate has a decision to make: it can pass the House legislation passed last night to ensure Terri Schiavo's civil rights are protected or it can allow Ms. Schiavo to starve to death beginning tomorrow. —House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)

This act of barbarism can be, and must be, prevented. Terri Schiavo is alive....She is as alive as you or I, and as such we have a moral obligation to protect and defend her from the fate premeditated by the Florida courts. This is not over. We are still working. To friends, family and millions of people praying around the world this Palm Sunday weekend—do not be afraid. Terri Schiavo will not be forsaken. —Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

...Talk

Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) said the judge's decision "breaks my heart" and noted that it often takes two decades for a death row inmate's appeals to go through the system.

" There's this rush to starve her to death," Bush said.

...Talk

The case of Terri Schiavo raises complex issues. Yet in instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern. It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected - and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities. –President George W. Bush

Death! Death! Death!

A final note to the Republican leadership...You have to pull out all the stops. You have to run over your chairmen if they're being obstructionist for this niggling reason and that. Run over their egos, run past their fatigue. You have to win on this. If you don't, you can't imagine how much you're going to lose. And from people who have faith in you.

Bill Frist and Tom DeLay and Jim Sensenbrenner and Denny Hastert and all the rest would be better off risking looking ridiculous and flying down to Florida, standing outside Terri Schiavo's room and physically restraining the poor harassed staff who may be told soon to remove her feeding tube, than standing by in Washington, helpless and tied in legislative knots, and doing nothing.

Issue whatever subpoena, call whatever witnesses, pass whatever emergency bill, but don't let this woman die.—Peggy Noonan

On the Hill: Will Strong Actions Match Strong Words?

2005-03-16T04:24:00.000-05:00

"Republican leaders in the Senate are preparing to move legislation this week if necessary to give federal courts jurisdiction over the life of Terri Schiavo," Geoff Earle reports on the front page of today's issue of The Hill.

The leaders could decide to call up a bill that would allow parties to the case, which has been tried in Florida courts, to petition to have it heard in Federal District Court. Alternatively, the GOP leaders could decide to try to move a private bill dealing specifically with the Schiavo case.

Either method, if passed by Congress and signed by President Bush, would provide Schiavo’s parents with another chance to keep their daughter alive.

"Michael Schiavo was on Capitol Hill last week meeting legislators," Earle notes. And it appears his efforts may be bearing fruit, however rotten.

Even if GOP leaders decide to act, they will probably face resistance from Democrats who are reluctant to make changes to federal law on the subject on such an expedited basis.

As the Senate is considering the budget resolution this week, turning to other legislation, such as the Incompacitated Persons Legal Protection Act (S. 539), introduced by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL), will require unanimous consent.

Senior Democratic aides said it was unlikely Democrats would agree to a request by the majority to take up the legislation, which would be controversial and would lead to changes in an area of the law dealing with habeas corpus—an area of contention.

As politicians are generally moved by external pressures than by interior principles, everything is subject to change, if Terri's friends demand it loudly enough. As Earle continues:

Democrats may, however, wish to avoid acting in a way that passes up a chance to save Schiavo’s life if Republicans push for action on the floor.

The Democrats, which have been doing a lot of public soul-searching or political posturing, as the case may be, over moral values since their 2004 defeat, may not wish to reinforce their perception by Catholic voters and others as the Death Party. Ensuring that Terri dies by court-imposed dehydration will etch that image in stone, a stone that may become a millstone at the ballot box.

Politics, of course, affects both sides of the aisle, and it is interesting to see the reaction of Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who has his eyes on the Oval Office, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), who has focus may now be diverted to retaining his Senate seat.

Frist, a physician, told The Hill he is "looking at" [Sen. Martinez bill] while consulting with members of the Judiciary Committee about it.

Referring to Schiavo, Frist said, "She is clearly alive today. Looking at the facts, I would think that the Senate should speak if there is not some action at the state level."

Santorum's words were stronger:

My feeling is we need to do something to stop what is an unconscionable act on the part of the Florida court.

He pledged that he would not allow Terri to die under court order.

That’s not going to happen on my watch.

Strong words, but as with every politician— and this one in particular—the question remains, "Will they be matched by strong actions?" Terri, her family, and her friends anxiously await the answer.

Will Florida Legislature Act in Time?

2005-03-10T22:27:00.000-05:00

Florida legislators have re-entered the debate over Terri Schindler-Schiavo's fate, Sean Mussenden and Maya Bell report in today's Orlando Sun-Sentinel, noting that last Wednesday a House committee approved a bill that restricts a guardian's ability to deny food and water to an incapacitated person.

Legislators said they were looking for a solution that would pass legal muster and deal not only with Schiavo, but with broader end-of-life issues raised by her plight, particularly whether medically supplied food and water should be defined as medical treatment, as it long has been.

This, of course, depends on one's definition of "long." For most of my lifetime, for example, it had been regarded as unlawful to starve and dehydrate someone to death, as it should be today.

What is far more essential to note, however, is that imposing death on Terri or any other victim of epivalothanasia would not be any less homicidal were the means of murder denying her the medical treatment or support necessary to sustain her life.

One possible course of action is the bill approved by the House Health Care Regulation Committee on Wednesday. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, would prevent a guardian from withholding food and water from an incompetent person unless the person spelled out that he or she didn't want to be tube-fed.

If a person writes a suicide note and later becomes incompetent, should it be honored?

Baxley said it was not clear whether this broader law, which contains a provision making it retroactive, could or would be applied to Terri Schiavo's case. But, he said, that was his hope.

"When did we ever decide that it's OK in this society to starve someone to death?" Baxley asked.

The Florida legislature made that decision in 1999 when it amended its civil rights statues to include food and water among "life prolonging procedures" that could be murderously denied, as Richard helpfully details at Blogs for Terri.

"If I have it my way, we'll get it done by March 18," proclaims Baxley, a bereavement counselor for an Ocala funeral home, but his colleagues appear to be on a somewhat slower track. "Unlike the last time," Mussenden and Bell report. "legislators aren't in nearly as much of a hurry, even though Terri Schiavo's tube is to be removed in only eight days."

It looks like it may well prove to be another case of too little, too late, for Terri, as it has been for countless victims before her.

Merciless Judge Sends Terri to Ovens

2005-03-08T22:49:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back:

I spoke with Mary Schindler on the phone last evening, and she gave me some discouraging news on yesterday's hearings in front of Judge Greer.

Firstly, Judge Greer is holding true to his stated intention to entertain motions only pertaining to Terri's "death process" and her final disposition:

Judge Greer denied, without hearing arguments or evidence, the Schindlers' motion to compel Michael Schiavo's deposition.

Judge Greer denied, without hearing arguments or evidence, the Schindlers' motion for a divorce of Terri from Michael.

Judge Greer denied, without hearing arguments or evidence, the Schindlers' motion to remove Michael as guardian.

Judge Greer heard, but did not rule on, arguments that Terri should be fed by mouth once the feeding tube is removed March 18.

Judge Greer denied, without hearing arguments or evidence, the Schindlers' request that Terri be allowed to receive Viaticum (Holy Communion for the dying) by mouth. Judge Greer ruled that if Terri is to be given Communion, it must be done via her feeding tube.

Judge Greer denied the Schindlers' motion to allow their daughter to die at their home, noting the parents can visit the Pinellas Park hospice where she lives.

Judge Greer denied the Schindlers request to have Terri's intact body interred: He confirmed Michael's order that Terri is to be cremated upon her death.

Judge Greer denied the Schindlers motion to allow Terri to be buried in Florida. Michael intends to inter her cremated remains in Pennsylvania.

Judge Greer's rulings against the Schindlers on the matter of feeding by mouth and viaticum seem to me most indicative of his frame of mind. By precluding attempts, as a "last ditch" measure, to feed her by mouth, the Judge shows that his object is not merely to stop what he might argue—erroneously—is an "extraordinary" means of support, but to see to it that she dies. One might make an analogy to someone on a [ventilator]. Frequently [ventilators] are removed from patients, but sometimes they continue to breathe on their own without support. It is as though a judge were to order not only that a [ventilator] be removed, but that the patient's mouth and nose be sealed with duct tape, just to make sure he can't get any air by any means. [emphasis added]

Judge Greer's order makes him an active accomplice in directly intending Terri's death. It becomes harder and harder to see how this can be described as anything but judicially ordered homicide. [emphasis added]

And by confirming the order to have Terri cremated, thus precluding an autopsy, he certainly give the appearance of cooperating in an effort to make sure that the full truth of Terri's condition is never ascertained.

The order regarding Viaticum, besides being cruel and bizarre—only the tiniest fraction of the Host or the tiniest drop of the Precious Blood need be placed on her tongue—serves to preserve Michael Schiavo and George Felos' contention that Terri cannot receive anything by mouth. Of course, they have never permitted a swallowing test, so we just have to take their word for it. The last thing they want is the spectacle of Terri taking anything by mouth, as that might cause people to start wondering if Terri might just be able to eat.

From George Felos' standpoint, though, that should hardly make a difference: In Terri's 1998 hearings, Felos infamously advocated what he called the "spoon test.".The test of whether one is a person with a full right to life, he said, is whether he or she can raise a spoon to his lips unaided. If you have a relative who is paralyzed or otherwise unable to feed himself, watch out: In George Felos' world, they're fair game for his tender advocacy of their "right" to die.

If George Felos and Judge Greer get their way, Florida will be a very, very bad place in which to be unlucky enough to get sick, have a stroke, or become incompetent. Someone will be standing by, ready to relieve you of the burden of your existence.

"Who Will Be Next?"

2005-03-08T22:02:00.000-05:00

"The courts have ruled again and again," Cardinal Renato Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, reminds us in his latest statement in defense of life, but "the deadline for the removal of the tube delivering food and water to Terri Schiavo is quickly approaching."

Without the tube which is providing life-giving hydration and nutrition, Terri Schiavo will die...a horrible and cruel death....She will have death inflicted upon her over a number of terrible days—even weeks. How can anyone who claims to speak of the promotion and protection of human rights—of human life— remain silent?

Not even a bishop.

How is it that this woman, who has done nothing wrong, will suffer a fate which society would never tolerate in the case of a convicted murderer or anyone else convicted of the most horrendous crimes? Again, it is an issue of human rights. It is an issue of the right to life, and as I stated earlier, no one can be the arbiter fo life except God Himself!

Has disability become a capital crime? If so, is anyone safe for long?

If the feeding tube is removed and Terri is forced to die this slow, terrible, painful death, we must ask ourselves, "And who will be next?"

Please Don't Kill My Friend!

2005-03-06T22:17:00.000-05:00

Our gratitude to CURE advisor Cheryl Ford, R.N., for sharing the following plea from yet another friend of Terri:

My name is Tom Brodersen. I am attorney Pat Anderson's office manager, formerly her fiance, and more recently, her husband. I have personal knowledge about Terri Schiavo's actual neurological condition and responsiveness which we could not use before because of Pat's role as attorney for the Schindler family. That is now changed, and I cannot sit quietly by and passively observe a miscarriage of justice.

During the period of September to November 2002 (from just before to shortly after the medical evidentiary hearing featuring five doctors as witnesses), I spent time with Terri Schiavo, as a person briefly on her visitors list.

During that time I gently spoke to her, built rapport and trust, sang to her, played music for her, and encouraged her to vocalize. Over the twenty days or so that I visited with Terri, I observed that, while Terri is distrustful of strangers, she gradually warmed up to me—and not so gradually after Bob, Mary and I sang "Those Were the Days" to her as a trio!

Terri responds to a variety of stimulii, including responding to both her mother's and my voices, both in person and over the phone, by fixing her attention and frequently by laughing. When I sang to her, she often vocalized, in her best effort to sing along with me. She recognizes and takes great pleasure in certain singers and songs which are her favorites—most especially John Denver singing "Country Roads." She learned to love several songs I sang to her with which she didn't seem to be familiar with, but others she never learned to appreciate (just not her cup of tea, obviously).

She responded to gentle requests if given time and patience, such as lifting her right leg (three times out of four requests, the other time she lifted her left leg instead). While she does not have consistent control over her eyes to blink or look this way or that, she has excellent control over her breathing, diaphram and voice, and will vocalize in various patterns if asked. While trying to work out a yes/no system with sounds, Terri initially answered the question "Terri, are you ten feet tall" by moaning twice, which is the response for "No," then she spontaneously whispered the word "No" in response to the question "Terry, are you purple?"

At that point I abandoned the sounding system and started trying to teach her to say "Yeah" as best as she could. Bob Schindler has several recordings of her sort of saying the word "Yeah" shortly after that.

Unfortunately, I was then taken off Terri's visitors list, but on successive occasions (as recently as last October, approximately two years since I last saw her in person), when her father placed a phone to Terri's ear so I could talk to her, she laughed as soon as she heard my voice, and tried to sing along with me when I sang to her over the phone.

Terri is not just "in there," she is very responsive, she loves music, and she is my friend. Please don't kill her.

Tom Brodersen

Editor's Note:

As always, be sure to visit the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation regularly for the latest updates. We are honored to note that Pat Anderson also serves on CURE's Board of Advisors.

"Continued Concerns" With Florida Bishops' Statement

2005-03-05T07:44:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back:

[On February 28], the Florida bishops issued a statement titled "Continued Concerns for Terri Schiavo." Among other things, they quote the Holy Father's address last spring to a conference on the "vegetative state," saying:

In a statement provided in March 2004, Pope John Paul II urges us to see every patient in a so-called "vegetative" state as a fellow human being, retaining his or her full dignity despite diminished abilities. Regarding nourishment for such patients, he said:

I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.

By saying this, the Florida Bishops have gotten to the heart of the matter: Food and water are not medical treatment, they are the underlying support and sustenance of human life. As such, they cannot be treated like other medical treatments. Until 10-15 years ago, this would have been considered standard medical ethics.

The bishops' statement is a positive development, but I think they could go farther.

The fact is, Michael's efforts to end Terri's life are wrong. Michael is trying to end the life of an innocent woman, whom he promised to "love, honor, and cherish." He has repeatedly refused to provide her with the therapy which could improve her condition. He has repeatedly refused to have non-invasive diagnostic procedures done, such as MRI and PET scans, which most neurologists consider standard and necessary to diagnose "PVS" or other serious brain injury.

He has been aided and abetted by the Florida courts, which have simply refused to admit any evidence which would question Judge Greer's "finding of fact" that Terri is "PVS."

The efforts of George Felos, Michael's attorney and passionate pro-death advocate, have been aided and abetted by the Florida legislature, which changed Florida law in 1999 to specifically include "artificially provided sustenance and hydration" under the definition of "medical treatment."

Make no mistake, Terri's case is about more than just Terri. This is the front line of an attack against the dignity of life itself, and over who will have power over life and death. More is needed than statements of concern and promises of prayer.

The bishops need to say "This is wrong, and we cannot allow it to stand!" A woman's life hangs in the balance, and many more lives will follow if Michael Schiavo and George Felos are successful.

The bishops must speak the Truth to power, in this case, the unrestrained use of raw judicial power, and say "No! This is evil, and we will oppose it!"

Where have been the bishops out at the hospice with those keeping vigil? Where have been the bishops appearing before the press and urging Catholics to stand up against this? There have been precious few priests, and most of those from outside of Florida.

Why can't the bishops just come out and say "This is wrong"?

We know what the Church's teaching is. We know, as the Catholic Medical Association said last week, that there is "no rational justification, moral or medical, to withdraw food and water from Mrs. Terri Schindler-Schiavo."

A moral theologian I know told me the other day that the bishops would be on firm ground to say that removing Terri's feeding tube is objectively wrong, and that Michael, whatever his subjective frame of mind might be, is wrong for pursuing it.

Why won't the bishops say it?

Supplemental Reading:

"Only a beginning," Domenico Bettinelli, Bettnet:

The recent statement is a good start, if very late. But if the bishops are to show moral leadership for the Culture of Life, they need to do more. A lot more.

"Tragic" But Not "Complex"—Bishop Lynch's Abandonment of Terri

2005-03-04T00:42:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back:

Last week, Cardinal Renato Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, issued a statement saying that if Michael [Schiavo] succeeded in removing Terri's feeding tube, it would be "tragic in itself", and "a serious step toward legally approving euthanasia in the United States."

When reporters from the Tampa–St. Petersburg area contacted Bishop Robert Lynch for his response, Bishop Lynch "could not be reached for comment."

I wonder, if they had contacted him regarding his Annual Pastoral Appeal, would he have been "available for comment" then?

But, not to worry, on Monday Bishop Lynch issued a statement in which he recognized that the Schindlers feel "they are outside of the decision-making process" and that "they are in great pain and suffering mightily."

So Bishop Lynch feels the Schindlers' pain.

He devotes most of the statement to urging "both sides" to "allow some mediation" so that Terri's legacy is "a heroic moment of concern for the feelings of each other, guided by moral and ethical considerations, with a single focus of achieving the best result for Terri."

The most charitable thing I can say about this statement is that it is utterly inadequate.

Bishop Lynch refers to normal "end-of-life" cases, where families know that "they have done all they possibly might to provide alternatives to death", and have attempted "every possible treatment protocol which might be helpful". But nowhere does he give a clue that he recognizes that such has not been done in Terri's case. Heck, Terri hasn't even had the appropriate diagnostic procedures most neurologists consider standard for someone with a brain injury.

Furthermore, by going back to his talk of "decisions made within families", and of "both sides" coming together, Bishop Lynch shows that he still views Terri's situation, as Bob Schindler told me for my Catholic World Report article, as a family dispute, and not as a grave injustice being perpetrated on one of his flock.

Bishop Lynch, it would seem, doesn't get it.

Bishop Lynch could mobilize the faithful of his diocese. He could encourage his priests to speak out and preach about it. Instead, the priests of his diocese have been largely invisible (as has he). Bishop Lynch, why have the priests of your diocese been so silent? Why have they been so lamentably uninvolved in the efforts to save Terri's life?

Bsihop Lynch could give a bold and clear witness to the sanctity of life. He could stand up for the rights of those whom our world sees as "useless eaters". He could send a message to the "right-to-die" crowd that the elderly and disabled of Florida are "off limits".

He has done none of those things. Last year, when I wrote my CWR article, I interviewed the Pro-Life Director of the Diocese of St. Petersburg, Deacon Joseph Grote—he at least would talk to me, unlike Bishop Lynch. I asked him if he or the diocese had any events or activities planned with regard to the Terri Schiavo case. He said no, he wasn't aware of any such plans.

Not much has changed since last year.

Once again, the faithful are on their own.

Editor's Note:

In his statement, Bishop Lynch described the impending starvation and dehydration of Terri Schindler Schiavo as a "tragic and complex situation." The "tragic situation" is Bishop Lynch's abandonment not only of Terri but of the Gospel of Life, but it is not all that "complex."

Supplemental Reading:

"Bishop Lynch speaks, but maybe he shouldn't have," Domenico Bettinelli, Bettnet:

How is what the bishop described in his actual statement different from the standard "pro-choice" boilerplate we are usually served in relation to abortion by Planned Parenthood and its ilk?

Many who are not "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion are "pro-choice" when it comes to euthanasia, albeit they will try to rationalize it through semantic gymnastics.

"Bishop Lynch," Fr. Ethan McCarthy, Diary of a Suburban Priest:

I don't have an advanced degree in Moral Theology or Bio-medical Ethics and I can figure this out. Why the silence?

The lack of those advanced degrees may be the reason you can figure it out, Father. Educated beyond their intelligence was a favorite phrase of my father's that comes to mind.

"A Reply to the Statement of Bishop Robert N. Lynch," Patrick Sweeney, Extreme Catholic:
Loathing is called for here. There is the ultimate expression of moral equivalence. It is an outrage to not condemn the steps that will be taken to kill Terri Schiavo.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent. But if they remain silent, just how good were they?

"Better Off Dead"—Not Dead Yet Debunks the Lie

2005-03-03T22:54:00.000-05:00

As posted by Christopher Blosser on Against the Grain:

The ongoing legal battle over Terri Schindler-Schiavo between a family who wants to care for her and a husband who wants to move on. The case of Million Dollar Baby, upon which Hollywood bestowed its greatest honor this week for its "honest" depiction of a mercy-killing as a desparate solution to the heroine's suffering.

I've been thinking about the confluence of these two issues in the news over the past several weeks and the underlying themes that they share: the fear of suffering and disability that pervades our culture that compels some to seek "an easy way out", a quick painless end—"better off dead" rather than a burden to self and others.

In "Killing Terri Schiavo," (Crisis Magazine, January 4, 2004), Rev. Robert Johansen examines "the euthanasia connection" in great detail. It is no coincidence that Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, is a member of the Hemlock Society (presently known as the warm, fuzzy and politically-correct Compassion & Choices), or that Felos' book Litigation as Spiritual Practice describes him as "spearheading a social revolution to enable death with dignity in the state of Florida."

Neither is it a coincidence that Michael Schiavo's leading medical witness in the case, Dr. Ronald Cranford, "was the leading medical voice calling for the deaths of Paul Brophy, Nancy Jobes, Nancy Cruzan, and Christine Busalucci, all of whom were brain-damaged but not dying."

You can read more about Felos and Cranford in Tony Collins' substantial article "Dealers of Death" (Envoy Magazine, January 2004), in which she exames the Right-to-Die movement's exploitation of Terri Schiavo to advance their political agenda. How often do we hear pundits murmur in sympathetic tones that the plight of Terri Schiavo could have been avoided if only she had "a Living Will"?

Whereas right-to-die advocates see Terri Schiavo as a lesson in opportunities lost, disability rights advocates express concern that Million Dollar Baby will bolster the public case for physician-assisted suicide. In Seeing Million Dollar Baby From My Wheelchair, Diane Coleman, J.D., president of disability-rights organization Not Dead Yet, describes her experience watching the film and being a part of the audience:

I've always felt a tension between how others see me and how I see myself. By now, that tension, and my coping mechanisms, are way below the surface. Denial, the fantasy of acceptance, I have used whatever I could to endure and manage over 50 years of those looks, and looks away, to be who I am out in the world everyday.

But now I am forced to see how critics and audiences love this movie, resent our anger, and extol the virtues of open public discussion of euthanasia based on disability. My fantasy is ripped away.

If I'd been truly prepared, I'd have brought a sign to hold up, saying, "I Am Not Better Off Dead." I would have looked into every face exiting the theater, insisting that they see me, and this simple yet apparently incomprehensible message.

Not Dead Yet joins other organizations such as the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, in its opposition to the film. According to CNN:

Marcie Roth, executive director of the NSCA, said her group has been working to improve conditions for the disabled since 1948, "yet lo these many years later, many people still think having a spinal-cord injury is a fate worse than death.

"Unfortunately, a message like the one in 'Million Dollar Baby' just perpetuates exactly what we work so hard to dispel."

(Source: The backlash over 'Million Dollar Baby', CNN, February 7, 2005.)

Supplemental Readings:

Emotional Punch, Jay Cridlin. St. Petersburg Times February 27, 2005. Another journalist looks at the comparisons between the film and real-life happenings in Florida.
"The Oscars, Suicide Movies, Clint Eastwood & the ADA" in the disability-rights publication The Ragged Edge.
"Dangerous Times", a review of Million Dollar Baby by Steve Drake, Research Analyst, Not Dead Yet, Ragged Edge, January 11, 2005.
BlogsForTerri, a list of sites that are committed to supporting and defending the life of Terri Schiavo through their blogging activiti

Extreme Prejudice: Today's Lynch Mob

2005-03-02T11:12:00.000-05:00

by Pamela F. Hennessy
Contributing Editor, Life Matters

As I’ve aged, I’ve become increasingly disgusted with the human race. As if it weren’t bad enough that we engage in the most absurd, wasteful, and personally depreciating behaviors, there seems to be nothing we enjoy more than giving each other a hard time. People, it seems, can be stunningly unkind to one another.

Merriam-Webster defines the word "prejudice" as "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge." By that description, it appears that many of us live with prejudices, and we rarely make effort to keep them under wraps.

In the 1890s, the United States stood squarely in the absolute nadir of race relations amongst its citizenry. Lynchings of black Americans was at an all-time high and racial segregation was the law of the land.

An activist by the name of Ida B. Wells-Barnett took this hardship to minds of Americans by publishing a newspaper titled The Free Speech and Headlight. In her publication, she called upon Americans to cease their violence against one another and to stop the lynchings of black Americans. Her efforts to address the problems and violence created by extreme prejudice earned her tremendous backlash, retribution, and even death threats. But she, like any true champion, would not be quieted.

Instead, Wells-Barnett took her plight to the United Kingdom and gained international support in her efforts to fight racism and prejudice.

Throughout world history, a long and shameful legacy of prejudice exists. Only the courage, pluck and determination of our planet’s true activists have served to quell our hatreds and improve relations for our citizens. Though we’re far from finished, we often applaud such advocates and encourage our own children to follow their honorable lead.

If we, as conscientious Americans, can recognize racial prejudice as the reproachful and uncalled-for practice it is, why then can we not apply that same principle to discrimination against our disabled citizens?

Having been involved with the case of Terri Schiavo in Florida for some two and a half years, I’ve been witness to a form of prejudice I never knew existed. Extreme prejudice against society’s most vulnerable members.

Terri is a 41-year-old woman who suffered significant brain injury following a mysterious collapse in 1990. Her husband has petitioned the courts for the authority to cause her death by removing her only physical dependence, a gastric feeding tube, while her immediate family has struggled to block his efforts. Her case represents one of the nation's most polarizing, and it is one that will likely shame us all for years to come.

Though Terri has advocates from disability interest groups, right-to-life groups and human rights groups, the media—for some inexplicable reason—has found it appropriate to apply its own brand of extreme prejudice to her and the impact on the public’s view of her is readily apparent.

On February 26, 2005, columnist and talk-radio host Daniel Ruth discussed Terri’s case at length. He took tremendous affront at the fact that Florida’s social service agency—the Department of Children and Families—had recently launched an investigation into allegations of abuse and neglect against the disabled woman. In a column published the following day, Ruth bemoaned what he saw as an unnecessary delay in the pursuit of Terri’s death.

"And once again, Bush has abused the powers of his office by injecting the Department of Children and Families into the Schiavo case," Ruth fussed.

Since the Department has a statutorily mandated duty to intervene in cases of suspected abuse and neglect, I don't find it entirely appropriate for them to decline investigating such allegations against Terri Schiavo—whether or not a columnist approves.

He continues, "And even if DCF is given the bum's rush by Greer, the agency will appeal, thus leading to delay, delay, delay, muddle, muddle, muddle."

It is quite disturbing to think that someone would advocate for the death of an innocent, disabled women over the protections she is guaranteed under Florida’s guardianship and abuse laws. But, I probably shouldn’t be surprised. Terri Schiavo, after all, seems to be getting in everyone’s way.

Another Florida columnist, Randy Schultz, also criticized the state’s involvement in protecting the retained rights of one of Florida’s disabled citizens.

In a February 27, 2005 editorial on the state’s intervention, he writes: "It's all grandstanding. Not that anyone has cared up to this point."

What a desperately sad commentary. That no one should care about how our elderly, disabled and vulnerable citizens are treated by their guardians or the state agencies that are charged with ensuring their protections is an utterly flagrant display of intolerance for people who are "inconvenient."

Even more disheartening is the St. Petersburg Times, a newspaper that has regularly published hit pieces against Terri Schiavo, her rights as an incapacitated person, and those who would like to see those retained rights honored. To the Times, calling for Terri’s death has become a hobby.

What does all of this say about our own ethics? Are we nothing more than bigots in compassionate clothing? For the record, removing food and fluids from a disabled, but healthy person in order to cause their death is not "letting them go." It’s making them go. Last time I checked, that was murder.

Why is it then that some Florida columnists advocate murder? Based on their assessments of life's quality and their frustration at the state of Florida for doing right by its residents, the hate against Terri Schiavo flows in Florida newspapers like nothing I’ve ever witnessed in my life. Nevermind that these writers have a good many of their facts wrong or that Terri Schiavo has retained rights that must be enforced. She should die, damnit, because they have grown weary of her. She’s an inconvenient reminder that no one is immortal or safe from the prospects of becoming disabled one day.

Some people may see the comparison between Terri Schiavo and the racial prejudice our history marks as inappropriate. Indeed, every group has their own struggles that no outsider can possibly appreciate. However, I find the association entirely apt on a very basic level:

Either we genuinely respect the lives, rights, and liberties of each and every member of the human race—regardless of ethnicity, background, belief, gender, and physical limitations— or we are nothing more than today’s lynch mob.

Editor's Note:

A Florida marketing and media executive, Pamela Hennessy has served as a volunteer for the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation since November 2002.

What If?

2005-03-01T06:22:00.000-05:00

Writing on Anchor Rising, Donald B. Hawthorne asks some pertinent and timely questions:

What If This Was Our Daughter, Sister, or Wife? What If It Was "Only" a Stranger's Life?

My wife heard last night the sad and horrible news of the death of one of her dearest friend's daughter. We grieve for that wonderful family, whose kindness to others—including my wife—has never known any limits. Having been fortunate enough to be present at the birth of our three children, I cannot imagine anything more painful than having to bury one's child.

And that leads to a related story about Terri Schindler-Schiavo, which has been in and out of the news for a while now. Last week, however, a posting by Greg Wallace got my attention.

Here is an excerpt:

She is not dying. She has no terminal illness. She is not in a coma. She is not on life-support equipment. She is not alone, but rather has loving parents and siblings ready to care for her for the rest of her life. She has not requested death.

Yet a battle rages regarding whether Terri Schindler-Schiavo should be starved. She has sustained brain injuries and cannot speak or eat normally. Nevertheless, the only tube attached to her is a small, simple, painless feeding tube that provides her nourishment directly to her digestive system.

Her legal guardian is her husband, who already has another woman—by whom he also has children. He wants Terri's feeding tube removed. Of course, he could simply allow her to be cared for by her parents and siblings, and get on with his life, but he refuses...

Some say that Terri's family should "let her go." But this is not a matter of "letting her go," because she isn't "going" anywhere. If, however, she is deprived of nourishment, then she would slowly die in the same way that any of us would slowly die if we were deprived of nourishment. It is called starvation.

What makes this an even more poignant human love story is the content of a written settlement offer made by Terri's family to her husband, Michael, on October 26, 2004. In that letter, her immediate family offers to:

Take Terri home and care for her at their own expense.
Never to seek money from her husband, Michael, including from past malpractice awards. He would also be able to keep all assets from their married life.
Sign any legal documents allowing her husband to divorce her, should he desire that, while still allowing him to retain all rights to her estate upon her natural death in the future as if he was still married to her.
Allow Michael to retain visitation rights, if he so wished.
Forgo any and all future financial claims against Michael.

Michael has rejected their offer; the only acceptable outcome for him is to see Terri dead.

The love of this family for their daughter and sister is reinforced in postings here and here by fellow Rhode Islander, Chuck Nevola.

I would also encourage you to return to the family website for more information on this case.

Returning to Greg's original posting and taking the issue to a more philosophical level:

If the courts permit that to happen, then why should that permission apply only in Terri's case? There would be no way to limit it to her case alone. Countless others would follow, and their deaths would be described as "letting them die" instead of "killing them." Where, indeed, does the state get the authority to starve people? Court decisions permitting this lack all authority, as Pope John Paul II teaches in The Gospel of Life (section 72). These decisions cannot be obeyed, because they are not binding on the conscience and are in fact acts of violence.

A horrible day is upon us: Michael Schiavo will have the legal "right" to begin starving Terri to death today. [Editor's Note: In a subsequent judicial edict, Michael Schiavo has been ordered to begin the fatal starvation and dehydration of the wife he has betrayed and abandoned on March 18.]

This ghastly outcome should be neither the values nor the law of America. But it is now on the verge of becoming just that.

What would be our response if this was our daughter, our sister or our wife? Could our response be muted just because Terri Schindler-Schiavo is a "stranger" to all of us? Why should there be any difference?

Consider this: What if, by some awful twist of fate, one day you personally were in Terri's place and your family was stopped from saving your life, caring for you, and showing tender love for you? And what if everyone else was "too busy" to care?

I hope our society will find a greater respect for the preciousness of all human life—regardless of whether they are family, friends or someone we have never met. Let's begin by saving Terri Schindler-Schiavo's life!

Rome Speaks, While Bishops Squeak

2005-02-27T23:10:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen, from the Florida frontlines, on Thrown Back:

Earlier this week, Cardinal Renato Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace spoke out against ending Terri Schiavo's life by dehydration and starvation. The Cardinal, citing constant Church teaching and more recent statements by Pope John Paul II, said:

If Mr. Schiavo succeeds legally in causing the death of his wife, this not only would be tragic in itself, but would be a grave step toward the legal approval of euthanasia in the United States.

I would like to remind everyone in this connection, about all that the Holy Father has said in past days to the Pontifical Academy for Life, confirming that the quality of life is not interpreted as economic success, beauty and physical pleasure, but consists in the supreme dignity of the creature made in the image and likeness of God. No one can be the arbiter of life except God himself.

Now that Cardinal Martino has spoken, will that move the Bishop of St. Petersburg, Robert Lynch, to a forceful witness on behalf of Terri?

As I remarked in this week's Crisis E-Letter, Bishop Lynch has been all but invisible regarding Terri. And the Florida Bishops' Conference hasn't been much help, either, issuing only this rather weak statement earlier this month.

The problem, as my friend Brian Saint-Paul said in the E-Letter, is that these bishops seem to be unwilling to apply Church teaching to what is known about Terri's case.

We've had bishops from outside Florida, such as Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln, NE, and Archbishop Burke of St. Louis, MO, speak out strongly in support of Terri's right to live.

Pope John Paul II made a very forceful statement about the right to nutrition and hydration at a medical conference on the "vegetative state" last spring. Now we have a Cardinal at the Vatican speaking out.

Where are the bishops of Florida? [Several links added.]

Editor's Note:

Where they usually can be found when the life in danger is not that of a cold-blooded murderer. a tyrranical despot, or a bomb-wielding terrorist, i.e., missing in action.

For another honorable exception, see the statement issued by Bishop Robert Vasa, of Baker, OR.

Greer Sets March 18 as Murder Terri Day

2005-02-27T16:43:00.000-05:00

Twice before, the Associated Press reports today,

Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed by court order, and both times it was restored. The last time, in 2003, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush pushed through a state law—later ruled unconstitutional—that authorized him to resume the feedings six days after they were stopped.

On Friday, state Circuit Judge George Greer set a new date for removal of the feeding tube for March 18, prompting the Schindlers’ attorney to promise yet another flurry of legal filings.

"Greer’s ruling came on the fiftenth anniversary of Terri Schiavo’s collapse on February 25, 1990," a collapse whose origins remain uninvestigated to this day.

Meanwhile, Terri's defenders continue to mobilize, as the Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

Alia Faraj, a spokeswoman for Florida's governor, said the influx of e-mails, plus "hundreds and hundreds of phone calls a day," was "overwhelming." Most, she said, were in support of efforts to save Schiavo's life.

On Friday, Gary Cass, executive director of the Christian-focused Center for Reclaiming America, delivered a petition signed by 107,000 people—at a rate of 5,000 per hour...

A Web site, www.blogsforterri.com, is getting more than 1,800 visits per day, up from fewer than 200 about two weeks ago.

CURE trusts you will continue to do your part. You could start by signing this petition, as we have done.

Pray and act for Terri!

Supplemental Reading

Writing in the feisty pages of The Empire Journal, Ginger Berlin asks Judge Greer the frank and logical questions that you will never see in the kept press.

On the Air for Life ( February 25, 7:30 a.m.)

2005-02-24T22:23:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow, i.e., Friday, morning at 7:30 a.m. ET, I will be a guest on the Steve Kane Show, which airs on WNN at 1470 on your AM dial in South Florida.

We will be discussing the fight for Terri and the fight against euthanasia. You may also listen online at either of the two preceding links.

I ask, no, I beg your prayers that the Holy Ghost may guide my poor words in defense of God's great gift of life—Terri's and her brothers' and sisters'—threatened by the increasingly insidious danger of epivalothanasia (imposed death).

I also invite our readers to call the show's nationwide toll-free call-in number 877-275-2326 to join me in defending the defenseless.

And as always, pray and act for Terri!

Special thanks to my good friend Lane Core Jr. for his generous promotion of this program on The Blog from the Core—and to Andy (Jumping Without a Chute), Jonathan Bennett (Ancient and Future Catholic Musings), Josh LeBlanc (Dei Gratia), Jeff Miller (The Curt Jester), and Susan B. (LilacRose).

Earl E. Appleby, Jr.
Director, Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE)

www.MURDERER.com

2005-02-24T09:44:00.000-05:00

Our good friend and veteran CURE advisor, Cheryl Eckstein of the Compassionate Healthcare Network, brings us the latest news on the infamous Robert Latimer, who murdered his 12-year-old daughter Tracy on October 24, 1993, by piping carbon monoxide gas into his truck with her trapped inside and himself conveniently outside.

Pervasive bias against Tracy, who had cerebral palsy, fueled by the Canadian mainstream media focused public sympathy on the murderer rather than his defenseless victim. That temporarily able bodied (TAB) bigotry continues to this day, as the relentless drive to murder Terri Schiavo amply demonstrates.

Here is Cheryl's report:

Robert Latimer has a new web page—wherein he is able to write and post but not directly from prison.

Profiting from Latimer's crime, the Robert Latimer Trust Fund, which has collected more than $300,000, is selling "his book" for $25.00.

A particular obscene feature of Latimer's TAB hate site is the self-styled and self-serving "forum" it provides for a handful of bigots who share the moral disability of condoning Tracy's murder. While only two of their number profess physical disabilities, they are passed off as representing those in the disabled community who, mirabile dictu, "have the ability to be compassionate and...to think." That, of course, is why they fawn before the unrepentant murderer of a young girl who was his own daughter. There is no hatred like self hatred, after all.

Surprise Intervention Sparks New Hope for Terri,As Stay of Execution Is Extended

2005-02-23T23:48:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor, Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back:

Mary Schindler informed me a little while ago that Judge Greer has extended the stay on removal of Terri's feeding tube until 5:00 p.m. Friday. Judge Greer did not make any rulings today, but said he needed more time to consider the arguments, and would issue a ruling on Friday.

In a surprise move which, so far, none of the news services seem to have reported, an attorney from the Florida Department of Children & Family (DCF) was present in Judge Greer's courtroom, and indicated that that Department intended to intervene in Terri's case.

Mary Schindler said that she and her family, as well as their attorney David Gibbs, did not expect this development. She told me that the DCF intervention was not made at their behest. "None of us have been in contact with them, and they hadn't contacted us before today", Mary said. "We've been after them for years to step in and investigate, but so far they hadn't done anything."

When I asked Mary if she thought that the DCF intervention was put in motion by Governor Bush, she said "I think that's possible, but I don't know. The first I knew of it was in court today, and we're still trying to find out what it means."

As Mary described the proceedings, apparently the DCF attorney at one point announced her presence, and presented Judge Greer with some papers, which she described as indicating the Agency's intent to intervene in Terri's case. The DCF attorney then asked if she could address the court. Judge Greer's response, Mary said, was "Absolutely not." Judge Greer then made some remark about the papers "being on [his] desk", but indicated that he was not necessarily going to take official notice of them, saying "I don't know if these have been properly filed or not."

Mary told me that the DCF attorney indicated that their intent to intervene and investigate was based on "abuse." Whether that remark referred to the allegations that Terri's condition is a result of Michael's abuse of Terri, or to his actions as Terri's guardian, is not clear.

At this point, the Schindlers themselves are trying to obtain more information about this development. As I learn more, I will pass it along here.

Will the Department of Children and Family successfully intervene? That could be the ray of hope the Schindlers have been praying for.

Update (7:45 p.m. EST):

News of the DCF intervention has started appearing on the news services:

Fox News (based on Associated Press)
LifeNews
Reuters

The Schindlers are "elated" at the prospect of the DCF intervention. Predictably, Michael Schiavo's attorney George Felos is unhappy, saying that the intervention "reeks of the intervention of politics into the case and is an affront to the court."

Of course, coming from Mr. Felos, remarks about "affronts" to the court are a little rich, seeing that he was only able to get Michael Schiavo's confabulations about Terri's supposed wish not to be kept alive in her condition into court by violating (with Judge Greer's connivance) rules of civil trial procedure.

George, this intervention isn't about politics. This move could cost Governor Bush politically. Rather, it's about giving Terri the justice of which she has so long been deprived.

Editor's Note:

Fr. Johansen, as customary, cuts through the peripheral to arrive at the heart of the matter. It is a fundamental requirement of justice that a person who has not been found guilty of a capital crime should not be put to death with the sanction of the courts and under the cover of soi-disant "law." A state that sanctions judicial homicide is not a civilized state.

Minutes to Midnight: America in the Dock

2005-02-21T23:54:00.000-05:00

"It's high noon in America when it comes to that disabled Florida woman whose feeding tubes could be removed as early as this week," Michael Brown begins his indictment in today's Spirit Daily, continuing:

It is beyond comprehension that a nation could sit back and watch the slow, painful death of a woman who can talk, who is aware, who expresses laughter, who has swallowed on her own, who expresses fear, whose parents love her.

But those of us for whom the fight for Terri Schindler-Schiavo is not our first, our tenth, or even our 100th battle—not our first fight for life nor our last—know only too well that that surrender to the law of the jungle was made long ago and that rather than high noon, it is, if seen from an optimistic viewpoint that rivals Pollyanna, minutes to midnight in America.

Where was the national outrage, a quarter century ago when Clarence Herbert, a 55-year-old security guard, was starved to death on doctors' orders in the Kaiser Permanente Hospital in Harbor City, CA, in 1981?

And where was the public outcry in 1983 when the nephew of Claire Conroy, an 84 year-old resident of a New Jersey nursing home, described as "conscious but confused," sought to have her starved to death?

And how many protested when the Florida Second District Court of Appeal—yes, that District Court—ruled that 75-year-old Helen Corbett, deemed "incompetent," could be starved to death in 1986?

Or when 45-year-old Massachusetts fire fighter, Paul Brophy, became the first person to be starved to death on court order that same year?

Suffice it to say that he was not the last. We are well past midday indeed!

Someday, God willing, there will be another Doctors Trial like the one held in Nuremberg in 1946-1947, and those who committed such heinous crimes against humanity as starving to death innocent victims unable to defend themselves—and those who aided and abeted them—will stand in the prisoners' dock.

So too, shall a Nation that turned a deaf ear to such infamies perpetrated in its name and with the complicity of its courts. If not in man's court, then in God's, where at last the victims of man's inhumanity to man will find a tribunal where justice prevails.

Greer Stands By as Michael Harms Terri Again

2005-02-21T16:43:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back:

According to Hyscience, the hearing on Bob & Mary Schindler's request to extend or renew the stay on removal of Terri's feeding tube, which was to have taken place at 2:30 this afternoon, has been postoned until Wednesday.

In a related story, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals, in an all-too-predictable ruling, denied the Schindler's motion for that court to delay issuing its ruling on their Papal Appeal, which was based on Terri's First Amendment rights as a Catholic.

What this means is that the Second District Court will issue it's ruling tomorrow, and thus the stays on Michael removing Terri's food and water will expire. Since Judge Greer won't hear the Schindler's motion until Wednesday, Michael may have a "window of opportunity" to remove Terri's feeding tube.

Will he do so? Will he attempt to present Judge Greer with a fait accompli? How badly does he want Terri dead?

Editor's Note:

Fr. Johansen, who will soon be traveling to Florida to support Terri's family, has posted a number of pertinent reports on Thrown Back, including a link to his informative article in the November 2004 Catholic World Report, "Saving Terri's Life."

Pray and act for Terri!

The Best From Bloggers' Best for Terri

2005-02-21T02:51:00.000-05:00

From the pages of Times Against Humanity . . .

In this issue of Point Blank, we go beyond the parish to bring you the best of Bloggers' Best for Terri Schiavo, graciously compiled by Dory at Wittenberg Gate.

The Cold Heart of a Killer

Our emotions are a part of what constitutes our humanity, and empathy combined with conscience is what makes us humane. Cold indifference and a clinical attitude in determining who is or isn't fit to live were the hallmarks of that other civilised approach, which left the ground in the forests white from the ashes of its victims. –Catez Stephens, Allthings2all

No One Should Have To Do Tricks To Live

Terri, and humans in general, are valuable because of their “kind” rather than their substance or utility. Those who have suffered severe brain damage are just as valuable and worthy of protection as the brightest scholar or the most talented athlete because they are members of the human class. It is not necessary for Terri to “prove” her worth by talking or swallowing. She is human. –Tim, bLogicus

Survival of the Fittest Makes A Nation Unfit to Survive

A female deer will kick its own fawn to death, if it's too much competition for food. Packs of animals leave wounded or disabled members to die. Is that what humans do too? –C. Schweitzer, Insane Troll Logic

Hospice From Hell

Judges are impartial, right? Not Judge George Greer, the judge that has ordered Terri Schiavo executed by starvation and dehydration, twice. Our good ole boy judge has worked side by side as county commissioner with Barbara Sheen Todd...[who] is on the board of—you guessed it—the hospice where Terri Schiavo is kept prisoner by her husband, Michael Schiavo...Also, Judge Greer's fellow judge, Judge John Lenderman is the brother of Martha Lenderman, also on—you got it—the same hospice board...The judge also accepted as the basis of his rulings, the "opinion" of a third doctor who is the brother of a close associate of George Felos, Michael Schiavo's right-to-kill attorney, and very significantly, former Chairman of—you got it again—the same hospice board. –Hyscience

Something Michael Should Think About Besides His Belly

Life is God’s gift—for God alone to take back—and so too is the ultimate end, purpose, and meaning of life a gift from God, to be found in eternal life, which comes from God alone. To try to snatch that gift away—either by force or by neglect—is a mistake that can have eternally deadly consequences. –Penitens, A Penitent Blogger

The Last Word

I am not a theologian, a philosopher, [or] a politician...I am a mother, wife, daughter and a Christian. A theologian can write persuasively about Imago Dei and how only God can know our time. A philosopher may write about natural law and our innate revulsion at the taking of a human life. A politician may debate the use of torture for terrorists that leads to death, than draw parallels to the torture of, starvation and dehydration, of those more innocent....But a Christian mother, wife, daughter asks, no, pleads to our great God for a miracle. God champions the oppressed. O Lord, Terri cries, we cry. The Lord hears our cries. –Mine & Thine

Pray and act for Terri!

Bloggers' Best for Terri: Act Now for Life!

2005-02-19T07:13:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow, Wittenberg Gate, whose host Dory is a stalwart defender of Terri, will host a Bloggers' Best for Terri Schiavo. As Dory advises:

Any blogger may submit one best post on behalf of preserving Terri Schivo's life or closely related subjects such as euthanasia or caring for a person with a disability.

Commendably, Dory has not left nonbloggers on the sidelines, noting "Anyone who does not write a blog may also submit an article or just a few quick lines by including the entire text in an e-mail."

So there are no excuses! Now is the time to speak in defense of our defenseless sister.

Submissions should be sent to this e-mail address by noon today EST. Additional details and submission instructions are available here.

Act now! A precious and irreplaceable human life is on the line.

Michael Moves In for the Kill, As Political Cowardice Yields to Judicial Tyranny

2005-02-18T00:28:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back:

As I wrote last week, the stays preventing Michael Schiavo from ending Terri's life will expire next Monday.

And so, as this Newsday story reports, Michael is going to waste no time in exercising his lethal resolve regarding his wife:

Michael Schiavo has said that he will remove the tube when the final court stay ends. The current stay is now set to end Tuesday.

George Felos, Michael's attorney, has always contended that Michael has the right to kill Terri any time he wants. Now it looks as though he's going to follow through on that.

But the Schindlers are not going to lie down and passively allow this to happen. In a news conference this afternoon, Bob Schindler vowed to continue the fight:

"In 2000, we said we will fight for Terri with every ounce of strength we have, and we still have many ounces," Bob Schindler said.

The fight involves the possibility of getting Governor Bush to intervene, though Bush himself has not offered much optimism for that scenario.

There are also efforts underway to lobby the Florida legislature to make changes in Florida statutes that would offer other avenues to safeguard the lives of Terri and other disabled persons, whose lives are currently inadequately protected under the law. However, while a number of legislators have expressed support for such legislation, it is widely believed that the fate of Terri's Law has cowed many Florida representatives from undertaking another legislative gambit.

George Felos, emboldened by his victories in court, has gone so far as to say that any legislation affecting Terri is unconstitutional:

In response to the family's renewed efforts, George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo, said the Florida Supreme Court "made it very clear" that neither the Legislature nor the governor has authority to overturn previous rulings in the case.

"I think the Legislature knows that, and anything they would pass would be unconstitutional," Felos said. (emphasis added)

Will those who reverence life and see Terri as a human person, and not just a "useless eater", be able to prevail again? If we are to protect her life, and the lives of all the weak and innocent, we must mobilize NOW!

Pray!
Offer penance in reparation for sins against the dignity of life.
Spread the word.
Call your local talk radio station.
Ask your priest, bishop or pastor to speak out.
Send a donation to Terri's Fight to support the effort to save Terri's life.
Organize a rally in support of Terri.
Write and call the President to demand that he speak out and intervene.
Pray some more!

Blogs for Terri: Join the Fight for Life!

2005-02-17T00:38:00.000-05:00

The Terri Schiavo Blogburst now has over 50 blogs and growing. Its sponsors are considering issuing a press release when the tally hits 100. We applaud the organizers' vision of 100-plus blogs demanding justice for Terri and coverage by the MSM (mainstream media).

If you are a blogger, I hope that you will join their ranks as Life Matters! has done. Here is the code to add Terri's blogroll to your blog.

Be sure to email Hyscience at hyscienceblog@3oaks.com to let him know that you have joined us. And visit the Terri-Schindler-Schiavo Foundation daily to read the latest information and alerts.

If possible, try to post something on Terri every day. You are welcome to crosspost any of our reports and commentaries on Life Matters!

Pray and act for Terri!

Permanent Bias Drives "Permanent" Labeling

2005-02-14T08:33:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrownback:

A Kansas woman, Sarah Scantlin, recently began talking after 20 years of brain-damage induced silence. Her doctors "believe critical pathways in the brain may have regenerated."

But of course, Judge Greer, George Felos, Michael Schiavo and Dr. Ronald Cranford "know" that Terri Schiavo can never improve or recover in any way. That's why they haven't even attempted therapy for over a decade.

We're just supposed to ignore Kate Adamson [vide], Rus Cooper-Dowda, David Mack, and the dozens of others like them who have had recoveries from supposedly "permanent" brain injuries—and now Sarah Scantlin.

Editor's Note:

As the recoveries cited above and others in CURE's files evidence, what is truly "permanent" is the lethal bias of the TAB Culture of Death towards persons with disabilities. We are privileged to note that Rus Cooper-Dowda, an intrepid defender of life, serves on CURE's Board of Advisors, as does Fr. Johansen.

Will Washington's Birthday Find Terri Starving?

2005-02-13T01:28:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrownback:

In a little reported ruling [on February 4], the Florida Second District Court of Appeals denied a re-hearing of the Schindlers' Papal Appeal, which argued that removing Terri's feeding tube would be a violation of Terri's First Amendment religious rights.

By handing down its ruling without issuing a written opinion, the Appeals Court has also precluded further appeals by the Schindlers to higher courts. I cannot help but suspect that this was an intended consequence on the court's part.

With the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of a hearing of Terri's Law, and the Florida Second District Court of Appeals' denial of the Papal Appeal, this means that there are no more appeals pending in Terri's case. That means that the indefinite stay issued by Judge Greer in Florida last fall will lapse within 15 days of the issuance of the Appeal Court's ruling.

Bottom line:

As I understand it, on Monday, January 21, Michael Schiavo will be able to go back to Judge Greer and request a new "death order" setting a new date for the removal of Terri's feeding tube. The only thing that will prevent this is if the Schindler's attorneys can find new grounds to file another appeal or convince Judge Greer or a higher court to issue another stay.

We need to start praying and getting the troops mobilized again. Terri's life is in grave danger.

I'll have more to post soon. [Editor's Note: When he does, you may read it here.]

Update, February 14, 8:00 p.m.:

It should be noted that the Schindlers are expected to appeal the Appeals Court's decision. As Baptist Press News reports today:

The Second District Court's decision, when it is finalized procedurally Feb. 22, will most likely end a current stay issued by Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer that is keeping Schiavo alive. The stay halts his 2000 ruling that said healthcare workers—at the request of Terri's husband and guardian, Michael Schiavo—could discontinue feeding Terri. Once her feeding tubes are removed, she will die by starvation and dehydration—most likely within seven to 10 days.

Attorneys for the Schindler family plan to attempt to appeal the Second District Court’s decision and thus take the issue of a disabled person's religious liberty rights to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For the latest developments, keep up to date with the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation.

"Brain Death," Not Death,Pontifical Academy Advised

2005-02-11T00:33:00.000-05:00

"At a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, dedicated to the discussion of organ transplants, a former president of the Catholic Medical Association has demanded a more accurate definition of when death occurs," Catholic World News reports.

Current criteria used by doctors to determine "brain death"—the point at which vital organs may be removed from a donor—are not adequate, argued Dr. Paul Byrne. He pointed out that at the time the organs are removed, the donor's heart is beating, his body is warm, and other vital organs are still functioning.

"Brain death is not death," declared Dr. Byrne, who has written extensively on the matter.

In an article published in the October 2001 issue of Catholic World Report, Bishops Fabian Bruskewitz, Lincoln, NE, and Robert Vasa, Baker, OR, and their co-authors stated that the removal of unpaired vital organs cause the death of the donor and that, accordingly, the donation of such organs is never morally licit.

Pope John Paul II has urged doctors to define clear criteria for the death of an organ donor. Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the chancellor of the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, said that last week's meeting in Rome had been devoted to that purpose.

Supplemental Reading

For additional information, visit The Truth About Brain Death.

Liberty and Justice for All A Few

2005-01-30T23:21:00.000-05:00

by Pamela F. Hennessy
Contributing Editor, Life Matters!

Who has the right to decide who lives and dies? Apparently, America's courts feel fit to take on the conundrum.

This week, the United States Supreme Court vacated a stay that blocked the execution of serial killer Michael Ross. This effectively removes the obstacles between the convicted killer and his own date with death.

Michael Ross, by his own acknowledgment, killed eight women in Connecticut and New York, and had been scheduled to die by lethal injection the previous Wednesday. Because of the ongoing legal battle, the Department of Corrections postponed the execution twice. It is now scheduled for January 29, 2005.

The reason this country's highest court was asked to consider this particular case is because Ross wants to die. You read that right.

Michael Ross recently dismissed his defense attorney and accepted his fate, stating he was ready to die. However, a District Court Judge, Robert Chatigny, imposed a stay of Ross' execution so that his mental competency could be determined—a necessary protection of Ross' rights. The case made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court and they dutifully agreed to hear it.

The outcome, however, was not to the liking of those seeking to protect Ross' life.

Public Defender Gerard Smyth told the press: "We are certainly disappointed the Supreme Court has decided Mr. Ross can be put to death without a thorough investigation of his mental capacity."

Robert Nave with Amnesty International also seemed disappointed with the decision. He openly puzzled: "We don't understand why the court would refuse to give adequate time to look at Michael Ross' competency in a full and fair manner."

I can understand his disenchantment.

Though the Supreme Court did not produce the answer that Ross' advocates were seeking, they did consider the case. In that same week, the Court was also to decide whether or not to hear the case of Schiavo v. Bush. This was the case that pitted Florida's Governor, Jeb Bush, against the husband of an incapacitated Florida woman, Terri Schiavo. "Terri's Law" was the law that enabled Bush to protect Ms. Schiavo from having a gastric feeding tube removed—an action that would cause her death by dehydration and starvation over the course of many days.

Ms. Schiavo is a brain-injured woman whose right to live or die has been the subject of a years-long and fiery court battle. Her estranged husband has sought to remove her assisted feeding and hydration so that she dies. Her parents have asked the courts for permission to act as her guardians and provide her the necessary care so that she may live. Her true medical condition and wishes are matters of great dispute and mystery.

The circuit court (specifically, Judge George Greer) found that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state even though evidence established her condition to be that of a responsive and aware person. The court also found that Terri would not want to live incapacitated even though the only supporting evidence offered was hearsay testimony of alleged casual remarks.

In October 2003, Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed by court order. While hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the hospice where this was happening, more than 180,000 others signed a petition to Governor Jeb Bush to take action. Petitioners cited the failure of the courts to enforce Florida’s guardianship laws that protect vulnerable people like Terri Schiavo and the fact that Terri Schiavo did not meet the state's statutory definition of Persistent Vegetative State—a prerequisite for this type of action.

After nearly a week without food and water, Florida lawmakers passed House Bill 35-E into law and Ms. Schiavo's enteral nourishment was resumed.

This immediately sparked legal action by her husband, Michael Schiavo. Schiavo sued Governor Bush over the constitutionality of Terri’s Law, stating that it encroached upon his wife's right to privacy and that it was a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

Governor Bush and his counsel, Attorney Kenneth Connor, asked the courts for discovery, jury trial and the ability to take depositions and testimony. They were not only denied those fundamental rights, they were handed a summary judgment by circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird that ruled Terri’s Law to be unconstitutional. Judge Baird issued this ruling without hearing the first word of testimony or reviewing the first piece of evidence.

In the United States, laws are considered constitutional unless proven otherwise. Since the burden of proof would rightly be on Mr. Schiavo and, since the Governor was denied the opportunity to present his case, the actions of the circuit court seem hasty and appreciably contrary to law. The matter passed through the court of appeals and on to Florida’s Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Florida Supreme Court sided with Mr. Schiavo and determined that Terri's Law was unconstitutional.

The Governor took his case to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that both he and Terri Schiavo were denied federally protected due process rights. The US Supreme Court receives hundreds of petitions every year and accepts consideration of a very small fraction of them. The case of Schiavo v. Bush was not to be one of those cases.

The United States Supreme Court rejected the case without so much as an opinion, thus ending any hope of Governor Bush protecting the life of one of Florida's vulnerable citizens. For the moment, Terri Schiavo's life goes on but the stays protecting her are prone to evaporate just as Terri's Law has.

Compare, if you will, Michael Ross and Terri Schiavo:

One is an admitted and convicted serial killer. The other is an innocent and vulnerable person.

One has chosen to accept his punishment and is willing to face death. The other cannot speak for herself and cannot make her choices clearly known.

One has been given the ultimate protection of law. The other has been abandoned by the system.

One is still considered a living, breathing human being who is entitled to equal protection. The other has been long discarded by the courts.

In the United States, we afford even the most diabolical of criminals due process and evenhandedness because we are a civilized and just society. Anything less would be tyranny. Why is it, then, that we deny the same protections to those of us who have become disabled or dependent?

When I hear of cases like these, I cannot help but wonder if the real criminals are the ones in the black robes. It is long past time for our lawmakers to enact measures that will protect vulnerable Americans and it is long past time for our courts to remember who the innocents are.

Editor's Note:

A Florida marketing and media executive, Pamela Hennessy has served as a volunteer for the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation since November 2002.

Will End of Terri's Law Mean End of Terri's Life?

2005-01-26T01:45:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrownback:

As many of you already no doubt know, [Monday] the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it would not hear Florida governor Jeb Bush's appeal on behalf of Terri's Law, the law which enabled him to intervene to save Terri's life.

This is without doubt a setback for the Schindlers, and this pretty well spells the end for Terri's Law. I can't say I'm very surprised, as I always thought it was unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would involve itself in a question regarding Florida state law.

While the decision is a setback and disappointment, this is not the end of the road. It's not time to start panicking yet.

As the Schindlers point out at Terri's Fight, there are still other matters pending in the courts which could be the means of saving Terri's life.

There are three cases pending:

A petition pending in the Second District Court of Appeals in Lakeland, FL, regarding Terri's right to the free exercise of her religion, rights which the Schindler's attorneys believe have been violated.

On Friday, January 28, in the Probate Court in Clearwater, FL, Judge Greer will hear the Schindler's motion to protect their daughter's due process rights.

A petition is before Judge Greer to remove Michael as Terri's guardian and to replace him with Terri's brother and sister, Bobby Jr. and Suzanne. They believe that Michael's numerous conflicts of interest with his ward, Terri, disqualify him from continuing as her guardian.

So we need to keep praying (especially about the hearing on Friday), and keep fighting!

I've been trying to reach the Schindlers since [Monday] afternoon, but they've been swamped with calls and e-mails so I haven't spoken to them yet. As soon as I talk to them and have more information, I'll post an update.

Editor's Note:

Any updates posted by Fr. Johansen will be crossposted on Life Matters! as customary. Further information, as always, can be found at the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation, which featured in our right nav bar under "Life Lines" and which we urge our readers to visit regularly for the latest developments.

Supreme Court Abandons Terri to Judicial Murder

2005-01-24T23:42:00.000-05:00

The essence of civilization is this: The strong have a duty to protect the weak. We know that in a culture that does not protect the most dependent, the handicapped, the elderly, the unloved, or simply inconvenient become increasingly vulnerable. –President George W. Bush

The President's ringing defense of innocent human life rallied defenders of life from across the nation who braved the biting cold to March for Life in our nation's capital, but his message fell on deaf ears at the United States Supreme Court, the traditional end of the annual march's route.

Indeed on the very day that more than 100,000 Americans marched in defense of innocent life, the nine justices of the High Court folded their Pontius Pilate hands to pass a virtual death sentence on Terri Schindler Schiavo, who is innocent of any crime save, perhaps, having a disability in a TAB (temporarily able bodied) tyranny.

As John-Thor Dalbujrg and David Savage report in today's Los Angeles Times:

The justices dismissed without comment Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's claim that he had the power and responsibility to keep Schiavo alive after a state judge authorized removal of the tube through which she receives food and water.

The governor was appealing a September decision by Florida's Supreme Court that found "Terri's Law"—a measure passed by the state Legislature that gave Bush the one-time power to order the tube reinstated—violated the separation of powers.

The refusal clears the way for Terri's adulterous husband "to have her feeding tube unhooked by a state court order"—in other words, to starve her to death.

The Schindler family, who have heroically defended Terri throughout the ordeal to which Michael Schiavo and his judicial accomplices have subjected her, mounted the podium at the March for Life to implore pro-life America to join them in defending Terri from her impending murder.

"It's judicial homicide. They want to murder her," Robert Schindler, Schiavo's father, told reporters Monday. "I have no idea what the next step will be. We are going to fight for her as much as we can fight for her. She deserves a chance."

Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE)was founded on the premise that every innocent life deserves a chance and that, accordingly, euthanasia must be vigorously combated without compromise or exception.

I join the Schindler the family and Terri's many friends in urging to visit the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation's website to see how you can act to defend her life.

Read, pray, and act—today and tomorrow! May God bless the Schindlers! May God bless Terri! May God bless you for caring.

The Groningen Protocol: A Crime Against Humanity In the Making

2004-12-05T21:33:00.000-05:00

"Four times in recent months, Dutch doctors have pumped lethal doses of drugs into [critically ill] newborns," Matthew Schofield reported for the Knight-Ridder on October 11, adding:

The children's deaths, and the possibility that the protocol will become standard practice throughout the Netherlands, have sparked heated discussion about whether the idea of assisting adults who seek to die should ever be applied to children and others who are incapable of making, or understanding, such a request.

Under the so-called "Groningen protocol," doctors have the authority to end such children's life. "The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12," Schofield advises.

A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.
The protocol was written by hospital doctors and officials, with help from Dutch prosecutors. It's being studied by lawmakers as potential law.

The protocol, Hugh Hewitt observes in The Weekly Standard, "should enter the history books as shorthand for an appalling brutality, so appalling in fact, that the Groningen Protocol could have been an entry on the agenda at the Wannsee Conference."

On November 30, the Associated Press published a follow-up account. "The protocol is already in effect, and at least four babies had been deemed disposable and killed," Hewitt advises, concluding:

This is either a low point, or a point of no return. The establishment of "independent committees" to dispatch nonconsenting humans is nothing but a death penalty committee for innocents. Once begun, it is impossible--simply impossible--to limit the concept with any bright line....If the "severely retarded" may be killed upon appropriate motion, second, debate, and majority vote, why not the moderately retarded? Why not the mildly retarded? Why not, in fact, anyone the "independent committee" deems as usefully dispatched.

The Hollanders were the victims of the German occupation during the Nazi tyranny of the Twentieth Century. Now, the Netherlands is a victimizer nation, implementing the anti-life protocols of the TAB tyranny of the Twenty-First.

Tragically, their own infants among the most defenseless victims of the Culture of Death, as it "turns yet another blood-stained page in its long and malevolent history. The Allies liberated Holland in 1945. Who will free the victims of today's crimes against humanity in the Netherlands?

Victim With Disability = Murder With Impunity

2004-11-24T22:22:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back:

A father in New Zealand was acquitted today of charges that he had murdered his brain-damaged daughter.

Although he admitted to smothering "her face with his hand until she stopped breathing," he was cleared of all charges. The jury deliberated for all of 47 minutes.

The incident occurred on the day the father and mother were told by doctors their baby had "the most survivable profound brain dysfunction possible."

The head of the Commissioner for Children's office recognized how the jury could have come to such a verdict: "The jury could only reach the verdict it did because it wasn't able to value the life of the baby."

"Wasn't able to value the life of the baby." The inevitable result of failing to value the life of the human being in the womb is to whittle away at any sense of the value of human life outside the womb.

God have mercy on us.

The Struggle to Save Terri

2004-11-24T04:10:00.000-05:00

This month's issue of Catholic World Report, features "The Struggle to Save Terri" by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen as the cover story. As Fr. Johansen writes on Thrown Back:

In this article, I relate some of the personal experiences of the Schindler family, and my own experiences in helping them, in their efforts to save Terri's life. I describe the circumstances of how I came to be involved in her case, and my reactions to the inhuman treatment to which she is subjected, such as her husband Michael's denial of a priest's visits:

I had never heard of a patient being denied pastoral care before. I can't even imagine the kind of hardness of heart required to take such a position. Even condemned criminals are given access to clergy! But Terri Schiavo, who was guilty of no crime, was denied something we commonly provide to the most heinous of criminals. It seemed to me that Judge Greer had decided that Terri was so sub-human that she is could be denied even spiritual comfort and consolation. I wrote at the time:

As a priest, I cannot imagine being in Msgr. Malanowski's position. I simply could not stand for such interference with my ministry. I would be inclined to seek every means possible to disobey the order and visit Terri. An unjust law is no law at all. Similarly, a capricious, inhuman, unjust and gratuitous judge's order is no order at all.

There is a long standing tradition in the Church of defying Caesar when he trespasses beyond his rightful authority. There is a well-established tradition of resisting Caesar when he attempts to deprive the Church of her legitimate prerogatives. And so, I reiterate the suggestion I made a couple of weeks ago: It is time to consider civil disobedience.

It seemed to me that this deprivation of Terri's right to spiritual care was the final indignity. If this wasn't sufficient motivation to condemn Terri's treatment and mobilize opposition, nothing would be.

The article isn't available on line yet, but we will provide a link on Life Matters! as soon as it is. Our appreciation, as always, to Fr. Johansen.

Aussie Death Dealers Fear New Protections for Life

2004-11-12T04:14:00.000-05:00

"Worried that a recent election victory for conservatives will further hamper their efforts to promote and legalize euthanasia, 'right-to-die' activists in Australia are moving ahead with a plan to equip people for possible future suicides," Cybercast News Service reports.

Australia's leading proponent of euthanasia, Dr. Philip Nitschke, has been concerned for much of this year about federal government attempts to ban the use of the Internet or telephone help lines to promote suicide.
The Telecommunications Offences Bill would prevent him from using a website hosted in Australia to promote, counsel or incite suicide, or to provide instruction on how to commit suicide.
The legislation would also make it difficult for him to continue holding workshops of the type he has been hosting for several years across the country, where participants are given advice on what his organization, Exit Australia, calls "end of life options."

According to Nitschke, the life-protecting measure would "have a very significant effect on our activities" and return Australia to the "dark ages."

Exit Australia has developed a formula for a "peaceful pill" - a deadly mixture of ingredients that are readily available from stores....
The "peaceful pill" is the latest in a string of devices designed by Nitschke, including a "death machine" that facilitates the inhaling of carbon monoxide; customized plastic bags for suffocation; and an apparatus approximating an oxygen tent, designed to pump in lethal gas and enable two people to commit suicide simultaneously.
In earlier years, he helped four patients [kill themselves] under the world's first euthanasia law, in Australia's Northern Territory, using a contraption linking a computer with a hypodermic needle and lethal barbiturate.

In the United States, Oregon is the only state to have "legalized" physician-assisted suicide. Since 1998, more than 170 people have purportedly killed themselves under the soi-disant "Death with Dignity Act." However, as Cybercast News Service reports, Australia's move towards euthanasia comes at a time when the American government is appealing to the Supreme Court in an effort to block doctors in Oregon from murdering their patients.

"Obstructionist" Courts Obstruct Starvation-Murder

2004-11-07T16:15:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back...

St. Pete Times Cries a River For Michael Schiavo
Laments "unjustifiable delay" in killing Terri

In an editorial today, the St. Petersburg Times called the courts an "obstructionist force," since they have held back—this time—from handing Michael Schiavo the power to end his wife's life.

Liberals are funny. When judges legislate from the bench, they are "progressive" and "forward-thinking." When the courts don't give liberals what they want, they are "obstructionist." Watch now for a flurry of excoriation directed at Judge Greer from his former fan club in the Main Street Media, since he has dared to slow the legal machinery of death.

I also predict that if George Felos does drop out, there will be a great hue and cry for some attorney to come forward and take up the case. A source in St. Petersburg tells me that the real voice behind this editorial is none other than Felos himself. Given the similarity in some of the phraseology between his recent statements and this editorial, I wouldn't be surprised: it reads as if it could be a Felos press release.

Oh, and just a reminder. When you read the papers or hear ill-informed people speak of allowing Terri Schiavo "the peaceful end" awaiting her when her feeding tube is removed, remember the reality of that "peaceful" end.

Staying the Hand of Death

2004-11-05T23:22:00.000-05:00

As previously reported on Life Matters!, the infamous, anti-life advocate George Felos had boasted that his cold-blooded and heartless client Michael Schiavo had been given a green light by the Florida Supreme Court to resume the starvation-murder of the wife that he so shamelessly betrayed and abandoned years ago, Terri Schindler Schiavo.

"It's our position that Mr. Schiavo has the immediate legal authority to remove Terri's tube," bellowed Felos, threatening Terri with imminent epivalothanasia (imposed death) .

But as CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen reports on Thrown Back:

Last week, the Schindlers received some good news in their efforts to save the life of their daughter Terri.

Firstly, the Florida Supreme Court issued a stay barring an order to remove Terri's feeding tube until November 30. This was done so as to give Florida Governor Jeb Bush and attorneys for the Schindlers time to take Terri's case to the Federal courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a separate hearing on Thursday, Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge Greer heard arguments from George Felos, who asked the court to end his stay on the removal of Terri's feeding tube early, on Friday. Attorney for the Schindlers, David Gibbs, countered by asking Judge Greer to continue the stay ndefinitely.

But in a surprise decision, on Friday Judge Greer issued the
indefinite stay requested by Gibbs on behalf of the Schindlers.

The decision barring the removal of Terri's feeding tube indefinitely has prompted Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, to consider ending his efforts to kill Terri:
"I think we are coming very close, if we are not here already, where proceeding in the judicial system is futile," said George Felos, who represents Michael
Schiavo in his quest for court permission to stop feeding his brain-damaged wife. "It would appear that pursuing any remedy through the judicial system is simply a waste of time," Felos said. "It is hard to see where there is any benefit in staying the course in this case."

Felos further complained of Judge Greer's ruling, "I think it's outrageous." The ruling, he said, "could delay this case months, even years."

"It seems to me," Fr. Johansen continues, in his refreshingly straight forward and customarily candid manner, "that Felos is starting to view the prospect of further uncompensated legal wrangling with dismay."

Recall that Felos hasn't been paid anything by Schiavo since 2002. Terri's settlement fund is exhausted: Felos has been paid about $700,000 by Schiavo, but there won't be any going back to that well. Felos may be deciding that he isn't willing to expend his time and resources pursuing Terri's death ad infinitum.

As Terri's faithful and dedicated defender aptly reminds us:

Terri isn't safe yet, and the battle isn't over yet. Terri will only be safe when Michael Schiavo is stripped of or relinquishes his guardianship of Terri. But this is a very hopeful sign, and reason to be thankful. We need to pray that George Felos does give up his pursuit of Terri's death as a "bad job," and that Michael isn't able to find some other lawyer to aid him in his effort to end Terri's life.

And we need to fight even harder, not just for our sister Terri, but for every victim targeted for murder, in the guise of euthanasia, by the henchmen of the Culture of Death and their stooges. Fight back! Fight on!

Justice Denied Terri Yet Again, as Death Clock Restarts

2004-10-21T22:03:00.000-05:00

Reuters reports today that the Florida Supreme Court has refused to reconsider its 7-0 ruling overturning Terri's Law, a state statute supported by Gov. Jeb Bush that put a halt to the forced fatal starvation of Terri Schindler Schiavo by her unfaithful husband.

In a 4-3 opinion, the court rejected a request by Bush's attorneys to rehear the case. The court ruled unanimously last month against the hastily crafted law that prevented Michael Schiavo from withholding food and water from his wife, Terri. She has been on life support since suffering a heart attack in 1990.

It is not known what action Gov. Bush will take next to continue to protect Terri's life from Florida's killer courts. According to Bush spokeswoman Jill Bratina, "Our lawyers are looking at the legal options before us. We will be looking to make a decision on our next step very soon," possibly today.

Among the options being weighed is an appeal to the United States Supreme Court in the hope that it will at least buy time—the best that Terri's loving family, the Schindlers, and Terri's defenders have been able to do to date.

But it is unclear whether further legal proceedings will delay Schiavo from reinitiating Terri's imposed death by starvation.

While Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, said after the September ruling that "his client would not try to remove the feeding tube until the order became final," the anti-life advocate is singing a different tune—a funeral dirge—in the wake of the Florida Supreme Court's latest death sentence.

As Gail Epstein Nieves reports for the Knight Ridder Tribune service, Felos "said simply filing for such a review would not bar his client from moving ahead."

Bush would have to win a "stay," or a temporary halt in action, and Felos called the chances of that "very slim" for two reasons: The nation's highest court previously declined to take up the case, and the Florida Supreme Court's decision relied on the Florida Constitution, not on federal law.

Felos said his office should receive official notice of Thursday's Florida Supreme Court ruling today.

At that point, he said, "It's our position that Mr. Schiavo has the immediate legal authority to remove Terri's tube."

"Privacy" Smokescreen Masks Contempt for Prenatal Euthanasia Victim

2004-10-18T05:41:00.000-05:00

What the Herald Sun describes as "A late abortion furore," has erupted in Melbourne, Australia. A closer examination, however, reveals that the 32-week-old unborn baby, diagnosed with dwarfism, was a victim of prenatal euthanasia.

"A Melbourne hospital was ordered yesterday to release private medical records relating to a 32-week abortion," Chlole Adams reports. "The decision was slammed yesterday by Health Services Commissioner Beth Wilson, who said it could lead to backyard abortions."

The controversial documents relate to the April 2000 termination of a 32-week-old fetus at the Royal Women's Hospital. The Melbourne Magistrates' Court has been told the mother became suicidal after she was told by doctors the baby was suffering from dwarfism. Abortions after 28 weeks can only be conducted in Victoria if the mother's health is at risk.
The case caused a public storm after Victorian anti-abortion senator Julian McGauran referred to it in Parliament in 2002. Senator McGauran—who was granted access to the woman's files by a coroner—has been fighting for an investigation by the Medical Practitioners Board ever since.
The hospital claims the board, which investigates doctors and medical practices, does not have the right to confidential information without the consent of the patient. But magistrate Jeanette Maughan said yesterday release of the documents was lawful and did not breach privacy laws.
Ms Wilson, who is responsible for complaints made about Victorian health services, was disappointed and would support the hospital if it appealed against the ruling.
She believed the public would find it alarming. "We don't want to see women go back to backyard abortions," Ms Wilson said. "If people feel their information will be given out, then they may well do that." She said the need for patient privacy outweighed the argument of public interest, because the complaint by Senator McGauran was "vexatious and politically motivated."

Ms Maughan granted a 30-day stay on the release of the documents while the hospital decides whether to appeal. Medical Practitioners Board spokeswoman Nicole Newton said the board needed the records so it could investigate the doctors' professional conduct. She said the board would continue to protect the woman's identity.

CURE Comment: The mother's identity has not been revealed, Ms Wilson's histrionics notwithstanding. On the other hand, an unnamed, unknown baby's life has been ended because he or she "was suffering [sic] from dwarfism." What this child with disability truly suffered from was TAB bigotry, which proved a fatal affliction. Where is Ms Wilson's concern for the victim or is "Health Services" merely Orwellian Newspeak in Melbourne?

Life and Death

2004-10-17T16:15:00.000-05:00

by Rod Pead, Editor, Christian Order

I am indebted to Father John Fongemie FSSP, chaplain to Canberra’s Latin Mass community, for prompting me to address two interrelated matters I have put on the backburner for too long: organ donation and so-called "brain death."

Earlier this year, Father devoted his Sunday sermon to the theological and medical aspects of these issues. Thomistic and hard-hitting, it was disconcerting news for would-be organ donors in the congregation blissfully ignorant of the debate surrounding "brain death." After all, how would they know there was one? This controversy is not only ignored by the anti-life media, it is hardly prominent among pro-lifers themselves, even though the secular definition of what constitutes death—i.e. what the Culture of Death defines as death—should be a frontline issue for all upholders of the Fifth Commandment.

Around the same time as Father Fongemie’s exposition, further impetus for treating this subject was provided when a former Australian cricketer, 48-year-old David Hookes, was killed during a tragic incident in Melbourne. Following a night out with family and friends on 18 January, he was punched to the ground during an altercation outside a hotel and suffered a heart attack before lapsing into a coma. He was declared "brain dead" the following day, after which his family took the decision to take him off life-support so his organs could be removed for transplantation, in accordance with his known wishes.

Sporting icons being the demigods they are Down Under, the dashing Test batsman's premature demise and donation of his organs and tissues ignited saturation media coverage and an outpouring of emotion and admiration from his legion of fans across the country.

As a result, and despite Australia having the second lowest organ donor rate in the developed world after New Zealand (10.4 donors per million population) people were almost instantly convinced that organ donation was a good thing. Some 1,200 rushed to put their name down on the Organ Donation Register in the seven days following his death, three times the weekly average. By the end of January, the register listed 5,278 names, up from 1,784 the year before.

By 22 February, a David Hookes Foundation had been established to promote organ donation, inspiring a 40 per cent increase in organ donors during the month of March, spread across all states.

The Australian press have kept this emotionally-driven campaign on the boil ever since, with a relentless stream of heart-warming stories featuring grateful recipients of donated organs. Yet predictably, amidst the raging sentimentalism, discussion of the overriding issue—whether "brain death" is, in fact, true death—has been kept well out of earshot.

It was a full six weeks after Hookes’ death before the press gave voice to such dissent, when a very brief letter from a priest appeared in Melbourne’s Herald Sun headed "What is death?" The writer, Father Kevin Robinson, called for "a government inquiry or a royal commission" into the issue while plainly and logically stating that "Organs necessary for life cannot lawfully be given away until one is truly dead; otherwise we have the crime of murder." He went on to quote this passage from a moral theologian:

Now we know as a fact that life often persists after apparent death; advance decomposition is the only certain sign of death…

That statement encapsulates the informed dissenting view of countless medics and ecclesiastics. And it needs to be read in the knowledge that only people who are declared "brain dead" and on life support are able to become organ donor—about 1 per cent of deaths—since only tissue donation can take place after the heart has stopped beating. Hence, when the Church speaks of donating organs "in an ethically acceptable manner" [Evangelium Vitae, 86], it surely cannot be referring to vital organs which occur singly in the body, since they can only be removed after death. In other words, the only ethical—and viable—unpaired vital organ donation is no such donation! But it is not just unethical, it is homicidal. Consider these facts:

Early evening on the Monday [i.e. within 24 hours of his admission to hospital], it was announced David Hookes had died. A short time later, at 8pm, the family finished the necessary paperwork granting consent for surgeons to remove the required organs. Hookes’ heart was still beating, the life support system keeping the blood pumping until scheduled theatre at 6am the next day. That gave the donor organisers from Life Gift enough time to find suitable recipients for the chosen organs… it wasn’t until midday [when Hookes was taken into the operating room] that the life support system was finally switched off."[Herald Sun, 7 February 2004]

There is no gentle way to say it: David Hookes was killed in order to harvest his organs.

As Dr Paul Byrne declares in the ensuing article:

In an organism as complicated as a human being, no one should be pronounced dead unless and until there is destruction of at least the major vital systems of the body, i.e., the circulatory and respiratory systems, and the entire brain.

Moreover, the "brain dead" contrivance, which has enabled doctors to avoid charges of euthanasia by redefining death, is doubly criminal—because not only are a person's cardiovascular and respiratory systems still operating, but according to the official medical definition itself, as Dr Byrne points out, "96% of the so-called "brain-dead" patients still have a functioning brain!"

Doctors involved in such routine killings for organ transplants comfort themselves and rationalise the murderous fact on the basis that the (clueless) family has consented and that comatose life, in their opinion, is worthless.

Of course, this is all of a piece with the charnel house morality of a death-dealing culture, steeped in the blood of its global abortion franchise. Yet during the Hookes saga, alleging a reluctance to discuss organ donation, someone perversely opined that "We Aussies are a death-denying people." Au contraire! The naked truth is that Australians, like the rest of the West, are a life-denying people. For that is the unspoken, godless philosophical outlook informing proponents of the "brain-death" cult. Quite simply, like the pro-aborts, they reject the very notion of each life as a sacred gift from God and worthy of respect from conception until death, even when comatose and dying. They refute the fact that "As long as there is life in the person, that person continues to exist in all of his or her dignity, with all of his or her soul" [Bishop Elio Sgreccia, Vice-President, Pontifical Council for Life].

There is no escaping the ramifications of this fraught issue. Ultimately, it affects each and every one of us, as those forced to keep a wary eye on doctors and nurses treating comatose family members in the final hours of terminal illness can testify. An American nurse of vast experience recently reflected on what we are facing:

Just recently, some of my fellow ICU nurses told me that they thought a person could be breathing on their own, etc. and still be "brain dead!" And I have seen cases where doctors have told families that the patient was brain dead when they were not in order to convince the families to withdraw treatment. This is scary. And, of course, we have already seen the expansion of organ donors from those declared brain dead to the non-heartbeating organ donor patients who are taken off ventilators but are not brain dead (and who, in some cases, have no brain injury). It is disturbing but not surprising that there seems to be a constant blurring of the line between the dead, the almost dead and the so-called "hopeless."

This blurring fuels the commodification of human life at the expense of the love and compassion once afforded the most vulnerable, like patients in so-called "vegetative states." As well as the "brain death"-euthanasia con, we see it manifested in horrors such as direct acts of involuntary euthanasia, mass removal and storage of organs without consent and the international trafficking in body parts, all now reported with increasing frequency.

Even medical research on the (not-so) "brain-dead" is on the rise and finding support among an increasingly pliant, amoral populace. This revealing 2003 report from the Chicago Tribune, an insidious piece of dissembling anti-life propaganda, confirms the chilling trend:

Today, many researchers remain leery of using brain-dead or terminal patients for research. They are worried about abuses, such as disrespect for dying or dead patients or the ghoulish possibility of warehouses full of bodies maintained on life support.

Yet the medical profession faced and overcame similar ethical and moral dilemmas, such as those over the concepts of brain death and the removal of organs for transplantation, which are frequently performed while bodies are on life support.

"Initially it takes one aback. It seems like a kind of grisly thing to be doing," said infectious disease expert Dr. Elizabeth Hohmann of Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women's Hospitals. "But after further consideration I certainly would not say at this point that we don’t want to consider that kind of thing," she said. "You have to work it out so you're not coercing people or putting them in a position where they think they can't say no."

The advantage of using a brain-dead individual for research is that his body functions like normal with blood circulation and working lungs. But the person is dead, with no chance of resuscitation, once brain activity stops.

"It may seem cruel and macabre to do research on a brain-dead person, but it reduces the risk to the living and it makes dangerous experiments that much less dangerous," said Arthur Caplan, director of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

As medicine's use of the dead increases, ethicists are amazed at the deep well of altruism that it has tapped into. People want the miracles promised by research not just for themselves but for humanity in general, and they realize that sacrifices will have to be made.

"There are people who believe that the body is just a vessel for the person," said Dr. Michael DeVita, a University of Pittsburgh ethicist. "When you're brain dead, the person is gone and so you’ve just left with the vessel. If the vessel can help somebody in the future, great, go ahead."

David Hookes would have concurred. A secularised Everyman of his utilitarian age, his purely naturalistic altruism was always going to trump any deeper consideration of "brain-death" vis-à-vis the precepts of the Natural Moral Law and God’s Commandments. This pervasive materialistic mindset is leading us down the creepy legislative slope to "opt out" organ donation systems like those already adopted in Spain and Italy, whereby everyone is deemed to be a donor unless they specify otherwise. Indeed, Hookesy himself was all for it. "He believed it [organ donation] should be compulsory—an automatic thing," said his stepdaughter.

How long before feeding tubes will likewise be automatically disconnected, to facilitate research and removal of organs, unless a coma patient has left written instructions to maintain them? Insidious legislation in many countries is moving relentlessly in this direction. In Britain, denying tube-feeding to patients gained crucial impetus after Tony Bland was infamously dehydrated to death in 1993. It is now an increasingly common practice backed by the Government and British Medical Association (notwithstanding the fact that more than two-thirds of British doctors remain firmly opposed to legalising euthanasia). The Draft Mental Incapacity Bill 2003 looked to consolidate and widen the scope of this deadly trend in British law [see the Guild of Catholic Doctors official submission on the Bill at http://www.catholicdoctors.org.uk]. And the Mental Capacity Bill is now about to set it all in legislative concrete.

Such twisted thinking has even penetrated the moral-ethical ramparts of supposedly Catholic minds and institutions.

Take the response to Pope John Paul II's recent definitive pronouncement on the immorality of removal of nutrition and hydration from patients in a persistent vegetative state. The Holy Father confirmed that no judgement on their quality of life could justify such "euthanasia by omission" [full statement pp. 19-23]. Yet far from being uplifted and affirmed by this magnificent declaration, made during a March 2004 congress in Rome, it was reported that many were shocked because "the now condemned practice is commonplace at hospitals throughout the world, including Catholic hospitals"

Fr John Paris, bioethics professor at Boston College reportedly said: "I think the best thing to do is ignore it, and it will go away," whilst Fr John Strynkowski, executive director of the secretariat for doctrine and pastoral practices, said that the US Catholic Conference of Bishops would have to study the papal statement along with previous statements and documents before there was any change in policy at Catholic hospitals.

In the same vein, there was also a telling exchange during the March conference. LifeSiteNews.com reported that the day before the Pope's pronouncement:

Dr JPM Lelkens, corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy for life, spoke on the fact that the numbers of euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands are skewed by the nation’s refusal to acknowledge withdrawal of nutrition and hydration (passive euthanasia) as euthanasia. Therefore, while Holland suggests low figures for deaths by euthanasia, Dr Lelkens, a physician and professor in Maastrict Holland suggested that some ten per cent of deaths in the Netherlands are due to euthanasia—3.9% from withdrawal of nutrition and hydration alone.

Dr JCM Lavrijsen, a physician from Nijmegen Holland who was also presenting at the conference, but on palliative care, was indignant that Dr. Lelkens was referring to withdrawal of nutrition and hydration as euthanasia. In an intense exchange, Lavrijsen, an advocate of withdrawal of nutrition and hydration for patients in a persistent vegetative state, asked Lelkens publicly, "Are you accusing me of manslaughter?"

After a brief pause, Dr Lelkens responded, "Yes, because there is no other way to define it, I am accusing you of manslaughter."

God bless Dr Lelkens (and the Holy Father for confirming his stance). But what an elemental clash between otherwise like-minded doctors! One which plays into enemy hands, since public dissent against the Pope’s ruling on nutrition and hydration of coma patients can only aid their anti-life agenda.

Wide dissemination of articles and statements like the following, which elucidate the issues touched on above, will help provide a corrective to such dissidence: stimulating greater awareness of the unholy nexus between "brain-death," euthanasia and organ donation. In this hyper-emotive battle, we need to warn the naïve and unwary about falling prey to godless altruism, pseudo-compassion and complicity in the Culture of Death. [emphases and hypertext links added]

CURE Comment: The editorial cartoon that accompanies this report does not reflect our view but was chosen to illustrate the mentality behind the promotion of the "brain death" lie and the rejection of the Pope's defense of the lives of persons in coma.

Utterly Contemptible

2004-10-16T22:19:00.000-05:00

As reported by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back:

In a little-noticed remark in this story (go to the picture of George Felos and click on the "watch video" link), George Felos is quoted as saying that the original judgment, that is the one giving Michael the right to remove Terri's feeding tube, is "still in place", and that Michael reserves the right to remove it "at any time". Felos also said that he didn't know when that date would be, and that Michael was "taking it day by day."

So what will Michael do? Will he announce his intention to do so and make a big splash of it, maybe with cameras present? Or will we awaken some morning to find that he has done so in the middle of the night, hoping to get away with it as a fait accompli?

It will be done when, and in the manner in which, he thinks he can get away with. My guess is that he'll opt for the middle-of-the-night approach. Everything about his case hinges on hiding facts from the light of truth. He won't be able to stand doing this in the light of day.

Equally Contemptuous

2004-10-15T20:03:00.000-05:00

"George Felos shows equal contempt for people's religious beliefs as he does for the lives of disabled people who cannot speak for themselves," CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen informs us on Thrown Back.

Felos, the attorney aiding Michael Schiavo's efforts to kill his wife Terri, compared the Pope to Iranian mullahs (like the Ayatollah Khomeini) in court hearings last week.

The arguments in this case, as I explained [in a previous post], hinge upon Terri's status as a practicing Catholic and the Pope's address last spring which, among other things, clarified the obligation to provide food and water to PVS patients.

Attorney for the Schindlers, David Gibbs, spoke concerning the Pope's statement and argued that it presents a change in circumstances which would render the removal of Terri's feeding tube a violation of Terri's religious rights.

George Felos responded by saying, "This is not Iran. The mullahs don't make pronouncements to validate, invalidate...a court's judgment."

That's right, Mr. Felos. The Pope, in insisting that human beings not be treated like disposable objects we can get rid of when no longer convenient, is like Muslim extremist mullahs hurling fatwahs of death against girls who don't wear headscarves.
Felos displays the contempt for religion and religious values that characterizes the majority of our society's elites. He is in good company with certain journalists and columnists who regularly warn their readers about oppressive "edicts from Rome", and agree with organizations like People For The American Way that having serious Christians in positions of power is "scary".

George Felos's statement about mullahs is indicative of the attitude of many occupying positions of power and influence, including our judiciary. That's why I'm not optimistic about the Schindlers' chances of success in their latest legal strategy.

CURE Comment: Our prognosis is unfortunately guarded as well—and not simply because the matter is before Judge George Greer's kangaroo court. Rather, our skepticism arises from the prevalence of "Catholic" euthanasia and the pervasive opposition to Pope John Paul II's statement by Church leaders and theologians that call into question the impact—if any—of its authority.

UK Bill Sanctions Euthanasia

2004-10-12T00:17:00.000-05:00

The proponents of the euthanasia-enabling Mental Capacity Bill are determined to see England repeat the mistakes made by the United States in sanctioning the misnamed "living will." As Ben Russell reports in today's Independent:

MPs expressed anger yesterday over proposals to introduce "living wills" allowing mentally incapacitated patients to forbid doctors to intervene to save their lives.
David Lammy, the junior constitutional affairs minister, said that the Mental Capacity Bill would not introduce euthanasia by the back door. But critics, including former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith, warned that the Bill would allow euthanasia "by omission" by allowing doctors to withdraw treatment and to permit them to carry out experimental treatments on people even if they were not patients' direct interests.

MPs of all parties raised concerns about the Bill during a stormy second reading debate yesterday.

Under the new Mental Capacity Bill, patients will be able to appoint a relative or friend to take future decisions on their behalf and will allow people with no one to act for them to leave instructions about their future treatment.

The living wills will allow people to take "powers of attorney" to take decisions about patients' welfare and health. At present people are only allowed to delegate financial decisions. [emphasis added]

Do Not Go—Gently or Otherwise—Until God Takes You

2004-10-11T10:13:00.000-05:00

Editor's Note: While the author of the following column in the October 4 Toronto Star shares the common confusion about the nature of so-called "extraordinary means" and an inadequate understanding of the role that DNR (do-not-resuscitate) orders play in epivalothanasia (imposed death), such lapses are understandable, though regrettable, reflections of the anti-life philosophy that permeates TAB (temporarily able bodied) society, a Culture of Death to which her ringing affirmation of life is a welcome and long over-due rebuke.

Rosie Dimanno powerfully demonstrates what CURE has learned over the past quarter century: the most vital lessons in the fight for life are learned at a loved one's bedside, not in sterile debates that seek to reduce murder to mere differences of opinion.

I have spent most of the past three weeks inside a hospital room, watching a person I love fight for his life.

It is in this frame of mind—raging helplessly against the ever-mutating cleverness of disease, how hungrily and with such stealth malignancy hovers, circles, teases, even retreats just long enough to kindle hope—that I come, with outrage, to the reignited debate of assisted suicide.

Torn from the current headlines, it's a trendy issue. But morally hollow. So profoundly abominable that it provokes in me a fury I can barely control.

Death is never a mercy. To characterize death as merciful is to invest it with nearly altruistic qualities, with tenderness, which is a kind of anthropomorphizing, as if death has a personality and we can alter its features, render it more kindly, make of it even a friend.

Merciful death—it was for the best...at least he's not suffering any more—is but a shallow platitude, seized upon most eagerly by those who cannot otherwise admit their own relief in being released from the exhausting burden, emotional and otherwise but essentially vicarious, of illness and infirmities and frailty; of how awful life looks, wasting and desiccated and necrotic, when it's trickling away.

This is, I think, the unbearable heaviness of being.

Of growing old and feeble, or not even so old but terribly sick, losing one's faculties, one's mobility, one's mind—reverting, yes, to the helplessness of infancy. But it is inevitably the healthy who recoil from this, as if even death were a preferable alterative to such dependency and deterioration.

We project our revulsion—which is essentially rooted in fear of our own mortality—and convince ourselves that somebody else would be better off dead because look, just look, at how wretched their existence has become or will become. And that says a great deal about the value that we subtract from a life when it is no longer vigorous and productive; when it just lies there, maybe thinking, maybe dreaming, maybe remembering.

Little wonder that the sick and dying begin to see themselves as valueless, too, abhorrent, ashamed, unworthy because they can no longer walk or talk or feed themselves.

It is precisely the lame, the enfeebled and the despondent who most need our protection, our gentling, to assuage their pain and respect the essence of their being. This essence is not held hostage to the ravages of the flesh.

A mother who helps a son take his own life—as that misguided woman in Montreal last week, her son just 36 and only in the early stage of multiple sclerosis, is charged with doing—has, if she did it, committed both a crime and a grievous sin. Suicide is the murder of self. Assisted suicide is just plain murder, however some might rationalize it as a supreme act of compassion.

It takes gall—or guile—to call what this woman did selfless love. She must not be absolved for it, out of mercy.

There's an immense difference between declining to apply extraordinary life-extending measures—respecting do-not-resuscitate orders—and intervening not merely to hasten death but to inflict it. [Editor's Note: The difference—without distinction—is the specific lethal language used to rationalize euthanasia.] Abetting suicide in the irreversibly ill or the utterly incapacitated is not a kindness; it's an abuse of power.

This young Montreal man was not incapacitated, although he was surely depressed, and chronic depression crushes reason. He had an illness that couldn't be cured, that would assuredly get worse. But he wasn't in insupportable physical pain and he could have lived a productive life—one that contained pleasure and curiosity and wisdom—for decades, with MS, as have hundreds of thousands of other Canadians.

What he needed was a professional to treat the sadness and fatalism that had settled in his bones. The last thing he needed was a mother in emotional thrall to his deranged thinking or seduced by his need to bail prematurely from an envisioned existence he could not, in that agitated state of mind, bear to contemplate.

Don't speak to me about opinion polls that show most Canadians favour a legal option for helping someone to die. This is not a question that can be posed in the abstract, and then answered in the affirmative by those not immediately or imminently facing that acute, bewildering, agonizing dilemma. The young and the healthy are in no position, certainly shouldn't be, to tilt the debate from the depth of their beautiful, enviable ignorance. More illuminating, more intuitively informed, are the views of physicians and palliative care professionals and those involved with disabled people's organizations who are, in the main, strongly opposed to both euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Do not harm is the core code of doctors. That is the antithesis of beckoning death.

It is not in our nature to truly imagine ourselves, or those we love, at the fraying end of the mortal coil. We're only pretending, and the real thing isn't like pretending at all. We might think we know what we'd want for ourselves or for those we care about, but believe me, we do not. I've seen enough of dying—in all its grotesque manifestations and most especially in those who never saw it coming—to have learned that nobody, no mentally lucid human being, is ever eager to depart this world.

It is indeed different for those who aren't lucid, for those in unspeakable pain, and those so intractably depressed that life doesn't seem worth living. But physical pain can nearly also be effectively managed, in this advanced society, and those unable to think clearly should not be making this most irreversible of all decisions for themselves.

Killing the terminally ill or the dreadfully enfeebled must never become the expedient thing to do, dressed up as pity. It must not be legislatively condoned, even that we know full well that it happens in furtive ways, sometimes with physicians involved. There are occasions when it's better to leave some things unexamined. [Editor's Note: Furtive murder is no less evil because it is hidden, simply more deadly. Its perpetrators should be brought to justice because every innocent life should be protected.]

The moment we condone murder—assisted suicide—even for those just tenuously still attached to life, we set ourselves upon a wicked path, one where the worth of a person is measured empirically. Assisted suicide begets euthanasia and a society that makes intellectual peace with euthanasia is one that puts at risk every human being in it, but most especially the constituency of the vulnerable: The grievously ill, the chronically ill, the mentally ill, the unproductive, the economically draining, the recidivist, the subversive. Maybe you, maybe me.

I put my hand to my father's cheek—but only when he's sleeping because we are not a family that touches—and I feel the warmth of a living person. I feel a heart beating for all the damage that's been done to it. Not even the stench of gangrene assaulting my nostrils can occlude the sweetness of life still being lived. I am so pitifully grateful for every day, for every minute, for every breath.

It's the sadness that must be borne. Sadness and anger and impotence and fatalism—all the emotions that combine to plant in a person's mind the seductive belief that it's better to rush toward death in one final damn—you rebel yell, an assertion of individual will. As if to say, I am the master of my fate.

None of us is. And none of us will make it out alive.[emphases added]

Supplemental Reading:

For an account of the killing of Charles Fariala, a 36-year-old Canadian with multiple sclerosis, referenced in the above column, see "Montreal Mom Charged with Aiding Son's Suicide," CTV, September 28, 2004.

True Compassion Does Not Kill

2004-10-09T14:24:00.000-05:00

CURE is a nonsectarian, civic organization solely devoted to opposing euthanasia without compromise or exception. The following column by Fr. William P. Saunders, Professor of Catechetics and Theology at Notre Dame Graduate School in Alexandria, VA, published in the September 23 Arlington Herald, however, is of particular interest in light of the legal argument being raised in defense of Terri Schiavo's life that cites recent statements made by Pope John Paul II requiring the provision of food and water to persons living in coma.

It is for this reason that Life Matters! presents Fr. Saunders' column in its entirety for our readers' information. Such publication does not constitute endorsement by CURE of the philosophical constructs cited therein or of views on matters outside the purview of CURE, i.e., euthanasia. The column, modestly reformatted, follows:

A reader in Leesburg, VA, writes Fr. Sanders:

A friend of mine and I had an argument over Terri Schiavo as to whether food and water should be stopped to allow her to die. I said that to do so would really be like killing her. She said that she is going to die anyway. Is there any Church teaching on this matter?

To which, Fr. Sanders responds:

The question of withdrawing food and water from a person who is disabled, in a coma or what is called a persistent vegetative state has become a moral battleground. This question has come into the spotlight with the case of Terry Schiavo, who, when she was 26, collapsed (under suspicious circumstances), was deprived of oxygen, and was left severely disabled. Presently, she is receiving nourishment through a feeding tube, which her husband wants to have removed. A court battle has ensued between the husband and Terry’s parents, who want nourishment to continue. What then is the moral guidance in this and similar situations?

This spring, Pope John Paul II addressed the International Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas." In his teaching, the Holy Father took exception with the term "persistent vegetative state." Generally, this term refers to a patient who shows no sign of self-awareness or of the surrounding environment, is unable to react to specific stimuli and seems unable to interact with others. The problem with the terminology is that it tends to reduce the human person to a vegetable. When a person is no longer considered as human but as a vegetable, then that person could be euthanized, like a sick animal or a diseased plant. The same is true when we think of the unborn child as a "fetus" or "the product of conception" rather than as a "baby"; the former terminology is used to justify abortion and assuage consciences.

The Holy Father asserted, "I feel the duty to reaffirm strongly that the intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being do not change, no matter what the concrete circumstances of his or her life. A man, even if seriously ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man, and he will never become a 'vegetable' or an 'animal.' Even our brothers and sisters who find themselves in the clinical condition of a 'vegetative state' retain their human dignity in all its fullness. The loving gaze of God the Father continues to fall upon them, acknowledging them as His sons and daughters, especially in need of help" (no. 3).

Therefore, society must not lose sight of the human dignity of the individual, even if diagnosed as being in a "persistent vegetative state." Such a person deserves the same care as anyone else. The pope affirmed the following principles, which uphold the dignity of the sick person: First, the sick person, even if diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, has a right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.). Second, he has a right to treatment to prevent complications related to his confinement in bed. Third, he has the right to appropriate care for rehabilitation, and to be monitored for signs of recovery; one must never give up hope of at least a partial recovery (no. 4).

A key point is the first principle: the sick person has a right to basic health care, which includes nutrition and hydration. This principle is long standing in Catholic healthcare ethics, and has been enunciated clearly by Pope Pius XII in 1957 and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Declaration on Euthanasia in 1980. Pope John Paul II stated, "I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering" (no. 4).

To deny a person food and water is to sentence that person to a slow, painful death, i.e. to euthanize that person. Remember, by definition euthanasia is "an action or omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated" ("Declaration on Euthanasia"). In other words, euthanasia involves the purposeful termination of life by a direct action, such as lethal injection, or by an omission, such as starvation or dehydration. As our Holy Father taught in Evangelium Vitae, "...euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person" (no. 65).

Instead, positive action must be taken by showing compassion. The pope taught, "True compassion leads to sharing another's pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear" (Evangelium Vitae, no. 66).

In these cases, such compassion is twofold: First, as our Holy Father stated, families with loved ones in such a condition need support: assistance with the care of the loved one, financial aid, access to care facilities and rehabilitation programs, and spiritual counseling and guidance.

Second, true compassion entails helping these most vulnerable members of our society and defending their dignity. Remember in the Gospel of St. Matthew, our Lord described the Last Judgment (25:31-46) and how the sheep were separated from the goats, the righteous from the damned; to the righteous, Jesus said, "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink." The Christian then can show true compassion by feeding those with difficulties by hand, so as to prevent the use of artificial means for feeding and hydrating. I remember when I was at my first assignment at St. Mary Church in Alexandria, I offered Mass every Friday at Woodbine Nursing Home and afterward would visit the patients who could not attend Mass. I was always impressed by an elderly gentleman (who was not Catholic) who would be there every Friday sitting with his wife suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. He would feed her by hand, like a little child. Granted, the task was difficult, time-consuming and required much patience. However, the task for him was an act of love.

For those patients like Terry Schiavo who receive food and water through an artificial means, like a feeding tube, we too can show compassion for them and their families, through prayer, support, presence and other kinds of care. True compassion entails giving care, not killing. Our Holy Father in his recent address stated, "...I exhort you, as men and women of science responsible for the dignity of the medical profession, to guard jealously the principle according to which the true task of medicine is 'to cure if possible, always to care'" (no. 7). [emphases added]

An Appeal on Behalf of Terri's Defenders

2004-10-04T03:15:00.000-05:00

The following appeal is crossposted here courtesy of one of Mark Shea's many readers.

Regardless of your assessment of the relative merits of of this defense or its philosophical premises, we urge any of our readers who can assist Terri's defenders in this matter to respond as indicated below. and to spread news of this appeal to appropriate friends and allies.

As for CURE, lest there be any confusion in a matter in which clarity is critical, we simply reaffirm that starving a man to death was murder long before Moses received the Ten Commandments and it will remain so until the last human dies.

Whatever Terri was, the essential point is that she is. Terris is a living human being, a member of the human family, and for that reason alone, her life should be defended without compromise from all who would murder her under the guise of unjust law, which is no law at all.

Yesterday, Doug and I talked with Debi Vinnedge of the Children of God for Life in Clearwater, FL. Last Thursday she was present during the latest hearing to reconsider the court's decision in the Terri Schiavo case.

The argument being presented was essentially this: Terri was a devout Catholic. The Holy Father's March 20th statement spoke clearly that withdrawing her feeding and nutrition was gravely wrong—sinful. As a faithful Catholic therefore, Terri would not be saying "it would be okay to remove my tube" which is just the opposite of what her husband has been presenting to the Court as "her wishes." Any court ruling that permitted removal of her feeding would violate Terri's Constitutionally protected right to practice her religion.

Debi told us that the Judge said from the bench that the attorneys had a week to get him any further case law on the point and that he would rule within 2 weeks whether he would hold a full blown evidentiary hearing to determine whether to vacate the previous orders entered in the case which have favored her husband's position that the tube should be withdrawn.

In order to be prepared for such a hearing, they are seeking evidence that actual Catholics have changed their advance directives or otherwise acted in response to the Holy Father's March 20th statement. Most obvious would be affidavits from individuals who have in fact changed the text of their directives or who have executed directives specifically following the mandate in his statement.

Doug has had two clients who just recently executed will and health care directive packages which quite specifically included directives that feeding and nutrition not be withdrawn unless their bodies could no longer assimilate it.

If you know of such people, can you put Doug in touch with them so he can work to get their evidence passed on to the attorneys who are now litigating on Terri's behalf.

Please respond either to Doug or myself as soon as you can. You can email us at lifetree@lifetree.org. Doug will be contacting the attorneys in Florida within the next couple of days and would like to lay out for them what can be provided from interested people in North Carolina.

Will Feds Allow Fatal Flaw To Kill Terri?

2004-10-02T00:08:00.000-05:00

As reported by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back:

Fatally flawed, that's Walter Weber's opinion of the recent Florida Supreme Court decision striking down Terri's Law in his column in [the September 29] National Review Online:

Observers have criticized the decision as a frustration of the will of the people, as an exercise in judicial arrogance, and most disturbingly as a green light for the adulterous Michael Schiavo to seek yet another court order terminating the tube-feeding of his brain-damaged wife.

All true. Yet the decision is something else as well: It is an embarrassingly bad decision legally.

I have argued in the past that the court cases concerning Terri's Law are really all about judges protecting their life-and-death power and keeping their ability to make arbitrary rulings of "fact" safe from review.

Weber shows that the Supreme Court's decision is bad law as well as bad morality:

The Supreme Court's contention that Terri's Law gives the Governor an unwarranted ability "to interfere with the final judicial determination"?

"Nonsense."

What about the idea that, in Terri's Law, the legislature gives the governor "too much" discretion in carrying out a program?

"Made-up."

It has become increasingly obvious to me and many others that the Florida judiciary consists of a singularly sub-par bunch of hacks, who don't even rise to the low standard demanded of ideologically motivated judicial activists.

Will the Federal courts step in and redress the wrongs committed against Terri Schiavo and her parents? We can only hope and pray.

Bloggers Speak Out in Defense of Terri

2004-10-01T22:53:00.000-05:00

"Much has transpired in the past twenty four hours and it is moving to see those who value life acting with strength and certitude," Anthony Roberts observed on Jumping Without a Chute on September 24, the day after the Florida Supreme Court overturned Terri's law and thus sentenced Terri Schindler Schiavo to death. Times Against Humanity departs from our usual format of a half dozen of St. Blog's best to provide the following sample of those reactions, apologizing in advance to those we have inadvertently omitted (and asking that they be called to our attention for future reference.)

Sick Joke

The joke of a Supreme Court in this state has done it again—Terri's Law has been struck down. Once again, Terri's life is in peril. As this statement on Life Matters! says so eloquently, this is not just about defending Terri's life, but all human life. –Susan B., LilacRose

Sick at Heart

If you are as sick as I am by the creeping and insidious culture of death, Life Matters! is someplace you might want to read. The most recent item is about the tragic decision of the Florida courts reversing "Terri's Law." –Alicia, Fructus Ventris

Cold Heart Drives Heartless Death

I have been praying off and on for Terri since perhaps 2001. I find the case interesting because of Terri's husband. He seems too cold to have ever really loved her. –Armando, Making Hobson's Choice

Legal Fictions and Unadulterated Lies

The protection of human life is the fundamental good of society because, as many repeat often, the right to life is the precondition for all other rights and goods. For a judge to evade that fundamental truth for the sake of procedural abstractions is not judging at all. Rather, such evasion of responsibility is an irresponsible retreat into legal fiction. –Oswald Sobrino Jr., Catholic Analysis *Editor's Note: Crossposted to Life Matters!

This, sadly, is no surprise to those of us who remember the 2000 recount drama when the members of the Florida high court showed their ideological positions clearly. Those of us who paid close attention to the Florida recount will also recognize the court's statements now about the Separation of Powers and having the law as written be their sole polestar as total, unadulterated BS. Neither was of much concern to them four years ago. –Publius, Res Publica et Cetera

Surrender to Tyranny

I think the most disheartening thing is the fact that it was unanimous. It's not, on the whole, surprising. This was predicted by many a blogger long ago. What ever happened to the idea of checks and balances? Where did the executive and legislative areas of government give up everything to the judiciary? –Mark Windsor, Vociferous Yawpings *Editor's Note: Which will be missed!

Like Safeguarding Innocent Life?

The Supreme Court was greatly pharisaical in its judgment here. It seems they were more concerned with the letter of the law than with what laws are supposed to accomplish. –Josh LeBlanc, Dei Gratia

Dred Scott Redux

The Florida Supreme Court has ruled Terri's law unconstitutional. It's a violation of the separation of powers, say the judges. We can't have judicial decisions overturned by popular clamor. Even if the judicial decision is manifestly unjust? Say, when a judge decides that a black man is better suited to slavery than freedom? –William Luse, Apologia

Moral Question

So the AP considers this a purely political and legal question. To me it's a moral question. It looks unlikely that Terri will prevail at either the rehearing before the Florida Supreme Court—or [be] granted cert before the Supreme Court. –Patrick Sweeney, Extreme Catholic

Deprivation of Life and Liberty

The blog of Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia has a statement from the group on the Florida Supreme Court’s death sentence for Terri Schindler Schiavo. It says that kangaroo courts become killer courts, that when courts ignore constitutional liberties and basic human rights, then they inevitably lead to the deprivation of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but first of all life. –Dom Bettinelli, Bettnet

Unjust and Cruel Death

The pronouncement leaves Terri Schindler-Schiavo vulnerable to an unjust and cruel death. We need to pray as Governor Bush and Terri's family and lawyers consider alternative actions available. –Joe, Life at the Frontier

Feed the Woman!

I work with a woman who was born "normal," but abandoned, and since the hospital didn't know what to do with her, they placed her in a state hospital (read "mental institution"). She was so ignored that she became profoundly mentally retarded.

She has quite a few other problems now, mostly because she was eventually shipped off to the infamous Pennhurst State Hospital/School (read "big, nasty, corrupt, abusive mental institution")....All that this stupidity with Terri Schiavo is saying to me is that society wants me to stop cooking for this sweet...lady because she's no longer able to communicate, and her life is a waste of their money. That really infuriates me. FEED THE WOMAN, DAMMIT. –Jeanetta, De Fidei Oboedientia *Editor's Note: Terri can communicate but not to those deaf to her cries for help.

Right to Die Is Right to Lie

Comatose? Vegetative? I only know what I read about Terry, but I do know that my friend's parents told me the other day that the doctors still call my friend vegetative and comatose. She most certainly is not. –BEC, Pencil in Your Hand *Editor's Note: A carrot is always a vegetable. A human being is never a vegetable, because vegetables are not created in the image of God.

Pray and Fast

As I was saying my evening prayers, I thought again of Terri and how she may die a terrible death. A death by starvation....I thought of hunger. I thought of fasting and felt my shame. In my prayer I told God how I would like to offer up something for Terri's plight. Something that would be tangible intercessory prayer on her behalf. I thought, so obviously, of fasting for Terri. –Alexa, Beautiful Pictures

Fight On!

My thoughts and prayers are with the good folks at Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE), as they continue to fight to save Terri Schiavo from the Culture of Death crowd. –Steve a.k.a. "Feddie," Southern Appeal

Next?

Those in power have condemned an innocent woman to death for the convenience of another. It started with abortion. Then euthanasia for the elderly in Oregon. Now the sick and convalescent are being murdered. Who will be next? –Stephen Sanchez, Being! or Nothingness

Michael Schiavo finally gets to kill his wife...It's a shame that he isn't willing to simply turn her over to her parents (who have been fighting for her right-to-live for years) and continue his new life with his new wife/fiance/whatever (she'd better hope she stays healthy!) –Jay, Deo Omnis Gloria

Will Feds Step In?

It has become increasingly obvious to me and many others that the Florida judiciary consists of a singularly sub-par bunch of hacks, who don't even rise to the low standard demanded of ideologically motivated judicial activists.Will the Federal courts step in and redress the wrongs committed against Terri Schiavo and her parents? We can only hope and pray. –Fr. Rob Johansen, Thrown Back *Editor's Note: Crossposted to Life Matters!

And thanks as well to the following blogs for also bringing Terri's plight to their readers: Against the Grain, Annunciations, Between Heaven and Hell, Catholic and Enjoying It!, Catholic Light, Catholics for Bush, Flos Carmeli, Fonticulus Fides, Hi! I'm Gordon Zaft, Katolik Shinja, Open Book, Our Homeschool, Real Catholic, Recta Ratio, Res Publica 2004, Running Off at the Keyboard , The Black Republican [see Recommended Reading 9/28/04], The Blog From the Core, Two Sleepy Mommies, and Video Meliora.

We Shouldn't Be Here

2004-09-25T15:24:00.000-05:00

As posted on Catholic Analysis by Oswald Sobrino Jr.:

Most of us remember the controversy that brewed for weeks over the attempt by Terri Schiavo's husband—who by the way is apparently engaged to marry another woman with whom he already has children—to cut off nutrition and hydration to this severely disabled young woman.

How a man openly living in what the law calls concubinage with another woman is still the guardian of his legal wife is beyond me—and I was trained as a lawyer. It is especially strange given that Terri's parents are eager to take over the duties of guardianship. A judge I used to work for once commented about another absurd legal situation with words to the effect that "if that's the law, then we shouldn't be here."

But here we are again because the Florida Supreme Court has unanimously struck down a Florida law protecting Terri Schiavo's natural right to nutrition and hydration.

The [September 24] New York Times covers the story and has a gem, or more accurately a disaster, of a quote by one of the Florida justices:

Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente wrote: "Our hearts can fully comprehend the grief so fully demonstrated by Theresa's family members on this record. But are [our] hearts are not the law. What is in the Constitution must always prevail over emotion. Our oaths as judges require that this principle is our polestar, and it alone."

The Florida Chief Justice (whose name, by the way, is recognizable as one of the participants in that same court's absurd performance during the famous 2000 Florida presidential election recount) is telling us that "[O]ur hearts are not the law."

On one level that statement is certainly true. We may feel sorry for the hard-working illegal immigrant but recognize that he must be deported if our borders are to be meaningful. Yet, on a more fundamental level, she is dead wrong.

If by "our hearts" she means some free-floating compassion not grounded in reason or tradition, then she is right. But in the historic Western legal tradition, our hearts contain the natural law and its precepts. The most fundamental precept of the natural law is to pursue good and avoid evil (see Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt. I-II, 94.2). Great judges throughout history have used their hearts, minds, and skills to honor that fundamental precept.

The protection of human life is the fundamental good of society because, as many repeat often, the right to life is the precondition for all other rights and goods. For a judge to evade that fundamental truth for the sake of procedural abstractions is not judging at all. Rather, such evasion of responsibility is an irresponsible retreat into legal fiction.

Yes, our hearts, grounded in the natural law inscribed there by the Creator, do indeed embody the fundamental law of life that will always overrule technical legal fictions (Cf. Romans 2:15). If you care to follow this story more closely and the continuing efforts to aid Terri Schiavo, go to the Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia website.

Editor's Note: Our appreciation to Mr. Sobrino for his kind mention of our efforts.

Unanswered Questions: A Loving FamilyReacts to a Hateful Ruling

2004-09-25T06:45:00.000-05:00

As reported by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back:

Thursday, after the Florida Supreme Court struck down "Terri's Law", the Schindler family issued this statement:

Statement by Schindler Family in Response
to Florida Supreme Court Ruling

For years now lawyers and judges—all of them total strangers—have besieged our family stating in courtrooms and the media that our severely disabled daughter, Terri, must be starved to death. We have been told that she must die in order to protect her right of privacy. And now the Florida Supreme Court tells us that a law crafted to save Terri’s life is unconstitutional when it is applied to her. None of this makes any sense to us.

The ruling by the Florida Supreme Court today was not unexpected; nevertheless the family is disappointed at the outcome. We would like everyone to understand the reason the Florida legislature and Governor Bush interceded in Terri’s case was to protect Terri from a serious miscarriage of justice. The Governor specifically wanted answers to the following questions, all of which are extremely troubling:

1) Why Terri’s purported desire to die was hidden from the jury in the 1992 medical malpractice case, during which Michael Schiavo testified that Terri would need compensation to live out her life?

2) What did Michael Schiavo mean when he purportedly said at Palm Gardens Nursing Home such things as "When is she going to die?" "Has she died yet?" "When is that bitch going to die?" "Can’t you do anything to accelerate her death?"

3) What Michael Schiavo knows about the multiple traumatic injuries of relatively recent origin that were found to be present in a bone scan conducted on Terri by Dr. Campbell Walker in March of 1991?

4) Why were nurses’ notes which documented Terri’s rehabilitation potential deleted from her chart at Palm Gardens?

5) Why were observations of the nursing assistants regarding Terri’s level of function and responsiveness deleted from her chart?

6) What would Terri’s desires be regarding who should make end-of-life decisions for her if she knew that Michael Schiavo was living with another woman who has borne two children by him?

The family knows that Terri never expressed a desire to be starved to death, and the Legislature and Governor thought the case troubling enough to get involved directly. We profoundly regret that the Florida Supreme Court felt compelled to ignore these questions and opted instead to issue a technical legal decision that doesn’t protect Terri from the cadre of crusaders who are so desperate for our daughter be starved to death. The family knew that this outcome was probable and so we are pursuing other legal avenues, which we hope will save Terri’s life. The family appreciates all those who have supported their fight to save Terri, and again express to them our sincere gratitude. The family also will forever be grateful to Governor Bush and his legal team for their devotion to saving Terri’s life.

Contributions and help in the fight to save Terri's life should be directed to TerrisFight.org.

Kangaroo Courts Are Killer Courts

2004-09-23T21:44:00.000-05:00

Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE), America's oldest network devoted exclusively to combating euthanasia without compromise or exception, has issued the following statement in the wake of today's 7–0 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court striking down Terri's Law.

Kangaroo Courts Are Killer Courts

Berkeley Springs, WV (September 23)—Anyone familiar with America's long and shameful history of indifference and hostility to persons with disabilities will not be greatly surprised by the death sentence imposed on Terri Schindler Schiavo by the Florida Supreme Court.

Anyone with an ounce of decency, however, should be outraged. And anyone who cares in the least about his life or the lives of those he loves should be alarmed.

While those seeking to murder Terri have denied her the opportunity that she deserves for rehabilitation and while they have distorted Terri's condition in their Goebbels-style campaign to dehumanize her, this battle has never been about the medical facts.

Nor should it be! The life of a person living in coma deserves no less protection than the healthiest TAB (temporarily able-bodied person). In fact, it requires and deserves greater protection, and any civilization that has transcended the jungles of social Darwinism would provide it.

If the life of every innocent person does not enjoy the full protection of our laws and courts then no man's life is safe from the tyranny of unjust courts like those that have repeatedly provided legal cover for Terri's impending murder as they have once again done today.

Kangaroo courts are killer courts, and their ultimate victim is civilization itself. Defend life! Defend Terri! In doing so, you are defending the noblest ideals of our once great nation.

Chamber of Horrors: Murder by Starvation

2004-09-18T22:40:00.000-05:00

On October 11, 1986, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts by a 4-to-3 decision authorized the removal of the feeding tube which was sustaining the life of Paul Brophy, a fireman and EMT, who had begun his life in coma on March 22, 1983, after suffering an aneurysm in his brain. Twelve days later, on October 23rd, Paul Brophy died, having been starved and dehydrated to death.[1]

In his dissent to Brophy's court-sanctioned execution for the "crime" of disability, Justice Lynch described the consequences of forced starvation with a candor absent from the euphemisms typifying the propagandists of the Culture of Death and their media allies:

Brophy's mouth would dry out and become caked or coated with thick material. His lips would become parched and cracked. His tongue would swell, and might crack. His eyes would recede back into their orbits and his cheeks would become hollow. The lining of his nose might crack and cause his nose to bleed. His skin would hang loose on his body and become dry and scaly. His urine would become highly concentrated, leading to burning of the bladder. The lining of his stomach would dry out and he would experience dry heaves and vomiting. His body temperature would become very high. His brain cells would dry out, and the thick secretions that would result could plug his lungs and cause death. At some point within five days to three weeks his major organs, including his lungs, heart, and brain, would give out and he would die. (Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital, No. 85E0009-G1,10/21/85:28-2)[2]

Unfortunately, Paul Brophy was not the first victim of murder by starvation, nor the last. Indeed, as our readers know, the Florida courts are preparing to pass a similar death sentence on Terri Schiavo. The consequences are no less evil and no less brutal as CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen reports below.

"Exit Protocol" Masks Murder's Barbarity

2004-09-18T22:25:00.000-05:00

As reported by CURE advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back:

Cheryl Ford, RN, a nurse from Tampa who has been very active in the efforts to save Terri's life, recently undertook, on behalf of the Schindlers, a review of medical records from when Terri was first admitted to Woodside Hospice. Woodside Hospice is run by Hospice of the Florida Suncoast. It is of interest to note that Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, was a member of the Board of Directors of Hospice of the Florida Suncoast until the Terri Schiavo case began to attract widespread public attention a few years ago.

In her research, Ms. Ford found a document titled "Exit Protocol" in Terri's file. The document is on Hospice of the Florida Suncoast "Patient Care Notes" stationery, and is dated April 19, 2001. This document lays out, in clinical detail, the procedures to be followed in bringing about Terri's death by starvation and dehydration.

I reproduce here, in entirety and verbatim, the contents of this document. It was sent to me in the form of an Adobe PDF document. It is not yet available on the web, but as soon as it becomes available I will post a link to it.

The text of the document is in black type, my comments and explanations will be presented in red type.

Exit Protocol 00038
Patient Care Notes
The Hospice Of The Florida Suncoast
Date 4/19/01
Clinical Pharmacy
Re: Medication review and symptom management

Pt. is a 37 yo woman in a vegetative state with no apparent signs of distress. Enteral tube-feeding to be discontinued on 4/20/01.

Current Medications:
1. antacid suspension 1-2 tablespoons prn [prn = "as needed"]

2. Naproxen suspension 375 mg Q8* prn menstrual cramps. [Q8* prn = "every 8 hours as needed". Naproxen is a pain-relieving and anti-inflamatory drug.]

3. Vitamin liquid daily.

Upon discontinuation of enteral feeding the following signs/symptoms may or may not occur. The following is a brief list of symptoms for which to monitor and recommended interventions.

1. d/c ["discontinue"] antacid. d/c Naproxen suspension.

2. d/c Vitamin liquid

3. Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg Q8* prn.

Wait a minute! George Felos, Michael Schiavo, and all the other advocates of feeding-tube removal have been saying repeatedly that dying by denial of nutrition & hydration is "peaceful" and "painless". They've both said so in interviews and press conferences, such as on Larry King Live. So if dying by denial of nutrition and hydration is, as Michael said, "painless and probably the most natural way to die", then why is medication needed for pain and discomfort?

4. Signs of compromised skin integrity—continue vigilant skin care, provide moistener to lips, consult wound-care specialist if needed.

As the body dehydrates, the skin loses its tone and dries out. Left untreated, this will lead to cracking and bleeding. The lips are even more sensitive in this respect. "Vigilant skin care" is the liberal use of lotions and moisteners to mask these symptoms. The lips must be continually swabbed with special moisteners, and have lip balm applied to them. In the last stages, though, in spite of such measures, skin breakdown often occurs. Because of the body's debilitated state, normal healing mechanisms do not function. Hence the need to consult wound-care specialists to deal with ulcers and open sores.

5. Signs of dehydration(A)
dry lips, mouth. Swab saliva substitute inside mouth prn. (see next page)

After a few days without water, the body stops producing saliva, necessitating the use of a "saliva substitute" to avoid ulceration in the mouth, and a characteristic foul odor on the patient's breath. The cessation of salivation also leads to other complications which appear in the "pulmonary" section.

00039
Patient Care Notes
The Hospice Of The Florida Suncoast
Date 4/19/01
Clinical Pharmacy Note—continued

Signs of dehydration—continued

(B)decreased urinary output—no change in care plan.

While there may be "no change in care plan", one of the effects of dehydration is incontinence. The patient's diapers or "chux" pads will need to be changed more frequently, until such output ceases entirely.

6. Pulmonary
(A) Inability to clear secretions—reposition and swab mouth, consider scopolamine patch behind ear every 3 days.

Dehydration causes the natural mucus secretions of the mouth, nose, and throat to thicken, as the body struggles to protect these delicate membranes. The lack of saliva exacerbates this problem, preventing the normal swallowing of these secretions. These thick deposits can interfere with breathing. The use of the scopolamine patch promotes drying of these secretions, which prevents their build-up, but hastens the breakdown of the tissues.

(B) dyspnea ["difficulty in breathing"]—nebulize low dose 2-5 mg morphine sulfate Q4* prn.

In the last stages of dehydration/starvation, the patient's breathing will become difficult and labored. He or she may even begin gasping for breath, as even the lungs' ability to effect transfer of gases is compromised. Morphine nebulized into a fine spray relaxes bronchial passages and relieves these symptoms. However, because of the resultant decrease in respiratory efficiency, this may hasten death.

7. Multifocal myoclonus or terminal agitation (sometimes caused by electrolyte imbalance). Consider diazepam rectal administration 5-10 mg. May repeat in 4 hours if not resolved then daily—twice daily as needed.

Myoclonus is twitching or spasm of the muscles. Multifocal means "occurring in many different parts of the body". This is usually the result of imbalance in electrolytes, the chemicals, such as salt, potassium, and calcium, which make your bodies internal electrical "batteries" work. Nerve impulses and muscle contractions are governed by electro-chemical reactions utilizing these chemicals. Dehydration causes these chemicals to be out of balance, interfering with normal nerve and muscle function. This can result in nerves and muscles "firing off" uncontrollably, causing spasm. The patient will writhe and become extremely agitated. If you have ever had muscle cramps resulting from strenuous exercise (especially when you have sweat profusely), you have some idea what this feels like. Imagine having this happen all over your body, repeatedly. Diazepam (more commonly known as Valium) is a muscle relaxant.

8. Grand Mal seizure, which is highly unlikely given current conditions and lack of contributing factors (meds). Recommend diazepam 15 mg rectally as indicated in seizure management orders.

In the final stages of starvation and dehydration, the same electrolyte imbalances which can cause muscle spasm can also lead to uncontrolled firing of neurons in the brain, according to a similar mechanism. This results in seizures.

Thank you for the opportunity to collaborate regarding this patient's care.

I would observe, in conclusion, that most of the "treatments" described in this Exit Protocol are in fact not directed at easing the patient's true condition, but in masking the symptoms of dying by starvation and dehydration. These treatments are designed to create the appearance of a peaceful "slipping away", when nothing of the sort is happening. The medications hide the fact that the patient undergoes a lengthy and painful deterioration, in which his/her body wastes away cruelly. Remember this the next time you hear or read someone say that Terri should be "allowed" to die.

"Judicial Ethics" Bar Life-and -Death Debate But Not Court-Sanctioned Murder?

2004-09-05T22:02:00.000-05:00

On August 31, 2004, the same day that the judicial farce reported below was playing out before the Florida Supreme Court, an equally obscene electoral travesty was taking place at the polls.

Michael Schiavo's faithful accomplice in his drive to murder the wife he has so shamefully abandoned, Circuit Court Judge George Greer handily won re-election over challenger, Jan Govan.

As the Associated Press reported that evening:

With 98.3 percent of the precincts reporting, Circuit Judge George Greer had 105,960 votes, or 65 percent, while challenger Jan Govan had 56,937 votes, or 35 percent.

And yet while Terri Schiavo's life was clearly on the line in the judicial contest, "Greer and Govan couldn't publicly debate the Schiavo case, [because] the judicial ethics code forbids it."

But will the same soi-disant "ethics code" stop the legal lynching of Terri Schiavo because she has a disability?

The problem with political jokes, it has been said, is that they keep getting re-elected. As CURE Advisor Fr. Rob Johansen aptly observes:

The message Judge Greer's victory should send is this: Pinellas County, FL, is not a good place to get sick in. It's certainly not a place you'd want to become disabled in.

Will Florida's Death Courts Bury Their Mistake?

2004-09-05T12:02:00.000-05:00

As posted by CURE Advisor Fr. Rob Johansen on Thrown Back:

I was able to watch the oral arguments over "Terri's Law" in the Florida Supreme Court yesterday morning. Nothing very surprising was said by either side. George Felos, the attorney seeking Terri's death on behalf of husband Michael Schiavo, argued that Terri's Law is unconstitutional because it interferes with a person's right to make his own decisions regarding refusing medical treatment. Felos argued that the law, by allowing the governor to intervene, violated Terri's "right to privacy", that is Terri's "right" to decide to die.

Of course, Felos's argument rests on a legal fiction, that Michael, in his guardianship of Terri, is representing Terri's wishes and her best interests. But that Michael can in any sense be said to represent or act on Terri's behalf is a doubtful proposition. One of the problems throughout Terri's legal proceedings is that she has never had an independent guardian ad litem to represent her throughout a case. Both guardians ad litem, Richard Pearse and Jay Wolfson, were discharged by none other than Judge Greer. Oddly enough, these discharges happened after they pointed out things which were uncongenial to Judge Greer or George Felos, such as the fact that Michael stood to inherit Terri's settlement fund if she died. But Felos's case rests on another fiction, namely Judge Greer's ruling of "fact" that Terri would not want to go on living in her current state. As I have written in my Crisis Magazine article Killing Terri Schiavo, the representation that Terri "wouldn't want to go on" is highly dubious, and that Michael didn't raise this contention until several years after Terri was placed on the feeding tube is downright suspicious.

But Felos is staking his whole legal case on this fiction. And because, as I have also written before, the legal system is very reluctant to revisit rulings of fact, he stands a good chance of succeeding.

Felos, I observed, was able to expatiate at some length in response to the Supreme Court justices' questions. It seemed to me that Ken Connor, the attorney representing Governor Bush, was hardly able to get a word in edgewise in response to the badgering he received from some of the justices. As this New York Times article relates, Justice Charles Wells "said he was troubled because he had to conclude that `Terri's Law', passed last October, was designed to sidestep a trial court ruling that found "clear and convincing evidence" Schiavo would not want to be kept alive artificially."

Justice Wells apparently takes Judge Greer's findings at face value. He's also apparently already made up his mind about this case. It's said that the law is blind. I don't know about the law, but I'd say that Justice Wells is certainly blind. It seems to me to require an almost wilfull blindness to be able to read the evidence in Terri's case, see how Judge Greer violated civil trial procedure to allow Michael's assertion that Terri "wouldn't want to go on" into evidence, and then conclude that this farrago of confabulation met the standard of "clear and convincing" evidence.

The attorneys for Gov. Bush argue that Terri's Law is not an unwarranted intrusion of the Executive Branch into matters exclusively under the authority of the courts:

"The Legislature gave this power to the governor because the governor ... is the ultimate defender of people's civil rights in the state," [Bush attorney Robert] Destro said. Another Bush lawyer, Ken Connor, said the courts do not have the "exclusive domain" of protecting the rights of disabled people.

These ideas would seem to be common sense to many. But don't count on too many judges agreeing with them. This case is about judges protecting their hieratic powers to decide life, death, right, wrong, and the meaning of the universe, as much as it is about Terri Schiavo.

The case of Terri Schiavo is also an object lesson in the untold mischief wrought by the so called "right to privacy" recognized by the Supreme Court in the 1965 Griswold decision. Of course, the Constitution doesn't actually say anything about a right to privacy, but the Court found "emanations" of privacy in the "penumbra" of the rights defined by the Constitution.

So, under the right to privacy, women have the "right" to abort their children, people have a "right" to engage in sodomy, parents do not have a right to be informed if their child seeks an abortion, etc. Now, the right to privacy has been twisted to include the right of a husband to end his disabled wife's life, basically because he says so.

If the Florida Supreme Court rules against Terri's Law, it will effectively give guardians and the courts untrammeled power to end the life of anyone who is disabled and cannot speak for himself. It will also mean that, at least in Florida, there is no meaningful remedy for a judge's erroneous, biased, or even bizarre rulings of fact.

Judges, even Judge Greer, as Ann Coulter pointed out, can make mistakes. And Judge Greer's mistakes have cost innocent people their lives before. But this case is about judges never having to admit their mistakes. If Terri dies at the stroke of a judge's pen, it also will be about judges being able, literally, to bury theirs.

Supplemental Reading:

For the latest intimidation tactic aimed at silencing the Schindler family's defense of Terri Schiavo, see Fr. Johansen's "While Schindlers Are Threatened With Contempt of Court, Michael Schiavo's Lawyers Get Set To Clean Up Financially."

Judicial Travesty Gives Short Shrift to Terri's Defenders

2004-09-05T00:56:00.000-05:00

On August 31, 2004, the Florida Supreme Court held a hearing on the constitutional challenge to Terri's Law filed by Terri's unfaithful husband Michael Schiavo in his relentless drive to kill her.

As Vicki Chachere writes for the Associated Press:

The question before the court is whether the law that Gov. Jeb Bush signed in October to keep the 40-year-old Schiavo alive violates her constitutional right to privacy and the separation of powers between the branches of Florida's government.

The hearing was a judicial travesty worthy of Judge George Greer's kangaroo court. As National Public Radio's Debbie Elliott reports, the lawyers defending Terri and Terri's Law "didn't even get a chance to make presentations."

[The Justices] seemed very skeptical about [Governor Jeb Bush's] ability to step in here. In fact, Justice Charles Wells asked at one point,"What's going on here? Is this just the legislature setting aside what the courts have already decided in this case?"

Nor is Wells the only Justice that appears to have prejudged the case.

Chief Justice Barbara Pariente questioned if the legislature didn't somehow give the governor super appellate power in this case, and, therefore, he could come in in any civil verdict that he didn't agree with and try to overturn it.

The stakes could not be higher. As Chachere concludes:

The court's decision could ultimately determine whether Schiavo lives or dies.

And, as anyone familiar with the Culture of Death's pervasive devaluation of the lives of persons with disability, would add, not just Terri!

Post Script:

St. Blog resident advocate The Mighty Barrister shares CURE's assessment of the Florida Supreme Court's bias:

Speaking of Terri’s fight, I listened to the arguments on C-Span radio yesterday. I can guarantee you that there is no chance that Terri’s Law will be upheld. I’ve been involved in many appellate arguments, and only fence-sitting judges are swayed by oral arguments. It was crystal clear that there were no fence-sitters yesterday—the judges were totally against the side of life. I’d go so far as to say the judges were nasty and arrogant to Bush’s lawyers and absolutely deferential to Felos for the entire argument.

Felos, by the way, was unimpressive in oral argument. He stuttered, faltered, and whiffed at the beach balls being tossed to him by the court. I've never seen such an ineffective attorney at work before an appellate court—then again, he doesn’t have to be effective to win this argument since the judges clearly reached their conclusions before suit was even filed. So we’re back to where we were—Bush can spare the life of the most heinous murderer by issuing a pardon, but cannot spare the life of an innocent woman. Perhaps there is a reason these storms are aimed at Florida.

Defending Terri: A Big Day in a Big Battle

2004-08-23T23:40:00.000-05:00

Fr. Rob Johansen, the newest member of CURE's Board Advisors and a contributing editor to this blog, updates us on the latest judicial assault on our sister Terri Schiavo-Schindler by her unfaithful and murderous husband, Michael Schiavo and his equally death-driven attorney, George Felos.

As Fr. Johansen, a dedicated defender of life and Terri, reminds us, what's really at stake on Aujgust 31 in the Florida courtroom is "the god-like power of judges, such as Pinellas County Judge Greer and Apellate Court Judge Baird, to decide who may live and who may die."

The stakes could not be higher as:

Once Terri's Law is ruled unconstitutional, Felos will, almost certainly, immediately apply for a new order to remove Terri's feeding tube and a new death date.

As Fr. Johansen also reports, another key battle for life will be decided that same day, the challenge to the re-election of kangaroo judge George Greer by attorney Jan Govan, who would restore justice for all, including the innocent and powerless.

With so much at stake, I do not hesitate to ask you to join us in prayers beseeching the Just Judge to protect Terri from the TAB terrorists closing in for the kill.

"I've Fallen and I Can't Get Up"

2004-05-26T22:57:00.000-05:00

As adopted from an article originally posted by Christina Martin on the pages of a Confessions of a Hot Carmel Sundae . . .

Once my mother heard a story, perhaps it was a Darwin Awards" runner up, in which a man caught himself on fire after a series of mishaps caused by his own stupidity. Everyone I knew had laughed at the story, but my Mom did not. She said it's about time that we stop blaming people for being stupid; it isn't their fault.

She has a point. As a society, we are becoming increasingly hardened to those who, through no fault of their own, appear to be weaker, less intelligent, or otherwise dependent. Even people who try not to let this hardness infect them often regard abortion as less grave than killing an adult. They may even debate whether the life of a person with disabilies is worth as much as the life of an able-bodied, taxpaying, job-holding citizen.

Some, like Lionel Fisher, a columnist for The Oregonian,, even describe being starving to death as a "compassionate death," particularly if the victim is incapacitated enough to be unable to communicate in a manner that meets their arbitrary standards, as in the case of Terri Schiavo.

Thus, in an alleged effort to "protect the rights" of a woman who has never indicated a wish to be starved to death, this devout Catholic was even denied the consolation of Holy Communion. Terri's never expressed, yet conveniently presumed, "wish to die" thus superceded her explicit desire to practice her faith.

The question remains: Why do so many people reach the conclusion that Terri would rather starve to death than live with her disability?

Our society, with its misplaced sense of superiority, has slowly slipped toward the idea that it's obviously better for a person to be dead than be disabled.

I remember a better day, when we were, at least,expected to give extend nodding sympathy to the lady in the television commercial who had fallen and could not get up. Now, the prevailing notion seems to be to let her lie there until she starves to death. The Oregonian could even chalk it up to it being "God's plan—not ours" that the little old lady should stay on the floor and "die with dignity."

I say those who cannot get up deserve our help. If I ever become so hardened that I believe that those who need our help deserve to die, then I will have less right to live than they.

Liable for Libel?

2004-05-17T20:25:00.000-05:00

As posted on the pages of The Mighty Barrister . . .

First the news, then the topic for discussion.

News: Terri Schiavo's parents have been totally and unequivocally cleared of any wrongdoing in the alleged "needle mark" allegation—an issue, you may recall, that Michael Schiavo successfully used to his advantage to keep the Schiavos from visiting their own flesh and blood daughter.

Query whether attorney George Felos overstepped the bounds of common decency and into defamation territory with his "press release" that, depending on your viewpoint, may have accused Terri Schiavo's parents (you know, the ones who are trying to save her from a horrible death by starvation and fluid deprivation) of acting to intentionally harm her. From WorldNetDaily:

Without notifying them [Terri's parents], Felos sent a one-page press release to a number of media outlets that came just short of charging the Schindlers with sticking needles in their daughter.

"Schiavo Puncture Wounds Found After Parents' Visit," the headline on the statement screamed. The text painted a vivid picture of what seemed brutal assault upon the helpless woman.

Mrs. Schiavo was found in a disheveled state with her feeding tube wrapped around her back and an allergy band pulled up very tight on her arm like a tourniquet. On one arm were four fresh puncture wounds with another fresh puncture wound on her other arm. Also found were fresh scratch wounds, over the puncture wounds as if an attempt were made to conceal the puncture wounds.

As a final proof of violence, Felos revealed that a purple "needle cap" had been found "in Mrs. Schiavo's gown, confirming the belief that the puncture wounds were caused by a hypodermic needle." It wasn't known whether something was injected into Terri or "fluids were withdrawn from her," he declared ominously.

When I first heard of Felos' unsubstantiated allegations, my first thought was "Why would Terri's parents, of all people, want to stick her with a needle?" The allegation was absurd on its face.

Now, it's time to discuss the civil implications of Felos' press release. The object is not to accuse Felos of defamatory conduct, but merely to discuss the issues in a rational fashion. Ready, class?

Question One: Was there an implication in Felos' press release that Terri's parents had tried to harm her by criminally assaulting her?

Arguably, the "press release" was inartfully worded and is capable of may inferences, one of which fit the above question. The headline alone—"Schiavo Puncture Wounds Found After Parents' Visit"—speaks volumes. This press release was then followed by Michael's actions to prevent Terri's parents from seeing her. (He banned all visitors). Certainly sticking someone with a needle would constitute a criminal assault, and falsely accusing someone of such a criminal act could be defamatory, depending upon the identity of the persons involved, the nature of the allegations, and the circumstances surrounding the allegations.

Question Two: Assuming there was an implication that Terri's parents had intentionally and criminally assaulted her, could such an implication be considered defamatory?

There are different standards for "private" and "public" figures under the law for defamation. The nature of the ongoing litigation has certainly thrust Terri's parents into the public eye, so the court would probably determine that they are public figures. Therefore, in order to survive judgment against them, the Schindlers would have to show "a genuine issue of material fact exists which would allow a jury to find by clear and convincing evidence the existence of actual malice on the part of the defendant." Dockery v. Florida Democratic Party, 799 So.2d 291, 294 (Fla.App. 2 Dist.,2001).

First, "clear and convincing" evidence is a very tough standard to meet:

There must be more than a "preponderance of the evidence," but the proof need not be "beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt."

This intermediate level of proof entails both a qualitative and quantitative standard. The evidence must be credible; the memories of the witnesses must be clear and without confusion; and the sum total of the evidence must be of sufficient weight to convince the trier of fact without hesitancy.

Clear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.
Inquiry Concerning Davey, 645 So.2d 398, 404 (Fla.,1994)

"Actual malice" would require that Felos knew the statements were false when they were published, or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of these statements at the time they were made. Levan v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 190 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1198, 120 S.Ct. 1262, 146 L.Ed.2d 118 (2000).

Can the Schindlers prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that George Felos, with actual malice, published a defamatory statement accusing them of a malicious and criminal act?

I render no opinion one way or the other, but I'm definitely interesting in seeing how this plays out.

At the time of the "needle marks" and the "ban on all visitors," Michael Schiavo said "visitors would be banned until after police finished their investigation." Well, now that the investigation is complete and has exonerated the Schindlers, it's time for Michael Schiavo to stand by his word and allow Terri's parents unfettered access to their own daughter.

CURE commends the Barrister for his thought-provoking essay
and constant commitment to the highest standards of justice.