Terri Schiavo

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

The parents haven't excersised any rights. They haven't had power of attorney, and that's everything. Otherwise, once a spouse takes control, the family can't decide if a patient gets Jello or Popsicles. They have no rights.

No rights? If that were true there would have been no appeals, and we wouldn't be talkning about this. I'm sorry you are disappointed with the American judicial system. If it's any consolation, I don't think our system is flawless, but you go to court with the judges you have, not the judges you want. *shrug*

[ArrowX]

I'd kick her in the stomach :O

No In all honesty I'm leaning towards euthenize her (spelling can wank me). But even if she could tell them to kill her the MAN would'nt let them do it.

[Helm]

REMIND ME WHY YOU'RE QUALIFIED TO DISCUSS THIS

[Abcdxxxx]

Apport: You're right... but he went against what he claims were her wishes, and eventually lost hope. Obviously, her family have not. The judges are deciding if he truly does represent her wishes, and it's difficult to discern how legit he is when even he himself has contradicted this "last wish".

Zig : how long have the parents been in appeals? you can't say they've had "10 years" of exercising legal rights they never had, unless you're just reffering to their ability to take the gaurdian petition to a court. the husband has had power of attorney for 15 years.

the bottom line is there isn't even a consistant opinion wether she's already dead.

[mburbank]

Get ready for the funeral circus. Unless (and perhaps even if) her parents beg politicians to just stay away, it will be more widely attended than most state funerals. All the R's will show up and then the D's will feel like they'll look bad if they don't show, and of course the president will either go, or say he isn't going so as not to endanger others by his presence. It's going to be this years hot ticket.

I swear to god, between this and the Michael Jackson trial you have to dig five or six pages into the paper before you read anything.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

it's pathetic that this is being made into a political issue......

[theapportioner]

Related topics:

Does depriving someone of food and water in this situation constitute 'withholding medical treatment'?

Is it 'suicide' (even if suicide by proxy)? How is it different from say, deciding not to get chemo for an aggressive, metastatic cancer?

Given that, do you think a quick, active euthanasia is more 'humane' than this type of passive euthanasia? What do you think is the better idea?

I think most people here agree that patients should have the right to decide whether they want treatment withheld.

Michael Schiavo has been accused of acting under his own self-interest. But couldn't you say the same about Terri's parents? Their motive may be 'love' but it's still their self-interest.

I just want to remind you that involuntary, passive euthanasia is done every day, everywhere.

[ziggytrix]

Given that, do you think a quick, active euthanasia is more 'humane' than this type of passive euthanasia? What do you think is the better idea?

I think both should be an option.

"If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine."

...

"Therefore, based upon the above and foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Authorization to Discontinue Artificial Life Suppoer of Michael Schiavo, Guardion of the Person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, an incapacitated person, be and the same is hereby GRANTED and the Petitioner/Guardian is hereby authorized to proceed with the sidcontinuance of said artificial life support for Theresa Marie Schiavo.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida at the hour of 11:50 o'clock 2 m this 11th day of February, AD, 2000."

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

So my bad, Abcdxxxx, they've only halted a legal decision, and in my worthless opinion violated their daughter's wishes thru their right of appeal for 5 years, not 10.


(huge tangent warning)

Curiously enough, Gov. Jeb Bush has previously stated that 5 years is enough in a life and death matter:

'On behalf of victims' families and the people of this state, I remain steadfastly committed to finding ways to have all death penalty appeals resolved within five years," Bush said.

http://www.helpvirginia.com/limitsrejected.htm

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

There must be a medical name for someone who perceives everything as an act of partisin politics.

My opinions aren't really partisan at all. I don't believe that the exceutive branch should be able to overstep the judicial branch in this way at all, regardless of party. That's simply not the way the framers of the Constitution intended it to be.

What's clear is this:

a) The husband has right of guardianship regardless of definitions of quality of life or what defines life. You're getting into issues of ethics and morality. This is law.

b) The parents tried to overstep the system. Political grandstanders championed their cause for their own political gain. Again, regardless of partisanship.

c) You have made some very base, superficial arguments about the relationship of the couple based on "gut feelings" and hearsay from people and interest groups with their own axe to grind. You don't know him, her, the family, ect and have nothing personally vested in this ... but I'm glad that you're here to play God ... or your own omnipotent power of choice ... whatever.

[ziggytrix]

Hey now, he's entitled to his own worthless opinion as much as you or I, KC.

[kellychaos]

Amen.

[Abcdxxxx]

I'm not playing god or even pushing my own personal beliefs at all. I've actually been in the position of arguing against doctors and refused breathing tubes for my own family who were in critical care. So you see Kelly, we're not all as fortunate as you to have the priviledge of being so laissez faire

Didn't you say politicians were making Schiavo their political platform? That sounds a statement considering the partinship issue at hand.
If you're so concerned with Judicial process, it should concern you that these judges are deliberating on the matter without ordering the medical tests that would inform their decisions.

Calling him creepy isn't any less of a stretch then comparing him to the brother of a soldier who died in Afghanistan. (End with cutesy dime school french phrasing here.)

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

If you're so concerned with Judicial process, it should concern you that these judges are deliberating on the matter without ordering the medical tests that would inform their decisions.

It doesn't take an MRI or a PET to tell you that spinal fluid doesn't THINK.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Not out of spite. Out of exhaustion.

Seems like a pretty weak argument to me.

Yes, yes, and YES! But saying she was a devout Catholic does not mean she couldn't have REALLY meant it when she said she wouldn't want to live in a vegetative state or whatever.

This is an issue of disagreement, but from a legal position (at least thus far), you're right. I think however that a lot of people say a lot of things throughout the course of their lives, some they mean, and some they say rather flippantly. The courts have thus far agreed with Michael Schiavo's telling of the tale, and if a higher court could see more conclusive evidence, and review the case, I'd be inclined to agree with that outcome too.

Thanks for continuing to put words in my mouth. There is a whole fucking universe between "simply breathing and digesting" and "contributing to society" - and surely there is a point where even you think that doing everything within the bounds of medical science to keep that heart beating is neither wise, nor merciful.

We don't have to do anything to keep her heart beating. Her heart has ben beating on its own for 15 years now. The only thing that's going to stop it is the same deprivation that would stop any of us.

Christopher Reeves couldn't breath on his own, but he could talk and smile and articulate points. Its this litmus that people use to distinguish him from Terri Schiavo, which to mean, sounds like a rather utilitarian means test for the value of life.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but perhaps you could elaboate on your own. Thus far you've argued this from a legal position, which makes you right, because we are if nothing else a society built on laws. But ABC is right in my opinion. This case is pretty important, because it raises every states legal guardianship into question. It forces us to have these sort of uncomfortable conversations, where we begin to draw the lines of what does and doesn't classify as a human being. Yours is different from mine, we know that much.

Your analogy is flawed unless you mean to suggest the judges who've overseen Terri's case are somehow prejudiced against invalids in the same way a racist is predjudiced against someone of a different skin color.

Ugh, okay, so then look at the federal appeals system. Why does it exist? Why even have the higher courts if everything could be handled within its local jurisdiction?

There's politics involved in locality, the kind of politics that don't mean as much at a higher level. A state judge is meant to uphold state law, and they can judge from that mere bias alone (no hatred of invalids or black people required).

I'm not saying the courts are infallible. But the judges in this case have ALL ruled the same verdict, they ALL know MUCH more about BOTH sides of this than you or I.

Right, and again we come back to the disagreement. Of course the judges who have ruled on this know better, just like the state court in a death row appeal knows better than you or I. That doesn't mean that case has been given an entirely fair shake, nor does it mean a higher judge would rule in the same direction. Those judges are pretty smart, too.

Less than 8 actually,

And I'll again assume that some courtship went on.

Point blank: do you think this guy is just a sleazebag or what, Kevin?

I honesty dunno. I know he has done some things to me that should deny him of the legal guardianship entitled to him. I think he began dating again pretty damn soon, and like ABC said, there is a general creepiness to him that doesn't sit right with me (incidentally, I get a similar feeling from Mr. Schindler, but not quite to the extent).

The other problem is that the polarizing nature of this case has created a lot of hearsay and rumors. I've heard nurses who used to work at the hospice quoting him, that he used to say "when will this bitch die?" However, the record also shows that they thought about placing a restraining order on him because he complained about her poor care.

I do know that he won a malpractice suit, with a lump of the cash going towards personal damages, on the grounds that he intended to get nursing training to care for his wife.

I think he loved hiswife very much at one point. I think the laws in Florida are fucking stupid, but that fault doesn't belong on Michael Schiavo.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. The answers were "no" and "yes" in that order (if you'll note you did ask TWO questions).

So if a state bans gay marriage, you respect that ruling, and don't want the federal government interfering in any way? I just want to be clear on what your "yes" and "no" are actually saying.

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

At the core, this is a landmark case in terms of power of attorney, and if her Parents want to resume care for her, they should have the ability to fight for that, and pursue the same options available to their daughter for the past ten years or whatever it's been.

I think this is an excellent point, one that the born again constructionists seem to ignore. Yes, the Schiavo Act was a piece of legislation geared towards one person. But this person is in immediate need, and if this act by Congress has brought attention to the broader issue, then that's good. There are in fact Republicans in Congress who have been putting together legislation on this kind of stuff, but nobody has realy cared up to this point. Now all of a sudden people are concerned about living wills, and proxy legal of attorney, etc. etc.

Whether or not Terri Schiavo gets her feeding tube put back in, this issue will remain topical amongst many in Congress. Some are calling this a political move that has backfired, but so what? The purpose of at least the Senate anyway was to stand as an objective body against the impulses and whims of the masses. It isn't a popularity contest nor should it be.

Originally Posted by Max

Kev: Just because the R's were totally wrong about which way the wind was blowing doesn't mean using this as a juicy wedge issue wasn't what they had in mind. I'll dig up some quotes to show you what I mean.

I don't really see the perceived electoral benefit in this. It doesn't even fit the definition of a wedge issue per se, because it only appeals to your base and ostracizes those who don't support you. It's like trying to wedge yourself. Nobody with national ambitions, such as Sen. Frist, would run with this as a "wedge" issue, IMO.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

NOTE: This is an opinion from a very partisan conservative voice. I don't necessarily agree with everything he is saying, but I have highlighted what I think are some good points in reference to the 19 judges that we keeep hearing about (i.e. he articulated the point better than my rambling ass). He goes into the typical "activist judges" rant, but the first half of the piece is pretty good......

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Com..._25_05_TS.html

March 25, 2005

Myth of 19 Judges and Ignoring the Will of Congress
By Thomas Sowell

Liberals have repeatedly used the talking point of how many judges have heard the case of Terri Schiavo. But that is as misleading as most of the rest of what they and the mainstream media have been saying.

When a case goes up to a higher court on appeal, the issue before the appellate court is not whether they agree with the merits of the decision of the lower court. In a criminal case, for example, the issue before the appellate court is not whether the defendant was guilty or innocent, but whether the trial was conducted properly.

In other words, the defendant is not supposed to be tried again at the appellate level. So, no matter how many appellate judges rule one way or the other, that tells you absolutely nothing about the fundamental question of guilt or innocence.

Similar principles apply in a civil case, such as that of Terri Schiavo. Liberals can count all the judges they want, but that does not mean that all these judges agreed with the merits of the original court's decision. It means that they found no basis for saying that the original court's decision was illegal.

What the law just passed by Congress did was authorize a federal court to go back to square one and examine the actual merits of the Terri Schiavo case, not simply review whether the previous judge behaved illegally. Congress authorized the federal courts to retry this case from scratch -- "de novo" as the legislation says in legal terminology.

That is precisely what the federal courts have refused to do. There is no way that federal District Judge James Whittemore could have examined this complex case, with its contending legal arguments and conflicting experts, from scratch in a couple of days, even if he had worked around the clock without eating or sleeping.

Judge Whittemore ignored the clear meaning of the law passed by Congress and rubberstamped the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.

Nor could the judges on the Court of Appeals have gone through all of this material "de novo" in a couple of days after Judge Whittemore's decision. They have added to the number of judges that liberals can count but they have not followed the law -- which is what really counts.

The federal judges have rushed to judgment -- in a case where there was no rush legally, despite a medical urgency. Terri Schiavo was not dying from anything other than a lack of food and water. These federal judges could have ordered the feeding tube restored while they gave this issue the thorough examination authorized -- and indeed prescribed -- by the recent Congressional legislation.

As dissenting Judge Charles Wilson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals put it, the "entire purpose of the statute" is to let federal courts look at the case "with a fresh pair of eyes." But, by the Circuit Court's decision, "we virtually guarantee" that the merits of the case "will never be litigated in a federal court" because Terri Schiavo will be dead. Never -- regardless of how many judges are counted as talking points.

The liberal line, both in politics and in the media, is that Congress somehow behaved unconstitutionally. All federal courts except the Supreme Court are created by Congress. The Constitution itself gives Congress the authority to define or restrict the jurisdictions of federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

Is the Constitution unconstitutional?

The lessons of this tragic episode are as momentous as they are painful, if only because we should never want to see such a miscarriage of justice again. The issue is not only whether Terri Schiavo should live or die, important as that is.

Another important issue is whether self-government in this country will live or die. Judges who ignore the laws passed by elected representatives are slowly but surely replacing democracy with judicial rule. Meanwhile, the media treat judges as sacrosanct and any criticism of them as almost blasphemy.

All this adds more urgency to the need to put judges on the courts who will follow the written law, not their own notions. We can only hope that the Senate Republicans have the guts to do that.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Ugh, okay, so then look at the federal appeals system. Why does it exist? Why even have the higher courts if everything could be handled within its local jurisdiction?

Her case went up for federal appeal, and they declined to hear it. It's a right the federal appeals court has.

Right, and again we come back to the disagreement. Of course the judges who have ruled on this know better, just like the state court in a death row appeal knows better than you or I. That doesn't mean that case has been given an entirely fair shake, nor does it mean a higher judge would rule in the same direction. Those judges are pretty smart, too.

So are you suggesting that every court case invovling life or death MUST be heard by a federal court? I don't know if I'd agree or disagree with that, but that's not how it works right now.

I do know that he won a malpractice suit, with a lump of the cash going towards personal damages, on the grounds that he intended to get nursing training to care for his wife.

$300,000 to him for damages and $700,000 for Terri's estate. (http://www.abstractappeal.com/index.html) Also, it has gone on the record that Terri's parents stopped speaking to Michael after he refused to share any of the $300,000 with them. Which to me, suggests a sort of greed underlying this whole ordeal that, if true, would make me think the whole lot of them are sick.

So if a state bans gay marriage, you respect that ruling, and don't want the federal government interfering in any way? I just want to be clear on what your "yes" and "no" are actually saying.

Correct. I also think if a state bans ALL marriage, then the Federal courts should not intervene, because the legal definiton of marriage is that of a contract. Marriage as a form of commitment, expression of love, religious ceremony, etc, is NOT bannable by any form of government, but it doesn't carry any legal bindings.

I think this is an excellent point, one that the born again constructionists seem to ignore. Yes, the Schiavo Act was a piece of legislation geared towards one person. But this person is in immediate need, and if this act by Congress has brought attention to the broader issue, then that's good.

You seem to be disregarding the fact that the federal courts DECLINED to hear the case. Again, should every case have to go through the federal courts, and if so why even bother with the local courts?

There are in fact Republicans in Congress who have been putting together legislation on this kind of stuff, but nobody has realy cared up to this point. Now all of a sudden people are concerned about living wills, and proxy legal of attorney, etc. etc.

Dunno if I already said this here or not, but most states have a couple of times where they can ask young men if they wish to register for selective service. I think those times would be an ideal time to question them on living wills and such. Or when you go to get your driver's license and they ask you if you wanna be an organ donor - let them also ask if you wanna be hooked up to machines indefinitely if you can't speak for yourself.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Her case went up for federal appeal, and they declined to hear it. It's a right the federal appeals court has.

Right, they denied to question the previous verdicts made on the case as it was. What Congress did was open up an avenue for the fed. courts to re-evaluate the entire case.

My point was this, federal courts, and the federal government have stepped into the matters of the state. They've prevented states from doing things, this isn't a novelty.

So are you suggesting that every court case invovling life or death MUST be heard by a federal court? I don't know if I'd agree or disagree with that, but that's not how it works right now.

OMG, no, that's not what I'm fucking saying. What I'm saying is that a convicted killer can appeal and appeal and appeal to the highest court in the land if they'll hear him. I support that process, and I detest what states like Florida and Texas are doing to wipe away that necessary process that rules out doubt.

THAT is what I want. I want all doubt removed, and I don't believe it has been. Yes, that's my opinion, not a Florida judges, not a medical doctor's. But it's not my opinion alone.

$300,000 to him for damages and $700,000 for Terri's estate. (http://www.abstractappeal.com/index.html) Also, it has gone on the record that Terri's parents stopped speaking to Michael after he refused to share any of the $300,000 with them. Which to me, suggests a sort of greed underlying this whole ordeal that, if true, would make me think the whole lot of them are sick.

Yeah, I read that too. But I think the gripe came over what kind of rehab the money would be spent on. I think the Schindler's felt his methods were either ineffective or not effective enough.

Correct. I also think if a state bans ALL marriage, then the Federal courts should not intervene, because the legal definiton of marriage is that of a contract. Marriage as a form of commitment, expression of love, religious ceremony, etc, is NOT bannable by any form of government, but it doesn't carry any legal bindings.

Okay, cool. And just for another example, what do you think of prior efforts made by the federal government to prevent ANWR drilling in Alaska, even against the wishes of the Alaskan legislature (of course now a moot issue, but relevant for the comparisons purpose)?

You seem to be disregarding the fact that the federal courts DECLINED to hear the case. Again, should every case have to go through the federal courts, and if so why even bother with the local courts?

Certain judges refused to question the legality of the decisions made on the case as it was presented. They weren't deciding over and over again that Terri Schiavo was a vegetable, they simply refused to question the previous argument.

A new argument can however be made, a broader one. They will possibly have the chance to review this case. There's a difference.

Dunno if I already said this here or not, but most states have a couple of times where they can ask young men if they wish to register for selective service. I think those times would be an ideal time to question them on living wills and such. Or when you go to get your driver's license and they ask you if you wanna be an organ donor - let them also ask if you wanna be hooked up to machines indefinitely if you can't speak for yourself.

This is a good idea, although I'm not sure how effective it would be. I worked for a voter registration group that proposed the same thing, make sure every DMV (I think most already have it), every governmental level of bureacracy, as well as other places, offered options for voter registration.

The problem with this is that you're then relying on the person who issues you your license, or who handles some other task, to take care of your voting capabilities (remove voter reg from this scenario, and insert living will material). These people don't necessarily care about these things, and thus don't/wouldn't aggressively push you to take care of these things.

I guess there's only so much we can ask and/or want the federal government to do in terms of shaping our behavior. That, IMO, is why this case will be historical and important. Hopefully families and couples are looking at these people, how torn they are, how sad and frustrated, and realize that that's exactly the last thing they'd want.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Okay, cool. And just for another example, what do you think of prior efforts made by the federal government to prevent ANWR drilling in Alaska, even against the wishes of the Alaskan legislature (of course now a moot issue, but relevant for the comparisons purpose)?

I dunno, I don't pay much attention to Alaska. Evironmental issues are tricky though, for example, air pollution laws in one state affect neighbor states. So when multiple states, or I guess even other countries might be affected, the feds prolly ought to have a say.

[theapportioner]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

But ABC is right in my opinion. This case is pretty important, because it raises every states legal guardianship into question. It forces us to have these sort of uncomfortable conversations, where we begin to draw the lines of what does and doesn't classify as a human being. Yours is different from mine, we know that much.

The way it's generally set up, with strict levels determining next of kin and guardianship, is flawed perhaps but also necessary. Decisions regarding involuntary passive euthanasia are made all the time. Usually the person is going to die soon anyway. If the guardianship levels are not clear, then it becomes so messy for so many people.

Everyone keeps saying that the Terry Schiavo situation is a "special" case. I hardly see why.

[theapportioner]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Dunno if I already said this here or not, but most states have a couple of times where they can ask young men if they wish to register for selective service. I think those times would be an ideal time to question them on living wills and such. Or when you go to get your driver's license and they ask you if you wanna be an organ donor - let them also ask if you wanna be hooked up to machines indefinitely if you can't speak for yourself.

Sounds like a bad idea to me. Living wills are not decisions to be made flippantly, and the decision whether or not to withold care isn't a simple yes/no answer.

[theapportioner]

Limits also need to be placed on patient autonomy. A patient should not, for instance, be entitled to a kidney transplant if she is is undergoing multiple organ failure and the transplanted kidney will extend her life only a matter of days. Even if she writes it down on paper.

[Slinky Ferret]

From what I've been reading online and in the papers as well as what you are debating this is one of those situations where the is no simple answer.

I have a few questions if anyone would like to explain to me.

1. The husband has not remained faithful to his wife - he has a new woman and children. Therefore his priority is not his wife but his family. Why is he not allowed to divorce her?

2. Why are the parents not given equal clout over her care?

3. If someone has a heart attack I thought they have monitors and things on them. What I don't understand is how she got into this state and has not had an MRI scan. The fact that she is concious to some extent as in has eyes open and can breathe without equipment is surely saying something.

I was born early and in the hospital where I was born there wasn't anything except oxygen. I managed to breathe on my own the whole night and was then transported to another hospital. Thanks to the skill of the doctors and nurses I am still alive, I do not have brain damage, I am not blind, there's nothing wrong with me except I'm a bit weird (purely genetic) and I'm dyslexic which it seems is also genetic.

Why is terri in a hospice? Surely a hospice is where people who are dying or terminally ill are looked after? The sad thing is, america has the best resources available. There are so many stories of people awaking out of commas. But what I question is IF she had a MRI scan surely they could resolve part of the emotion tension. I think it would help her parents let her go in peace if they knew there was no chance of her gaining any real quality of life.

Also I also feel sad when they stop feeding people. They are effectively starving them to death. Surely even if they can't communicate like the rest of us its got to be a terrible way to go.

Still I know nothing about commas, medical things or fully understand how the whole political aspect fits in.

[Ninjavenom]

Creepy, i had a dream last night that she died O .o

[davinxtk]

(tangent)

How awful would it be to wake up tomorrow and realize that you had totally missed the past fifteen years?

This happened to her in 1990. There's still a President Bush, but it's not the same George. America has been directly engaged in more than just a handful of military conflicts. We've had an amazing technological boon and a crippling economic crash. Attacks on American soil, atrocities in foreign lands, and political scandals out the wazoo.

The face of America has completely changed. From technology to sexuality to social interaction to gender roles to pop culture. In fifteen years, how much music, television, news, and life has she missed?

How many of her friends have been married? How many have died? How many have children? How many have moved on from losing her, how many have left the country, how many have won the lottery or started smoking crack?

How humane would it be to bring this person back into our world?

And, assuming the argument that she's been conscious and simply unable to respond, what's her brain been doing? What's her developmental process like?
What kind of a complete horror is it to be trapped in your own body, aware and awake, and unable to laugh, cry, scream for help or hold your husband's (or your mother's or father's) hand?
And what can fifteen years of this do to a person's psyche?

I just want the people who are arguing for her life to know what they're asking for. Imagine being locked in a room and nourished for fifteen years with zero contact with the outside world, and then pretend that you'd want to try and adapt again.



And this is all if she ever comes out of it.
Imagine if all of the money that's been spent on her near lifeless body had been given to a single parent or a starving family, instead of being pumped into a breathing corpse.




On another note,

Originally Posted by Thomas Sowell

All this adds more urgency to the need to put judges on the courts who will follow the written law, not their own notions. We can only hope that the Senate Republicans have the guts to do that.

[Abcdxxxx]

He can divorce her if he wants, and make his current family legal if that interests him. He wouldn't even lose legal control over Schiavo's care, and could still be as involved as he is now, should he chose to be. That's typically the behavior of someone who really wants to move on with their life.

Hospice is a care oganization, it's not a specific ward of a hospital for terminal patients. They offer assisted care to families, and provide doctors that adhere to their philosphy, much of it religious based, and much of it about easing "suffering". They will even provide home care, narcotic drugs, and pain killers, clean the homes of families, cook meals not just for the patient, but the families themselves... they also get involved negotiating a patients rights with medical staff, and offer second opinions, and alternative nursing along the lines of their own philosophy. You don't have to be terminal to receive hospice assistance, and their definition of terminal is very broad.

About Federal judges.... I just don't think we should allow them to be end all to rulings involving personal ethics hot bed issues. I don't perceive this as a right to die issue, but most do, and that brings a bias.

It turns out the husband actually has a Conservatership, which is a an extreme version of having power of attorney. It's a court appointed duty, and he must report to the courts regarding her well being, and financials. This means the Schiavo family aren't just discrediting their Son in Law, their discrediting the ability of the Court who appointed him. In that case, a Federal judge ruling on this issue has reason to show bias against the family. (Edit. I might be mistaken about the converatorship part)