Monthly Archives: March 2005

I Was Right

In an earlier post, I noted that Michael doesn’t have any say in the autopsy, whether it is done at all, who does it, what is examined. Life News is reporting that the Pinellas County Medical Examiner, Jon Thogmartin, had decided to perform an autopsy well before Michael gave his “approval”, “authorization”, or whatever.

Yesterday, George Felos stood in front of dozens of reports and announced that Terri Schiavo’s estranged husband Michael had changed his mind and would allow an autopsy to be conducted on Terri if she dies.

The altruistic statement declared Michael wanted to exonerate himself on accusations he abused Terri and to show Terri is very severely brain damaged.

Yet, the decision to conduct an autopsy had already been made when Felos spoke with the media — and not by Michael or Felos.

Jon Thogmartin, medical examiner for Pinellas and Pasco counties, tells the St. Petersburg Times newspaper he made the decision to conduct an autopsy if necessary and said it had nothing to do with Michael’s change of heart.

“We have determined to be involved because of the statutes and because the people of the state of Florida say we are involved,” Pellan said. “Not because Michael Schiavo wants us involved.”

Read the rest.

Related: Scared Monkeys

11th Will Consider the Schindler's Appeal

AP:

The 11th Circuit will consider granting a hearing. They haven’t said when they will decide if they will or not. Will it be too late? Is it already too late?

In its order late Tuesday, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t say when it would decide whether to grant the hearing. It was not clear what effect reconnecting Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube would have on her, as she approached her 13th day without nourishment.

The order issued allowed Bob and Mary Schindler to file the appeal, even though the court had set a March 26 deadline for doing so.

Its one-sentence order said: “The Appellant’s emergency motion for leave to file out of time is granted.” Twice last week, the court ruled against the Schindlers.

In requesting a new hearing, the Schindlers argued that a federal judge in Tampa should have considered the entire state court record and not whether previous Florida court rulings met legal standards under state law. It also stated that the Atlanta federal appellate court didn’t consider whether there was enough “clear and convincing” evidence that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to die in her current condition.

The Autopsy

Michael doesn’t have to authorize an autopsy, Michael really doesn’t have any choice in the matter and he can’t refuse an autospy, the Medical Examiner needs to approve the request for a cremation before it happens.

Yesterday, George Felos said “that the chief medical examiner for Pinellas County, Dr. John Thogmartin, had agreed to perform an autopsy.

He said her husband wants definitive proof showing the extent of her brain damage. Michael Schiavo contends his wife told him years ago she would not want to be kept alive artificially under such circumstances.” (Via Fox News).

Michelle Malkin has some more links regarding this announcement and questions that have arisen regarding Terri’s condition.

Last night on Greta Van Susteren, reporter Julie Banderas said that it’s Florida law that an autopsy be performed on any body before cremation. This isn’t precisely true, in the case of a natural death with no questions, the Medical Examiner can approve a cremation without an autopsy, but the Medical Examiner must give approval before a body can be cremated.
At the Pinellas County Medical Examiners website here is the relevant statute: 406.11(1)(c)

A. All requests for cremation must be approved by the Medical Examiner prior to the actual cremation.

1.Before authorizing the irretrievable disposal of a body by cremation, the Medical Examiner must be assured that no future question will arise about the cause or circumstances of the death of the individual.

2. The death, if previously unreported to the Medical Examiner, must first be verified as a non-Medical Examiner case according to Florida Statutes, 406.11

Liberals are From Mars Conservatives From Venus

E. J. Dionne Jr. has a piece in the Washington Post which examines the current discord between liberals and conservatives. He has a point with the following quote:

Liberals have so little respect for conservatives these days that people on the left are genuinely astonished when people on the right have principled disagreements with each other. The left assumes the right marches in lock step under orders from the White House.

Conservatives have so little respect for liberals that they see every liberal action as inspired by hatred of President Bush, opposition to religion and contempt for people in “the heartland.”

I agree entirely. What I find amusing though is how E. J. seems to elevate himself above the arena of discord, as if he were some reluctant spectator rather than a willing participant. While both sides have contemptuous views of one another, the liberal view is also the one that is perpetuated in the mainstream media as the one that is “correct”, which in turn increases conservatives’ contempt of the liberals.

It’s sort of like a hockey game where the referee is only calling penalties against one team. It often gets out of hand. But I have a feeling E. J. doesn’t watch hockey.

The MSM's Latest Binge

Have the media kicked the nasty, self destructive habit of anti-Republican partisan hackery in light of Rathergate, Easongate, the predictive reporting of an Iraqi “quagmire” and the vanishing Afghan elections? Like an alcoholic watching his life fall apart while promising himself just one more drink, the political cravings of the MSM are apparently too strong. After years of being schooled by left leaning universities and protected by their comfy cocoon throughout their careers, they simply weren’t equipped with the necessary journalistic integrity to resist the temptation they were about to face.

And so came the Schiavo story. It seemed that telling it straight would have been so easy. It was an amazing story that raised some incredibly thought provoking issues: the inherent problems with the legal system applying civil standards to life and death situations, the “untold” facts about Michael Schiavo that cast doubt on whether he (or anyone else for that matter) should be trusted with the decision to end Terri’s life, the details of competing doctors that suggested Terri may not have been vegetative, but merely disabled. Putting a disabled person to death against her will is earth shattering news. But more importantly, telling it straight was the right thing to do and may have changed the political winds enough for us to ponder whether its right to put someone to death when we’re not really sure if they’re vegetative or if it’s really in accordance with their true wishes.

But with the painful hangover of Bush being credited with spreading democracy in the Middle East still lingering and the enticing prospect of being able to use the story as a wedge issue between Christian and fiscal conservatives/libertarians, it was near impossible for old media to resist.

The first drink came when the media framed the story as a typical “right to die” case, reporting the medical conclusions as fact and portraying the parents as misguided loved ones who just couldn’t let go of a daughter who “died” long ago. Supporters of Terri were cast as religious zealots. Michael Schiavo – he was to be just as much a victim as the parents, with none of those messy allegations of abuse getting in the way. Reporting of his living with another woman was kept to a minimum. There would be no reporting of the timing of his decision to reveal Terri’s “true” wishes which came only after the receipt of proceeds from a legal settlement which was premised on Terri being cared for by Michael ad infinitum.

After a few rounds, the media began covering the “political implications” of the Schiavo story. Not just any political implications, mind you. No, they focused specifically on the Republicans being perceived as capitalizing on Terri’s tragic circumstances for political gain (it didn’t matter that a large number of Democrats voted for the Schiavo legislation). Since this was just another right to die case, the only possible explanation for passing legislation requiring a trial de novo must have been sheer political opportunism. The possibly that it was actually an attempt to correct a grave injustice unfolding before our eyes was scarcely mentioned.

Next came the polls. The media’s equivalent of a good stiff chaser. It wasn’t enough for the media to tell us their narrative. They needed to convince us that we believed in the story. The polls didn’t ask such questions as: “if some doctors believe Terri is in a vegetative state but others say she is not, would you favor removing her feeding tube?” Instead the questions were premised on Terri being vegetative as a fact. But even that may not have produced the desired results, so they slipped in couple of references to Terri being permanently unconscious or in a coma. Apparently they weren’t too concerned about those videos going around of Terri smiling and laughing. But hey, they were already on to their fourth or fifth round and things were starting to get a little crazy.

It didn’t stop there. They reached for the same cheap bottle of tequila that almost did them in once before: the media ran with the talking points memo. Without the memo the media’s narrative only suggested that the Republicans were cold, evil political opportunists. Already intoxicated by their self-fulfilling reporting that Republicans were losing public support, the media decided to go all the way and report specific evidence that was to confirm what they had already inferred. It didn’t matter that the memo had errors on its face, was not authored and was substantively inconsistent with legitimate congressional talking points. Nor did it matter that there appeared to be no evidence that Republicans circulated it or that it appeared to have first surfaced in the hands of Democrats and not Republicans.

I’m not sure if this will be the binge that does them in. But the MSM are surely in a pathetic downward spiral.

UPDATE: For an excellent analysis of the talking points scandal check out John Hinderaker’s piece in the Weekly Standard.

UPDATE II: Michelle Malkin has a good entry on pro life supporters of Terri being treated like freaks.

Welcome Anchoress readers!

Greer Rejects Again

Greer rejected the Schindler’s appeals once again.

Bob Schindler was just on, and said that Terri is doing remarkably well considering the circumstances. She is FIGHTING TO LIVE….

Can’t they see this? Put the tube back, or at least allow oral water and food.

The Misperception of Schiavo's "Due Process"

I’ve just finished listening to another commentator talk about the number of hearings that have taken place over Terri Schiavo as an example of how she has received “due process.”

This is one of the biggest misperceptions out there and one that is giving false moral comfort to proponents of putting Terri Schiavo to death. There are two basic legal systems in place in North America. The civil legal system deals primarily with economic rights. Breaches of contracts, torts, personal injury suits and family law matters are all governed by civil standards. Then there is the criminal legal system which has its own set of procedural safeguards that are much more stringent than the civil standards. The reason is simple. Criminal courts deal with basic rights to life and liberty and the ability of the state to deprive individuals of those rights. As such, the entire system is designed to overwhelmingly err on the side of life and liberty.

Terri Schiavo’s case has proceeded, and continues to proceed, under the civil legal system. When you hear opponents of Terri’s death cry out that criminals and terrorists are afforded more rights than Terri Schiavo, this isn’t just emotional rhetoric. This is absolutely correct. This is an emerging area of the law, and the facts of the Schiavo case are quickly revealing that the civil system should best be left for the determination of property rights, not life and death decisions. To put this in context, the procedural due process that Terri’s received is about the same or perhaps slightly higher than what you’d find in a hotly contested patent infringment case, but nowhere near what someone charged with something as minor as petty theft would receive, let alone a prisoner on death row. Below I posted a concrete example of the absurdity that results: the Federal Court relying on a case dealing with the sale of discount gasoline in determining whether to grant a stay to save Terri Schiavo’s life. Exemplifying my point, the discount gasoline case falls under the heading “Applicable Standards.” But I point to another passage of the court dealing with the issue of “cruel and unusual punishment” that gets to the heart of the issue:

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment only applies “subsequent to and as a consequence of a person’s lawful conviction of a crime.”

There it is in clear print for all the world to see. If Terri were convicted of some horrible act against humanity or simply of pick pocketing, she would have rights. But she’s an innocent woman and so she cannot be protected by the constitution so says the court. Now, what was that about Terri Schiavo receiving full due process again?

Talking Points Memo

I haven’t commented on this subject yet as I’ve been pretty consumed with the direct injustice of putting Terri Schiavo to death, but Michelle Malkin is all over the talking points story. She has the goods on the specifics and I suggest you check out her site if you haven’t done so already. I’d like to take a look at the lowest common denominator in this issue: whatever the “truth” may be regarding the source of the memos, the MSM’s one sided coverage is yet another clear sign that they continue to abuse their position as society’s news tellers by advocating rather than informing.

The memo was portrayed by the MSM as a damning indictment of GOP political opportunism on the back of a starving woman. When obvious suspicions regarding the memo arises there is silence in the media. What is particularily aggregious is impact that this failure to report has on public opinion. Not only do the suspicious aspects of the memo obviously lessen the validity of the original charges against the GOP, they may evidence precisely the opposite of what the original story portrayed- that while the Republicans (and some Democrats) where doing everything they could in their power to help Terri Schiavo, the Democrats were in the back rooms scheming for ways to capitalize politically on the Republicans’ efforts to save Terri. Yet the public is left with the original reporting as if nothing new has arisen.

The MSM is advocating not informing, and they are doing so under the pretense that they are the trusted purveyers of information.

Schiavo: Perverse Standards Leads to Perverse Outcomes

In determining what weight to give the irreparable harm that will come to Terri in the latest stay application to keep her alive (at the heart of an injunction proceeding the court must weigh the irreparable harm versus, among other things, the strength of the potential case) guess what type of case the court principally considered. An accused on death row? A terrorist about to be deported to a state where he’ll be put to death?

Nope. The court in Schiavo relied on a case about a gas dealer regarding the sale of below cost gasoline. That’s right folks. In seeking guidance regarding the ending of a human life, the court looked to how another court weighed the harm that would result from the improper sale of a petroleum product. Here is the PDF copy of the latest Federal Court decision which cites the Home Oil case also in PDF.

I’ve said below here and here how the courts are utilizing the wrong standards in the Schiavo case. Seeing Terri’s life compared to gasoline, can there be any doubt about this?

mm-5