The inestimable Slublog is blogging the hell out of this, and he sends me this:

The immediate cause of Terri's brain damage was cardiac arrest, which caused her brain to be deprived of oxygen for more than five minutes. In January 1993, Michael Schiavo won a malpractice award of $1.6 million from the hospital that treated Terri. He was also personally awarded $600,000 for loss of consortium. In his testimony, Michael spoke of his love for his wife and his intentions to honor his wedding vows for the rest of his life and to use the award money for Terri's care and rehabilitation. Indeed, Michael repeatedly assured Bob and Mary Schindler that he would seek rehabilitation therapy for Terri once he had obtained a settlement.

A month after Michael received the money, the Schindlers approached
their son-in-law to remind him of his promise. This led to a heated
argument, with Bob and Michael yelling in the hall outside Terri's
room. Michael stormed off and vowed that he was going to see his
lawyer and that Bob and Mary would "never see [their] daughter again."

...

The staff of Terri's nursing home was sympathetic to the Schindlers
and frequently gave them information in spite of Michael's medical
"gag order." Later that year, Bob and Mary learned that Terri had a
serious urinary tract infection and that Michael had ordered the
nursing home not to give her treatment, which would have consisted
of a simple course of antibiotics. They were informed by the nursing
home staff (going against the gag order), not Michael, as he himself
admitted in this exchange with the attorney for the Schindlers in the
1993 guardianship hearing:

Attorney: When you made the decision that you were not going to treat Terri's infection and you were, in effect, going to allow her to die,
did you think that you had any obligation to tell her parents?

Michael: To answer that question, I probably would have let them know sooner or later.

Attorney: You never did let them know, though, did you?

Michael: No.

Left untreated, the infection would eventually have caused sepsis and
Terri's death. Fortunately the nursing home eventually gave Terri the
antibiotics anyway, and she recovered.

Hit Slublog's link for the full article and his thoughts... and a curious admission from "the husband."

I really don't want to hang Michael Schiavo in a kangaro cyber-court. But it is a fact that all of this is a bit suspicious and a bit strange, and under these circumstances, I just find it unbelievable that someone with no remaining familial or emotional ties to another human being could continue to be deemed the closest family she has on earth, and given the awesome responsibility of making life and death decisions about her.

Call me crazy-- I just don't think that's how this ought to work. I'm not part of the right-to-life movement. I am mildly pro-abortion and even mildly pro right-to-die.

But there has to be good evidence of someone's wish to be painfully killed. Not the say-so of a departed-but-financially-interested ex-husband.

Posted by: Ace at 01:18 PM | Comments (58)
Post contains 519 words, total size 3 kb.

And Greer said take the tube out. And they did.

Responding to Bill from InDC: Bill didn't like the accusatory tone I took regarding the "husband," Michael. Well, to be honest, I did try to be reasonably careful about accusations. Still-- the fact remains, if someone has a conflict-of-interest, we don't let them make life and death decisions, and we don't just take their word for what a person unable to speak for herself might have said.

Especially when that claim comes years and years after the the stricken wife has gone silent.

The circumstances raise suspicions inherently.

I am a bit perplexed by those who still insist on saying that Terri's "family" wants her to die with dignity.

Her "family" does? You mean-- the husband-in-name-only who is now living with another woman and siring children by her?

The husband has left Terri, guys. As I took pains to point out, that hardly makes him a monster; most, including me, would do the same. But it does make him no longer "family," and I find it absurd that people want a non-family-member's wishes to prevail over those who remain family.

Think back to all your ex-wives or ex-husbands or ex-boyfriends or ex-girlfriends... they're ex's. They may have cared the world for you at one point, but they no longer do. Most of them are, I'm guessing (unless you have to keep in contact due to joing custody of children), more or less complete strangers to you a few months or a few years after the parting of ways.

Would any of you wish an ex to decide your fate rather than your parents? What sort of sense does that make?

A best friend, sure-- best friends tend to remain best friends. A brother, a sister-- okay, as a general matter (unless they are compromised by some financial gain, of course).

But someone who in fact divorced Terri years ago? Yes, he never has bothered to fill out the paperwork; but he is effectively divorced from Terri. And yet the court still finds: Well, he's her husband on paper; let's pretend he's still the closest family she has on earth.

He's not.

And as for suspecting his motives: Why hasn't he simply divorced this abandoned, brain-damaged woman and married the woman he's living with? She can't be happy about raising children in bastardy; why has he resisted what must certainly be her wish to marry to the father of her children?

Just so he could continue fighting for Terri's right to die with dignity? Hang on; we'll get to that.

Add in the fact that he has refused time and time again to grant the parents' wishes for an MRI, for real physical therapy, etc. If you were in his shoes, with your wife's parents' begging you for a simple medical test or a round of physical therapy, wouldn't you grant their wish? Just so they would know that everything had in fact "been tried," and so that they could learn themselves it's time to give up?

If I am too suspicious of his motives, let me ask Bill et al.: Why do you lack any suspicion whatsoever? Do you honestly believe he's been on a ten-year legal crusade to end her life ("with dignity") just because he's so very much in love with her still?

I don't know. I don't buy that. At all. I put myself in his shoes: a wife I've abandoned and moved on from, parents begging me to let her live so that they can care for her. And to me-- even if I thought it were best that she die, I wouldn't be 100% stone-cold positive of that, and I think I would just say, "Okay, guys. She's your daughter. I think you're making a mistake, but I defer to you, chiefly to comfort you rather than to help her. I will withdraw as guardian. Good luck to you all."

I just find it strange behavior that the man is so hell-bent to pull the tube. And yes, I find that strange even if I assume what I actually doubt-- that they had a one conversation in which she expressed a preference not to remain on "life support."

A feeding tube doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that most people think of as life support-- not to me, at least. I have to eat and drink everyday; that's not life support. And people who've lost the capacity to swallow (let's say from mouth cancer) but who are otherwise alert and healthy are certainly not on "life support" just because they draw nutrition from a tube.

So why do I suspect his motives?

Because he is acting contrary to how I would act in the same circumstances. Strangely contrary. Perplexingly contrary.

Maybe Michael Schiavo just is the most dedicated ex-husband in human history, selflessly campaigning for ten years to honor the wishes of his abandoned, although still deeply loved, wife.

I kind of doubt it. It seems like a rather abstract interest to animate someone to fight for so long. When people fight this hard for this long, call me a cynic, but I suspect self-interest plays a role.

And I don't believe anyone still loves anyone after a couple of years of abandonment. Things fade after a couple of months.

After 15 years? Give me a break.

Posted by: Ace at 12:12 PM | Comments (58)
Post contains 901 words, total size 5 kb.

Seems much less promising than it did last night, when I imagined a different judge would make the ruling.

Hearing scheduled to begin at 12:30.

Maybe More Promising: Sounds like it will be hard to rule against the request for a stay of judgment:

"We will issue a subpoena which will require hospice administrators and attending physicians to preserve nutrition and hydration for Terri Schiavo to allow Congress to fully understand the procedures and practices that are currently keeping her alive," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis said in a statement. "The subpoena will be joined by a Senate investigation as well.

Congress does seem to have a right to get at the facts, especially as it's considering legislation.

But I do think that Judge Greer has an out if an out is wanted: the claim that this is simply interfering with the lawful rulings of the judiciary, and hence a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.

And Judge Greer seems to be in favor of pulling the feeding tube.

Any ruling along those lines should trigger an appeal, and the sort of appeal that actually gets accepted for consideration. So there may be time left.

Bad News: And Greer said take the tube out. And they did.

Posted by: Ace at 08:29 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

"So Proud To Be a Republican:"

The Republican controlled House passed a bill on Wednesday night that would have saved Terri Schiavo's life. But the Republican controlled Senate wouldn't pass it. The Republican controlled Senate instead passed its own narrower bill at 5:35 pm tonight, but it couldn't become a law because, 75 minutes earlier, the Republican controlled House decided, without waiting for the Senate vote, to adjourn for its vacation for Easter.

Pretty cool, huh?

Does this feel like a fix to anyone else? Like conservative Congressmen maybe wanted to appear to be "trying to do something," and yet, awww shucks, they just couldn't act in time?

These jackasses make $150,000+ on our dime. They can work a fucking Friday morning to save a life.

Posted by: Ace at 11:39 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay, there's a lot of animosity between liberals and conservatives in the blogosphere. But occasionally we do find common cause -- Trent Lott, for example.

I think we can find common cause again. And achieve results. And maybe save a life.

I think many liberals don't much care about the Terri Schiavo matter not because they don't value life, but because they value even more highly an individual's autonomy.

And that's understandable.

And I think further that many liberals assume that Terri Schiavo is just one of many right-to-die cases in which a person's autonomy is being challenged and thwarted by religious righties with an agenda. I think liberals are not really very well acquainted with the case; I think they are, understandably enough, simply putting in into the individual vs the state template, or the individual vs meddling religious righties template, and basing a decision on those templates.

But those templates do not apply here. This is not the typical right-to-die case. Terri Schiavo is not on videotape, as Dr. Kervorkian's clients were, stating clearly her desire and intent to take her own life. She signed no Living Will specifiying that in certain dire medical circumstances she would prefer to be left to die rather than kept alive.

She expressed to no one, even verbally, her general preference to die in dire medical circumstances.

Well-- that last point is actually the whole subject of debate in this case.

Her husband, Michael Schiavo, claims that she did in fact raise the issue at one point and state that in some situations, she'd like him to see to it she had an easy and quick death, rather than being allowed to persist in a bad state.

One person claims she says this.

A man who has been involved with another woman for years and has sired children by that woman.

A man who was awarded $1.2 million in a malpractice case, and will no longer have to pay any expenses for Terri, other than funeral costs, once she passes.

The husband is not what you normally would call a disinterested party. Not generally the sort of witness whose testimony you'd take as the gold standard.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:17 PM | Comments (43)
Post contains 1956 words, total size 12 kb.

If they did this in a movie you wouldn't believe it.

Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyoming, has called Terri Schiavo to testify before his committee-- invoking statutory protections for her until she can so appear before his committee and, uhhh, give information to it.

But it's not over yet; they'll need to get a TRO from a federal judge to block the killing ot Terri.

It's obviously a sham-- though a brilliant and humane one.

Let's hope they've done their judge-shopping homework and can find the sort of judge who 1) actually cares about human life and 2) isn't squeamish about resorting to a subterfuge to preserve it.

Thanks to See-Dubya for the tip.

Ain't No Sham Update: I called this a sham and a subterfuge... but is it?

Testimony doesn't have to be verbal. They really ARE considering passing some sort of bill to regulate this sort of thing; Terri doesn't have to speak for her to provide useful evidence to them, in the form of her ability (or lack thereof) to respond to stimuli.

A judge might call it a subterfuge, but it's not quite one. Taking information from Terri's appearance may not be the MAIN goal of calling her, but it is a real and reasonable goal, and one that can advance inform the public better than any doctor's report can.

Separation of Powers Problems? Can't seem to find the case now, but I believe Howard Metzenbaum (a Democratic Senator from, I think, Ohio in the eighties) attempted to subpoena a witness before Congress who was already involved in the judicial process. I think the subpoena was quashed on the theory that this was meddling in the affiars of a co-equal branch of government that already had taken jurisdiction.

Anyone with Lexis/Nexis might want to do me a solid and look that bastard up.

My recall of that case is obviously sketchy, but I don't think it would apply here anyway. Or it shouldn't. The court, as far as Terri Schiavo is concerned, is finished; it has decided to murder her. It really doesn't matter if they kill her next week or next month. But the testimony she can give obviously must be given while she's still alive.

Posted by: Ace at 09:32 PM | Comments (14)
Post contains 382 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm posting this on the theory that only Nixon can go to China. Liberals, I know, won't listen to me. And I don't really blame them; hell, I sure don't listen to them.

But a commenter just posted the following about Terri Schiavo. She's a lesbian (not important to me, but maybe it earns credibility points with liberals) and is a strong liberal.

This case is NOT about abortion. It's not about the right to die, generally. Even if I concede, arguendo, that everyone should have the right to die if one wishes, surely we can agree on the proposition that we shouldn't die simply because someone else wishes-- especially when that someone else is not necessarily concerned with our best interests.

I don't know if many liberals read this site, but on the off chance you do, take this woman's words to heart. Call your Congressmen, write a blog-post, do something-- a woman is going to be murdered tomorrow for no good reason.

We can agree on this one. And we need at least a sizeable number of you on our side if we're going to try to pull a last minute miracle.

Anyway, LesbienCestMoi writes:

I am not an extremist, but anyone would call me an ardent liberal, that is certain. Perhaps I am an anomaly, but I am devastated over what is about to happen here. To even be debating this is perverse. It is murder, nothing shy of that very accurate description. Murder. She will not die tomorrow, but she will be murdered tomorrow. By all estimates it will take her 7 - 10 days to actually die of starvation and dehydration. Terri is being executed by calculated, cruel and inhumane measure. We do not even execute condemned criminals with such unthinkable methods. And this woman's crime? Needing more love and care than the average human being. I am sick over this. Desperate almost. I sit writing this tonight with an utter punctured equilibrium over what will happen tomorrow and my inability to do anything about it.

There are a number of liberal-leaning Florida legislators, as well as federal Congressmen, who will not do anything to help Terri because they assume, perhaps wrongly, that their liberal constituency wishes her to die. If they are informed quickly that that assumption is wrong, they might just decide to join with the hated conservatives and save a human life.

Posted by: Ace at 09:19 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 414 words, total size 2 kb.

Unless something incredibly dramatic happens, at 1 p.m. tomorrow they'll begin starving Terri Schiavo to death.

Liberal leaning people -- and I don't mean moonbats; I mean liberal-leaning people that you can actually talk to -- don't seem to get this story at all. They misread this as a general endorsement of one's right to die, and, therefore, they want to see the plug pulled on Terri Schiavo.

I've tried but I can't get through. No matter how many times you try to explain -- "But she never asked for this; she signed no form; she made no clear previous oral statement; all we know about her intentions comes from the mouth of her husband who's living with another woman and who has sired a couple of kids with that woman" -- they continue to regard this as a standard don't-we-all-have-the-right-to-die-as-we-wish case.

But tomorrow, Terri Schiavo will be subjected to a lengthy, painful state-approved execution based upon not her own wishes but the say-so of a husband who, let's face it, just wants to be rid of her.

The law assumes that one's spouse is the best decision-maker regarding one's care should one lose the capacity to make one's own decision. That's a fine assumption-- generally. But when a husband clearly suffers a conflict-of-interest on the issue, why do judges insist on honoring that assumption?

There's a saying: the rule extends as far as the reason for the rule extends. Where the reason ends, thus does the rule. And the reason for this rule is that husbands are thought to be acting solely in the best interests of the stricken wife. That's clearly not the case here, so why are Florida judges applying the rule beyond the point reason supports?

Chalk it up as a victory... for what, exactly? For the cherished principle that we all have the right to be done away with by someone to whom we've grown inconvenient?

I think the main reason so many want Terri Schiavo to die is the extreme antipathy towards the Christian right. If the Christian right wants something, they want the opposite-- even if it means letting someone who is now a perfect stranger to Terri Schiavo decide her fate, rather than the parents who have not abandoned her in favor of someone cuter and sexier.

Terri Schiavo will die tomorrow. And idiotic judges and legislators will celebrate that they've beaten back those damn Christian conservatives and all their crazy ideas.

Crazy ideas like: before you stop feeding and giving water to someone who is not dead, brain or otherwise, you really ought to have a previously signed living will in hand. Is this too much to ask?

Nutty, nutty right-to-life Christians.

Well, enjoy your victory. Too bad it has to come with the death of an innocent woman, but I guess you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.

Update: It's late in the day, but if you're interested in trying to avert this execution, you can try going over to Terri's Fight.

Another Update: Via American Digest, this piece by Andrew McCarthy: Torturing Terri:

A few months back, I wrote an article for Commentary arguing that we ought to reconsider our anti-torture laws. The argument wasn’t novel. It echoed contentions that had been made with great persuasive force by Harvard’s Professor Alan Dershowitz: that under circumstances of imminent harm to thousands of moral innocents (the so-called “ticking bomb” scenario), it would be appropriate to inflict, under court-supervision, intense but non-lethal pain in an effort to wring information from a morally culpable person — a terrorist known to be complicit in the plot.

As one might predict with such a third rail, my mail was copious and indignant. Opening the door by even a sliver for torture, I was admonished, was the most reprehensible of slippery slopes. No matter how well-intentioned was the idea, no matter the lives that might be saved, no matter how certain we might be about the guilt of the detainee, the very thought that such a thing might be legal would render us no better than the savages we were fighting.

Well, lo and behold, a court-ordered torture is set to begin in Florida on Friday at 1 P.M.

It will not produce a scintilla of socially useful information. It will not save a single innocent life. It is not narrowly targeted on a morally culpable person — the torture-victim is herself as innocent as she is defenseless. It is not, moreover, meant to be brief and non-lethal: The torture will take about two excruciating weeks, and its sole and only purpose is to kill the victim.

And Still More here.... required reading about the actual facts of the case.

The weird thing is that the feminist left ought to be jumping up and down about this -- a woman being put to death because she's no longer sexually useful to her husband?

But the Christian right wants to save her, and ergo, by the brutal mandates of thumb-in-the-eye politics -- the politics of petty payback -- she'll have to be killed.

Posted by: Ace at 07:10 PM | Comments (30)
Post contains 853 words, total size 5 kb.

Via American Digest, Bill Cosby singing -- ahem -- Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band and Satisfaction.

Is it a joke? It's an awful lot like William Shatner's first foray into rock. You think it must be a joke, but you're not quite sure. He really does seem to be trying to emulate a Ray Charles a bit with his "What you say's."

In his defense: it seems to be a recording for charity, on behalf of the Salvation Army.

Hat-tip to AllahPundit, who writes a welcome-home post to a veteran correspondent of his:

I asked him if there was any homecoming party fund I/we could contribute to and he said he'd much prefer donations instead to Fisher House, a charity that provides housing for families of convalescent veterans and scholarships for military children.

You can donate to Fisher House here.

Posted by: Ace at 06:40 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

Office Space acted out by the Superfriends.

There's a little bit after the credits that's worth waiting for.

Posted by: Ace at 04:55 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.