unfreaking believable

already some type of wording (can't remember it exactly) in the Constitution itself that laws cannot be passed for individuals?

This was an emergency bill passed to cover ONE individual out of 300,000,000 of us, and leaves the door wide open now for Federal level meetings and decisions for other individual cases over-riding all state and local decisions. What about the thousands of people who die because they can't afford to buy the meds they need or medical insurance in order to keep living?

I am absolutely disgusted with this intervention over what has always been a family and personal issue. If these people didn't want Terri to 'suffer' from dehydration/starvation, why don't they pass a damn law that would allow the hospitals to assist after the courts have decided termination by injection instead?

I'm so mad over this I could spit nails over legislative arrogance at the expense of the rest of the country. One of the first statements made over the 911 investigation was it would take nearly a year to set up the committee........and yet they could all come together in a matter of hours over one person. It makes me sick.......

TONI

one person. They usually involve immigration and allowing one person to stay in the country.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Name one law that was made by the Congress of the United States and signed by the President of the United States that applies to only 1 person. This is the first law in history that was made by the Congress that applies to just 1. Every other law ever made was made for everyone in the country equally. A lot of laws were made because of one person's tragedy, but the law then applys to all people. One of the more publicized ones is the brady bill. What happened to one man while he was trying to protect President Reagon, made the laws on hand guns a little stricter. Lot's of laws start out like that but the rules apply to everyone. You name one law that was made by our Federal Government at it's highest level that applies to 1 person and it will be my bad and I will admit it. Otherwise I'm going to have to beg to differ.

special act - a legislative act that applies only to a particular person or particular district.

http://www.meredithvictory.com/en/US_government_award.html
A special act affecting one ship and one person.

You can get a Medal of Honor with a special act.
http://www.psychcentral.com/wiki/Medal_of_Honor
Most Medals of Honor have been awarded by the chain of command. However, Congress has occasionally bypassed this process, passing special bills that the President subsequently signs into law, mandating an award of the Medal of Honor to a specific soldier or soldiers. This is the origin of the "Congressional Medal of Honor" term. This is a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/moh1.htm
The President, in the name of Congress, has awarded more than 3,400 Medals of Honor to our nation's bravest Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen since the decoration's creation in 1861.

Need I go on?

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

It appears congress does pass bills signed into law by the president to give war heros, awards and metals. My bad!! Do you have any that involve imigration on individuals like you were talking about before?

quote:a special act of Congress is required for such aliens to adjust their immigration status.unquote
You failed to show the part just under this quote, I'm not an expert or even a beginner but it sounds to me that the paragraph on the page you gave me deals with a bunch of people not just 1. I mean, , Afghans, Ethiopians, Poles, and Ugandans were among those who became eligible,
that doesn't sound like just one person. Sounds like a lot of people.
Here's the paragraph directly below your quote, quote:
For example, a law enacted in 1987 contained a special extension of the legalization program established by
the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) to include otherwise eligible aliens who had been granted EVD status during the five-year period following the IRCA legalization cut-off date (i.e., through November 1, 1987). As a result, Afghans, Ethiopians, Poles,
and Ugandans were among those who became eligible to legalize as temporary and
subsequently permanent resident aliens.:unquote

There was also a special law giving immigration rights to that little Cuban boy in Florida whose mother died trying to get the two of them here. The father was still living in Cuba and immediately after the law was granted, the little boy was ordered to be taken from his mother's relatives and given back to the father to live in Cuba.

TONI

they didn't make a special law for him. If I remember correctly. Laws that were already in place here and foreign policy towards Cuba made the boy go back to his father. I do remember that also, Toni, everyone was trying to fight to keep him here with, if I remember correctly his aunt and uncle. But his dad insisted that the boy come back to him. By the time he was taken away he already had an established extended family here and they ripped him away from it. Or so it seemed by watching the news. The father was a high up offical close to Castro I believe. I do remember that Castro did get into the whole process.

that although perhaps you are right and the law itself was never passed which was why the boy was sent back to his father, the fact remains that Congress did the same thing then that it did in the Terri case.......held emergency hearings and passed the bill to stop him from having to leave. So there IS a precedence set for this type of action by our government officials and it still sucks no matter what and should NOT happen for individual cases when they can't take care of every DAY issues on a timely basis and THAT'S their job.

TONI

Those country's citizens can come in without adjustments. A citizen of another country that claims fear of reprisals if deported must have an adjustment of status as an individual by a special act of Congress.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

best exemplified by the repeated playing on TV of the one segment of film from more than 7 hours in the judicial record that makes it appear she responds to stimulus. And what is it with legislatures (state and national) feeling they can micromanage every aspect of personal decisions? Here's a summary of a law from Indiana (it was cited as a "dumb law" in a recent radio station trivia contest, where you had to find the state via web search):
"A person must get a referral from a licensed physician if he or she wishes to see a hypnotist, unless the desired procedure is to quit smoking or lose weight."

Here's another question -- why is it that the same folks supporting the "sanctity of marriage" are in this case ignoring the husband's account of his wife's wishes, and instead taking the word of her parents? Even before we were married , K knew a lot more about me and my thoughts and dreams than my parents ever did (we went together for almost four years before we were married). And long before living wills, we'd both expressed the thought "I wouldn't want to live like that" when situations like this one were discussed. According to polls, btw, that's the national consensus...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

... the man is living with another woman he intends to marry once he has disposed of Terri. He has two children with this woman. He doesn't deserve to be making decisions for his "wife" in which he has a vested interest. That's the reason for living wills, etc., so greedy heirs can't hasten the deaths of their "loved ones" for personal gain.

Do you know why there are no more tapes? Because the court forbids that. Why? Why does Michael Schiavo not at least see to it that, while the courts say she must be fed and hydrated, she also gets her teeth brushed every once in a while or gets physical therapy to prevent muscle contractions? Or gets wheeled outside once in a while. Don't you think Terri would prefer to be allowed to see her brother and parents any time? If she's truly a vegetable, what's Michael afraid of in getting her evaluated by more advanced techniques. Surely the MRI and other tests would bolster his case, no? Why are people barred from trying to give her water? Why no swallow test or even attempt to mouth feed her since he got the $$?

Maybe she's hanging on for her dear life so that Michael is not successful in killing her. This guy is clearly not acting in a manner that he should legally be given sole responsibility for her life. This is a case where a family wants to care for their severely disabled child. Terri's wishes at this point would likely include a divorce at the top of the list!

You may not have been as close to your parents as it seems Terri was. I've talked to many of my loved ones about this. I can't imagine them arguing over this. If she's truly a vegetable, then there is no harm in keeping her alive. If she's not, there are grave implications for us all in killing her.

Evie

who was having all lifesaving measures discontinued today against the fathers wishes as I understood the story. It was on at least two of the Network News shows at 6:30 Tuesday evening. One would have thought that the protesters could have spared a word for her. I'd have liked to see something done about her too.

Rob Boyter

... as I understand, had a terminal defect. IOW absent the extraordinary measures the baby would die shortly, and indeed did within a matter of hours as I understand it. Those that consider a feeding tube extraordinary measures need to re-evaluate because they must be unaware of the thousands of people old and young that rely on just that. Terri is on Day 5 now of dying. The baby in TX didn't die of starvation or dehydration. This is based on the little I know of the situation. The diagnosis and prognosis in that case were also far more clear than here in the Schiavo case. The judge in this case has made fact out of the opinions of some while rejecting the equally educated and informed opinions of others. It's almost like he doesn't want to know all the information because that might result in his rethinking his repeated decisions that he now has a personal investment in defending. Why NOT do a PET scan? Why NOT allow any of the new evidence?

in that case, too.

Also, it reminds me of an earlier discussion re a woman who was 'ventilator dependent'.

quote:Texas law allows hospitals to end life support in cases such as this but requires that families be given 10 days to find another facility to care for the patient. No hospital was found to take the baby. :unquote
Oh wait I think I know. Never mind, I wouldn't want to give that person a record for being Wishy-Washy like his opponent in the last election.

The chief political strategist for Republican Senator Mel Martinez, one of the leaders of the "Save Terry" fiasco: Author of Schiavo Memo Revealed.

And so much for the nonsensical claim it was a Democratic creation...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

You got that right!

Evie

claims to have had access to Terri's medical records in order to write the blog, I didn't see where she claims to also have been one of the nurses actually giving care where she would have been an eye witness to what was being done or not done for her.

I also wonder, that if this nurse were in a position to be able to get into the medical records and if she disputed the treatment or statements being made by Terri's husband and doctors over a 15 year period of time, has she ever shown up in a courtroom herself to dispute it?

I can read the tragic events surrounding the case according to her interpretations and musings, but I don't see where this nurse would have put herself into a position in all those years to testify on Terri's behalf or go up against any of the doctors who HAVE testified differently.

I didn't read the entire blog......got about half way through it.

TONI

Terri's husband definetly has reasons for wanting her dead! Parents I think will go to the end of the earth to help their child remain alive. My biggest problem is letting her starve to death! That is inhumane! I just heard that if a patient is on a feeding tube and their body is dying that the body refuses food from the tube and it backs up! No links on this as one of our local news people said that she has had personal experience with this issue and that Terri is not ready to die or her body would refuse the feedings Unfortunately I can't find anything to back up her statements
However one thing I do believe is that in no way did she ever become NOT human or less than human during her ordeal.

... if her body were dying, her organs would be failing, etc., no matter how much water and nutrition she was provided. I'm hung up on the fact that Michael will not even allow people to try to feed/hydrate her by mouth. If she could swallow and food were withheld that surely would be illegal. So how is not allowing anyone to try? If she wanted to die she would refuse the food and water, no?

Evie

she would refuse the food and water, no?"

Yes....IF SHE COULD MAKE THAT DECISION ON A COHERENT BRAIN LEVEL.

According to interviews done with the doctors and attorneys, Terri can't swallow and hasn't been able to since the first day of the heart attack. If they tried to feed her by mouth, she would choke to death.

The only orders that were given regarding hydration was to spray her mouth/lips.

TONI

... that believe she can. She hasn't been tested in over ten years. She swallows her own saliva Toni.

Evie