Terri Schiavo - Abuse of Congressional Power?

from Stardock Forums
It was the talk of morning television this past Sunday - the U.S. Congress holding a special session to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, the woman who's been in a vegetative state for 15 years. For those who haven't been following the case, basically her husband wants to take her off her feeding tube/water so that she'll pass away. He says this is what his wife told him she wanted if something like this ever happened to her. Terri's parents don't want this, they want to keep her alive in the far flung hope she'll recover.


The state courts in Florida have sided with the husband on this case, as he's Terri's legal guardian/caregiver, and after many years things have played out in that arena. As a last ditch effort to save their daughter, Terri's parents have been literally begging for politicians to step in on her behalf. Well, the politicians in Washington have now done so, passing a law moving this case to Federal court. Thus far a Federal judge has sided with Terri's husband, so now that decision is under appeal while Terri's time runs down since she's off her feeding tube/water.


I am going to steer clear here of the ethical debate on Terri's fate. It's a hard decision to come to and something I think each person would need to decide for themselves. Since Terri didn't have a Living Will, things obviously have gone downhill in legal terms. So, here's the question - was Congress stepping in an abuse of their power?

1,220 views 5 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
no. There were doing what they are paid to do.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
Seriously, do I have to start going around and hitting people with virtual bats to get a response here? C'mon people! This thread is ripe for discussion, flames, heated debates, something. I know you're out there.

Well, I'll get things going again. IMO, Congress stepped over the line on this one. This was clearly a state matter and the current administration opted to force into the federal system in the hopes of getting a ruling they liked.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
Ummm...I flame you for your silly ideas? Actually I agree, to the best of my understanding these things rarely make an appearance at the federal level. It's also my understanding that her situation is not all that uncommon, it's just that the family is fighting about it internally.

Incidentally, if they are going to kill her or let her die or whatever they are calling it now, it shouldn't be by starvation. I mean come on! What a horrid way to go. Is there really any difference in "allowing" someone to die by denying them food than in just killing someone in a more painless and quick way? To me, that's the really sick part of the whole thing.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Well Jake, that's very insightful, I must say I agree with you 100%. Who'da thunk it?
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
I would agree with the method of letting her pass on. I guess doctors have said it won't be painful for her, but geez. I'd think a morphine overdose would be more pleasant, but it's sort of a double standard here: The state is willing to let her die, but isn't willing to aid in her death except by inaction (not feeding her). Is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture?