Rob,

You are as predictable as a personal injury lawyer. If you brought such a thing outside the court of public opinion, you would be demoted to the level of court reporter (not that there is anything wrong with being a court reporter).

There are MAJOR differences between DeLay’s father and Terri. The first being, DeLay’s father’s organs were failing! He had lost kidney function and had to be on a respirator. Machines were required to perform required bodily functions (he could not survive for an hour without them).

Now Terri on the other hand, is NOT in such a condition. She only requires a feeding tube (and there is some question about whether she can swallow… but the “loving” husband has denied all tests to see if she can eat orally… that would only prove she did not need the tube, thus would not be on ANY life support and he would not be authorized to murder her). The “life support” has been disconnected for going on 13 days and she still lives. DeLay’s father died once the plug was pulled! Of course, no one would expect you to see the difference.

You brought up FL law and the fact a spouse has the right to make such decisions (only if the patient has made wishes known). Adultery in FL is grounds for divorce, and if you consider common law marriage, just by the fact he has 2 children by his fiancee, has should have given up all marital rights long ago (does bigamy mean anything to you, it is illegal in all 50 states… even UT).

This judge has routinely erred on the side of death. He has thrown out testimony that contradicts everything the death crowd has maintained. Judge Greer and ONLY judge Greer has made these decisions (other courts have refused to intervene).

It is sad, the legal system is expected to err on the side of life… even for one convicted of capital murder. Scott Peterson will never see “the chair” and heaven forbid, they take away his food and water for so much as a day. Yet Terri has been convicted and sentenced by one judge and a husband with questionable motives (who has shown no effort to help his “wife” since the day he got his settlement money).

What is even sadder is, if I starve my dog for even a few days, I can be fined and even sent to jail. It is obvious that Michael Schiavo does not even give the person he supposedly loves dog status… and the judge agrees.

Of course, I do forgot this is a Christian right issue. Doesn’t it scare you that those who seem to have this obsession for death seem to me making this a religious issue? They are, in part, justifying this murder by insinuating that because Christians favor life, to be secular we must kill her.

I could go on and on (not that I haven’t already), but I will spare you. Back to the intial point of your story, if you are going to be a good little lawyer, you had better get your facts straight before you start making like for like comparisons of apples and oranges… you will not be a lawyer very long.

I love how the nutjobs, like the poster above, discuss the Schiavo situation using her first name, as if they actually knew her when she was a person. You disn’t know her, you don’t know the family. Stay out of their business!

oops…disn’t = didn’t

Rob- First of all, the person who posted first made some outstanding points. It might do you some good to read and consider them.

Second, for you to open your column by making light of this whole matter is absolutely disgusting. Bob and Mary Schindler are losing their daughter. You may think that’s wonderful and be on the wrong side of this issue. The least you can do is show some decency and sensitivity when arguing that viewpoint.

“Bob and Mary Schindler are losing their daughter.”

Bob and Mary Schindler LOST their daughter 15 years ago. Hello??????

Mark,

Funny, I didn’t notice much decency and sensitivity yesterday when you were trashing the husband.

The whole, obvious fucking point that the first poster runs rings around in order to throw off well-worn Republican talking points about “erring” and “starving dogs” (Google if you don’t believe me) is that the courts have ruled that refusing feeding tubes would be Terry’s own intent. Get it? Umpteen decisions have agreed that, in fact, it does seem that this would have been her intent. Get it?

As to the actual trials, judges have thrown out doctors without qualifications, witnesses without credibility, etc. That is, as the self-righteous first poster probably knows, their job. The chicanery has continued over the last few weeks. Check out the “Nobel-prize nominated” doctor who diagnosed her without doing an examination…who was nominated by a Republican member of Congress. The Right has zero credibility on this issue because they have consistently stretched, strained, and ignored the facts in order to support their position.

I agree that the DeLay comparison is not entirely on point, though both involve the question of refusing treatment/food (both of which a patient has the right to refuse) and an attempt by family members to ascertain whether the individual would have wanted to refuse it.

Finally, no one is actually suggesting that people who don’t favor Congress’s self-serving intervention (read: DeLay, who actually had the gall to compare being attacked for his lack of ethics with the plight of Mrs. Schaivo) or the parents’ actions are doing so because they simply hate Christians like they hate Bush…except you. There’s nothing worse than a matryr complex, my friend. Get over it.

Oh, and here’s one more ghoulish note—the parents are selling the lists of their financial supporters to the highest bidder.

If you wonder who buys these lists, and what they send to them, here’s one example.

Eugene Delgaudio
Public Advocate of the U.S. 5613 Leesburg Pike, Suite 17 Falls Church, VA 22041 www.PublicAdvocateUSA.org (703) 845-1808

April 11, 2005

Dear fellow conservative,

Tonight, after a long day of fighting the Radical Homosexuals, I just feel exhausted.

Beaten down, wrung out, and worn to the bone.

This has been a most difficult year.

The radical Homosexual Lobby is more intimidating than ever.

Now, they dare me to stand in their way … they laugh, and brag that they have the votes to kill the Federal Marriage Amendment and will legalize homosexual “marriage” state by state.

And they boast about ramming the Gay Bill of Special Rights and Thought Control Bill through Congress even with Republicans in charge …”

Sorry, that was a joke. The list-selling, however, is quite real.

Baumgardner you have the IQ of a snail and the haircut of a Bolobus monkey. Stick to your own column. You arguing for sensitivity is like Jacko arguing for the return of Romper Room. It sounds okay until you consider the sick purposes you might use it for.

Deters: Good column as usual, but these Limbaugh wanna-bes will never listen to logic and reason.

As to the first poster:

“There are MAJOR differences between DeLay’s father and Terri. The first being, DeLay’s father’s organs were failing! He had lost kidney function and had to be on a respirator. Machines were required to perform required bodily functions (he could not survive for an hour without them).

Now Terri on the other hand, is NOT in such a condition. She only requires a feeding tube (and there is some question about whether she can swallow… but the “loving” husband has denied all tests to see if she can eat orally… that would only prove she did not need the tube, thus would not be on ANY life support and he would not be authorized to murder her). The “life support” has been disconnected for going on 13 days and she still lives. DeLay’s father died once the plug was pulled! Of course, no one would expect you to see the difference”

So what yuou are saying is that your “murder” is okay as long as its quick? So Terry should be euthanized then? Is that your position? A dog isn’t straved when it is unhealthy becasue we euthanize them so since you are comparing Terry to a dog I take it that you either think we should all hae our dogs on respirators or we should be able to put Terry down?

“You brought up FL law and the fact a spouse has the right to make such decisions (only if the patient has made wishes known). Adultery in FL is grounds for divorce, and if you consider common law marriage, just by the fact he has 2 children by his fiancee, has should have given up all marital rights long ago (does bigamy mean anything to you, it is illegal in all 50 states… even UT).” This doesn’t deal with the issue at hand. Michael Schiavo made sure Terri was getting the best healthcare possible for 15 years. now he wants here to die in peace. It would be EASIER for him to divorce her and wash her hands of it. There is no monetary gain in this for him. He is doing it becasue he feels it is his last obligation to his marriage to allow her to die in accordance with her wishes.

This judge has routinely erred on the side of death. He has thrown out testimony that contradicts everything the death crowd has maintained. Judge Greer and ONLY judge Greer has made these decisions (other courts have refused to intervene).

“It is sad, the legal system is expected to err on the side of life… even for one convicted of capital murder. Scott Peterson will never see “the chair” and heaven forbid, they take away his food and water for so much as a day. Yet Terri has been convicted and sentenced by one judge and a husband with questionable motives (who has shown no effort to help his “wife” since the day he got his settlement money). “

This last part is blatantly wrong. This court case has been ongoing for 7 years and EVERY SINGLE TRIAL has found that she is in a PVS. Every single one. There is not one credible doctor who beleives that Terri has any hope of living.

“Of course, I do forgot this is a Christian right issue. Doesn’t it scare you that those who seem to have this obsession for death seem to me making this a religious issue? They are, in part, justifying this murder by insinuating that because Christians favor life, to be secular we must kill her.”

No, what scares me and an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the country is Congress making personal decisions for my faimily about matter of which they have no knowledge. This issue is not about life/death it is about some Republicans pandering to a reactionary minority of fundies who think that we shouldn’t “kill” Terri but slaughtering 100k civilians half of which were children in Iraq is fine. In other words they are pandering to the same bigots who supported slavery 50 years ago and are anti-choice now.

Rob Deters here…

Does anybody notice that I do NOT compare Tom DeLay’s decision to end his own father’s life with the situation here? I did not make that comparison, because I agree that it is not entirely on point. That is what makes the first poster miss the mark so wide. And yes, Poster 1 here is clearly drinking the Kool-Aid since I see about six Republican Talking Points in that nice little screed.

If I’m not a good lawyer by making a false analogy, then the first Poster is not a Good Reader for finding something there I didn’t write.

NOW. If you want hypocrisy on Tom DeLay’s part that I did not have a chance to get to…and trust me, this post could be longer than the article, let’s get it on.

After Tom DeLay’s father was removed from life support the family did what millions of Americans do every year, and have the constitutional right to do, which is sue the manufacturer of the tram that killed his father.

See, the DeLay’s had a house on a lake with a steep hillside. Dad DeLay built a tram that would ferry family members from the house down the hill to the lakeshore. On the first such trip it made (with other family members in it), it lost control, and crashed. Dad DeLay hit a tree, injured his brain seriously, and passed away shortly thereafter.

The DeLay family sued the company that made the faulty parts for the tram. This action is EXACTLY what DeLay wants to ban other American’s from taking advantage of because it “hurts business.” It is exactly what parasitical lawyers like myself want to do every day, which is nail hard working American businesses who make shoddy products. How dare we!

DeLay is a hypocrite of the highest order. Known for carousing and drinking and carrying on (his previous nickname was Hot Tub Tom, not The Hammer) he is now a paragon of family values. Previously his family capitalized (it seems rightly so) on the ability to sue a manufacturer for making a faulty product, now that is a privelege to be denied to other wronged Americans. Tom DeLay said he would be the outsider’s outsider in Washington, and is now embroiled in an enormous lobbying scheme.

DeLay is a hypocrite of the highest order, that is the point of this article. He is a political opportunist with no regard for others. That is the point of this article.

Rob Deters here…

You are correct, I am as predictable as a personal injury lawyer. To get my opinion on an issue, just visit various socialist websites.

And Remember- Due Process is for convicts, not Terri Schiavo. She can be executed based on what her remarried husband says.

Someone said “the courts have not found one credible this or that”… WRONG, one MAN has found over and over that the pro-Terri testimony was not credible. The other courts made the decision not to hear the evidence. Huge difference my friends.

Get your facts straight Rob, the reform sought by many on the right is to limit damages, NOT BANNING the ability to do so.

Obviously that is not me above….and yes, I get my opinions from such socialist rags as the Los Angeles Times.

The LA times is very biased to the left, although not officially socialist.

I can’t wait til she makes a South Park appearance.

I give it 2 weeks tops before its a southpark episode

Hey look everybody! Just like the rest of digiterati, Terri’s got a blog!

http://durrrrr.blogspot.com/

Hi-Larious!

I wonder how many protesters/congressmen/cameras were at the bedside of Tom DeLay’s father when he died.

By the way, that is Mr. Poster #1 to you (since you do not know me… see post #2).

Let us look a moment at the "what ifs" and then review the facts. What if Miss Schindler (maybe I should say Mrs. Schiavo because there is no proof that she would not want to be married to a bigamist) could be spoon fed and eat, but she was still in the overall mental state, would it be ok to stop spoon feeding her and let her starve? Legally, the answer is no, that would constitute neglect (if not murder). Now what if she did not have to be spoon fed and was able to feed herself, but was still in the mental state she is in now? Could anyone order her food source to stop providing nourishment (? Once again, the answer is no, that would once again constitute, at a minimum, neglect. Now for a fact, since Mr. Schiavo decided (7 years after the fact) that his "wife" wanted to die, he has prohibited any attempt to feed her without use of the tube. There are witnesses (that the judge chose to dismiss) that have testified she can and, in fact, has eaten orally. What harm would there be in attempting to see if she can indeed eat? Answer, there is no harm! The ONLY reason not to allow non-tube feeding is because if successful, she would no longer be on "life support" as defined by FL law and Mr. Schiavo, as a loving, caring, bigamist, would not have the right to kill her. One would think, as a judge, such testimony (that she can eat on her own) would warrant proof (one way or the other). In all instances, judge Greer sided with the "husband" that denying oral feeding was the right thing to do. I would have a little respect for the man had he at least tried to find out whether it was possible for her to eat on her own (without the tube inserted).

Another what if, assume, when told she could end all the questions by saying she wanted to live, she said (yelled) "Aaaaah waaaa" (as reported on 3/18 but not brought to the attention of the judge until much later, the Schindler attorney dropped the ball) in a very loud and emotional way. Would it not have made it easier to prove such a thing had there just been a camera or audio equipment in the room? That way there would have been more than eyewitness testimony stating such, but there would have been proof. If indeed it did happen (which we may never know), would anyone change their mind? Of course they would. Why then has Mr. Schiave banned ALL recording devices from the room? A rational person could possibly conclude that he did so because he did not want such things recorded as proof he was wrong. Once again, in all instances, the judge sided against proof for life and against hearsay for death.

Rob (Mr. Dieters), the one thing that I have concluded in reading all your editorials is that if you had your way, the best way for President Bush to get things accomplished would be to promote everything he was against because no matter what he does, you will not agree with it.

Regarding the DeLay hypocrisy that you corrected me on, the point you brought up had nothing to do with the Schindler case. To top that, your point is as valid as a 3 dollar bill (trying to create my own Ratherism). DeLay and company are NOT trying to ban lawsuits, they are attempting to limit punitive (not real) damages in lawsuits. As a future personal injury lawyer, I expect you are against tort reform because it could significantly reduce the burden you put on consumers and patients.

Is there anything I missed that you would like to dismiss as "Republican talking points" that are not true? Then again, is there anything I said that was not true (even though they may have been pointed out at one time by someone who happens to be conservative)?

Mr. Poster 1

Oh excuse me, I meant Mr. Deters

Senor Poster No. #1

Since you won’t provide you’re actual name, I feel no compunction to call you by anything other than what I want…I put my name on my posts and my articles, you hide behind anonymity.

Hmmm. Let’s see. Are you a competent witness to these proceedings? Have you witnessed Terri Schiavo speak, have you tried to feed her? Have you done anything in this case except presuppose your own knowledge of certain facts brought up by discredited witnesses and acknowledged hacks?

No.

Does your OPINION as to whether she wants to live or die have any bearing on this other than what you want to see happen? No. I don’t weigh in on what Mr. Schiavo wants to do here…I weigh in on what he has the right to do. Which is carry out his wife’s wishes, which contrary to every single human being on earth, he knows better than anyone else.

Honestly, Herr Poster Numero Eins…you do not matter. What you WANT to happen is not relevant. What Rev. Jesse Jackson wants to happen, does not matter.

What matters is that we respect the courts, respect the law, and respect the wishes of the husband of Mrs. Schiavo.

Of course, your lack of respect (or deep thinking on this topic) and your ridiculous hypotheticals (let’s say Terri can swallow, but she can’t chew, is she alive, in a P.V.S. or what?) simply show someone wanting to play rhetorical games, not argue the points.

Your intensity does not make up for your lack of intellectual rigor, or principled honesty. You cannot argue for saving her life without arguing that the court system in our country is wrong, that our government and it’s checks and balances is fine until you don’t get your way, and that deep down inside, like all the people aruging on behalf of Terri, you’re simply afraid to die.

Besides, have you not figured this out yet? This article is about Tom DeLay! Not Terri Schiavo!

As for limiting punitive damages, it’s a bad idea. Besides, the proof is in the pudding in medical malpractice. Punitive damages do not raise health care costs, the H.M.O’s do.

As for building a shoddy product, if you kill someone through neglect, do you have a price on it? Since you seem to value Terri Schiavo’s life so much, how much would you allow her family to sue for if she had been brained by a falling object let loose by a shoddy construction crane? Just enough to cover the costs of her medical bills?

Here’s a quick gut check. If willful and wanton neglect caused the suffering of thousands, how much of a price would you willing to extract from those responsible? Or does your hypocrisy extend so far that you would kill those responsible, but save Terri at no matter what a cost?

MC Poster The First, you do not convince me nor anyone else here…but keep trying! I like the debate!

Also, use your name if you have the guts.

Oh, that was me, Rob Deters above.

Right on Deiters! Here’s some more information to those worried about damages in this thread.

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: MYTH VS. REALITY

MYTH: The courts are “clogged” with “frivolous” medical malpractice lawsuits.

FACT: Medical malpractice litigation in this country is far from frivolous. In a major study released in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine found that up to 98,000 people are killed each year by medical errors in hospitals — far more than die from car accidents, breast cancer or AIDS. Kohn, Corrigan, Donaldson, Eds., To Err is Human; Building a Safer Health System, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1999 (These figures vastly underestimate the magnitude of the problem since hospital patients represent only a small percentage of the total population at risk). Yet eight times as many patients are injured by medical malpractice as ever file a claim; 16 times as many suffer injuries as receive any compensation. Harvard Medical Practice Study, Patients, Doctors and Lawyers: Medical Injury, Malpractice Litigation, and Patient Compensation in New York, 1990.

FACT: Numerous hospital and medical procedures have been made safer as a result of lawsuits. These include: anesthesia procedures, catheter placements, drug prescriptions, hospital staffing levels, infection control, nursing home care and trauma care.

MYTH: Jurors - who are trusted to make life and death decisions every day - are so arbitrary in medical malpractice cases that their power and authority must be taken away by cash-greased politicians.

FACT: Despite the hype, juries are extremely conservative while insurance companies are making huge profits. The average claims payout by medical malpractice insurance companies is about $30,000 per year and has been virtually unchanged for the last decade, according to a 2001 study by the Consumer Federation of America of actual claims paid. In fact, total insurance payouts to all claimants have hovered between $2.5 billion and $4 billion per year. Memo from Joanne Doroshow to Interested Persons with attached spreadsheet prepared by J. Robert Hunter, Director of Insurance, Consumer Federation of America, November 14, 2001. By comparison, Americans spend twice that much — about $8 billion — on dog food each year. As a result, medical malpractice insurance companies are raking it in, with profits 65 percent higher than the rest of the property/casualty insurance industry over the last decade. "'Malpractice Suits Not Driving Medical Costs Up,' Says Group," Times Picayune, May 5, 1999.

FACT: In most cases, juries award nothing at all to medical malpractice patients. Injured victims win before juries in only 23 percent of cases. In 1992, the rate of medical malpractice plaintiff victories in front of juries was 7.5 percent higher at 30.5 percent. Examining the Work of State Courts, 2001; A National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project (2001), p. 94; “Tort Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 1996,” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ-179769 (August 2000), p. 9.

FACT: Punitive damages are awarded only for the most egregious wrongdoing; “capping” damages hurts exclusively the most seriously injured patients. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 1.1 percent of medical malpractice plaintiffs who prevailed at trial were awarded punitive damages in 1996. Of these, 1.2 percent of plaintiff winners were awarded punitive damages by juries. No plaintiffs were awarded punitive damages by judges in 1996. “Tort Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 1996,” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 179769 (August 2000), p. 7.

FACT: “A doctor-led research group examined 8231 closed malpractice cases in New Jersey and found that the verdicts rendered by juries in the few cases that went to trial correlated with the judgment of the insurers’ reviewing physicians.” Marc Galanter, “Real World Torts: An Antidote to Anecdote,” 55 Md L.Rev. 1093, 1111 (1996), citing Mark I. Taragin et al., “The Influence of Standard of Care and Severity of Injury on the Resolution of Medical Malpractice Claims,” 117 Annals Internal Med. 780, 782, 780 (1992).

FACT: In Maryland, which also has a law that caps damages, a jury rendered a $5.4 million verdict in a case in which a young man lost a leg due to malpractice at Maryland hospital. When one juror, who spoke to the New York Times, learned during an interview that a judge had reduced the award to $515,000, he said, “‘It’s like a slap in the face. We get your opinion and then we just go decide it our way.’” William Glaberson, “Juries, Their Powers Under Siege, Find Their Role Is Being Eroded,” New York Times, March 2, 2001.

MYTH: Medical malpractice lawsuits drive up health care costs and insurance premiums.

FACT: Medical malpractice costs make up only a tiny fraction of total health care costs. According to a study by the Consumer Federation of America, medical malpractice costs, as a percentage of health care costs, are at an all time low, 0.55 percent. Report author J. Robert Hunter, former Texas Insurance Commissioner and Federal Insurance Administrator, said, "Medical malpractice insurance is amazing value, considering that it covers all medical injuries for about one-half of one percent of health system costs!" Memo from Joanne Doroshow to Interested Persons with attached spreadsheet prepared by J. Robert Hunter, Director of Insurance, Consumer Federation of America, November 14, 2001.

FACT: Far more costly than malpractice lawsuits are the costs of medical errors. Total national costs (lost income, lost household production, disability and health care costs) of negligence in hospitals are already estimated to be between $17 billion and $29 billion each year, of which health care costs represent over one-half. Moreover, these figures vastly underestimate the magnitude of the problem since hospital patients represent only a small percentage of the total population at risk, and direct hospital costs are only a fraction of the total costs. Kohn, Corrigan, Donaldson, Eds., To Err is Human; Building a Safer Health System, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1999.

FACT: Limiting a patient’s right to sue will do nothing to control insurance rates. A 1999 Center for Justice & Democracy study, Premium Deceit; The Failure of “Tort Reform” to Cut Insurance Prices, co-written by J. Robert Hunter, was the first-ever exhaustive look at the impact of tort restrictions on state-by-state insurance costs over the last 14 years. According to Hunter, “Despite years of claims by insurance companies that rates would go down following enactment of tort reform, we found that tort law limits enacted since the mid-1980s have not lowered insurance rates in the ensuing years. States with little or no tort law restrictions have experienced approximately the same changes in insurance rates as those states that have enacted severe restrictions on victims’ rights.” Following the release of Premium Deceit, spokespeople for the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) agreed. Both ATRA’s president and general counsel said in published statements that lawmakers who enact restrictions on consumers’ legal rights should not expect insurance rates to drop.

And in a startling March 13, 2002 admission, the American Insurance Association (AIA), a major industry trade group, said lawmakers who enact "tort reform" should not expect insurance rates to drop. Specifically, an AIA press release, evidently issued to critique Premium Deceit, led with an astounding face-saving pronouncement: "[T]he insurance industry never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings." If legislators really want to control insurance costs, they would be best served by taking a closer look at the insurance industry's waste, inefficiency and mismanagement.

MYTH: Medical malpractice lawsuits are causing doctors to move to states where they are less likely to be sued.

FACT: There is no correlation between where physicians decide to practice and state liability laws. In West Virginia, the state medical association has said that “meritless” malpractice claims are driving up insurance rates and causing a mass exodus of doctors from the state. However, Charleston Gazette reporters Lawrence Messina and Martha Leonard uncovered data proving just the opposite. In a landmark series, “The Price of Practice,” Messina and Leonard found that the number of doctors in West Virginia has increased yearly, with the state seeing a 14.3 percent increase in its number of doctors between 1990 and 2000. This increase is at a rate about 20 times greater than the population. Martha Leonard, “State has seen sharp increase in number of doctors,” Sunday Gazette Mail, February 25, 2001.

Similar findings have recently been made of Pennsylvania doctors. According to a recent census conducted by the Pennsylvania CAT fund, the state agency that provided backup malpractice coverage for doctors and hospitals, the number of Pennsylvania doctors increased by 13.5 percent between 1990 and 2000, a period the population grew just 3.4 percent. Then-head of the CAT fund, John H. Reed, reported not only that there was no evidence of "any major departure of physicians from the state" but also that Pennsylvania had "more doctors [in 2001] than we did five years ago or ten years ago." Ann Wlazelek, "Doctors' ad campaign baseless; They're not fleeing Pa., but malpractice straits create 'hostile' climate," Morning Call, March 24, 2002; Josh Goldstein, "Recent census of doctors shows no flight from Pa," Philadelphia Inquirer, October 2, 2001. Moreover, Morning Call reporter Ann Wlazelek found that in the year 2000 "Pennsylvania ranked ninth-highest nationally for physician concentration, a top-10 position it has held since 1992. There were 318 doctors for every 100,000 residents in 2000, according to the American Medical Association." Ann Wlazelek, "Doctors' ad campaign baseless; They're not fleeing Pa., but malpractice straits create 'hostile' climate," Morning Call, March 24, 2002.

In New York, where OB/GYN's say they are threatening to leave the states, the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) released figures showing that New York State is third in the nation in its number of obstetricians and gynecologists per capita, well ahead of California (ranked 27th). When compared to the region, only Connecticut (ranked 2nd) is ahead of New York State in the number of ob gyns per capita. Moreover, the number of physicians practicing in New York State has skyrocketed and is increasing at a rate faster than the national average. The number of physicians in New York State has risen dramatically over the past twenty years. New York had 280 doctors per 100,000 people in 1980; it had 414 physicians per 100,000 population in 1998. The nation's ratio of physicians per capita rose by 43.6% compared with the 47.9% increase in New York during that same period. New York State is now ranked second to Massachusetts in the number of doctors per capita.

Other analyses have come to similar conclusions. One recent study found that, "despite anecdotal reports that favorable state tort environments with strict…tort and insurance reforms attract and retain physicians, no evidence suggests that states with strong…reforms have done so." Eleanor D. Kinney, "Malpractice Reform in the 1990s: Past Disappointment, Future Success?" 20 J. Health Pol. Pol'y & L. 99, 120 (1995), cited in Marc Galanter, "Real World Torts," 55 Md. L. Rev. 1093, 1152 (1996). A 1995 study of the impact of Indiana's medical malpractice "tort reforms," which were enacted with the promise that the number of physicians would increase, found that "data indicate that Indiana's population continues to have considerably lower per capita access to physicians than the national average." Eleanor D. Kinney and William P. Gronfein, "Indiana's Malpractice System: No-Fault by Accident," 54 Law & Contemp. Probs. 169, 188 (1991), cited in Marc Galanter, "Real World Torts," 55 Md. L. Rev. 1093, 1152-1153 (1996).

Does anyone see any similarity to what the law and courts, being they’re so (fucking) sacred, of Germany in the 1930’s?

Dave Pearson here, alum, working taxpayer in an honorable profession. You may call me Mr. Poster #1 with “guts”. (BTW Rob, the Mr thing was not meant for you, it was meant for Poster 2 who slammed no content, but tried to discredit based on how I referred to the victim “like I know her”).

Anyhow, you missed the point and continue to discuss “discredited witnesses”. It was the judge, who has a predisposition to her death, who made the decision whether they were credible. The matter was hearsay and opinion discrediting hearsay and opinion. The remedy would have been simple, allow the swallow tests to be conducted (they had 7 years to do so while this matter was in court), there would have been no harm in doing so and there would have been PROOF that she would have to be on the tube all her life. Instead, the husband said no tests, I do not want her to be independent of the tube (which would mean FL law would prohibit her death by starvation). If anyone was discredited by this it was the judge, he could have gotten proof, but chose hearsay instead.

Along those lines, if you had a close relative, who could swallow, but had brain damage and some doctors said he/she would never lead a “good life” or they were in a vegitative state. If you were the caregiver, would you willingly stop spoon feeding your relative and watch them slowly die?

The second is responsiveness, all it would have taken was a video of her reactions, such has been denied since 2002. A video would have proven the 3/18 claims and there would be no question as to whether she really did respond to the question. Instead, a judge, with a predisposition for Ms. Schlinder’s death allowed the husband to ban any implement of proof.

It was obvious from the beginning that the judge was not interested in any proof. The case was and is strickly hearsay and opinion which is horrifying when the ability to substantiate or shoot down the claims made by the Schindlers and others was readily available.

All appearances are, the judge made the decision and wanted no part of seeing proof that has decision to condemn a woman to death was wrong.

The whole idea of hearsay to determine life or death wishes gives me an idea. Perhaps the ultimate defense in spousal murder case would be, “After we were married she told me she would rather die than visit with my parents. They called the other night and said they were coming to visit so I had no choice but to shoot her when she wouldn’t leave the house. I have witnesses.” (disclaimer, the preceeding statement is not intended to justify any action, and should not be taken as such.)

Just in case I missed something, I read your piece and nowhere in it do you mention his stance on tort reform, you only address his involvement with the Schindlers and his hypocrisy (later pointing out tort reform). There is no link!

If I read some of the comments correctly, am I to understand there are 3 branches of government, executive, legislative and juducial. The first two pass and enforce the law, while the judicial has final say and the other 2 have no right to question? Perhaps you should read the Constitution, the three branches share the power equally and serve as checks and balances to ensure the others do not overstep their bounds.

Dave Pearson, alum. You’re sitting there working in an “honorable profession” but yet you spent how many hours today posting messages on a college newspaper’s website? Why? All that passion and spitfire got you where exactly? Ooooo big bad alum stood up to a college newspaper columnist! Bet you are proud. You’re probably one of those guys who sits there bitching about college students and how we binge drink and don’t show up for games on time, etc. etc. So why bother? Go discuss your tired, talking points with your good friend Terri.

March 21, on the floor of the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay asserted that, “Terri Schiavo is as alive as you or I…” Speaking strictly for himself, he is correct. DeLay has obviously been in a persistent vegitative state for some time. No doubt a consequence of all those pesticides he inhaled during his earlier career as an exterminator in Texas.

And now it turns out he’s a brain-dead hypocrite as well, having authorized hospital staff to turn off his Daddy’s lights when the right moment arrived.

LET THE POOR WOMAN DIE, already.

I stood up to no one, I expressed an opinion. What ever happened to freedom of expression? An alum is not allowed to question the notions of the misguided at a college newpaper? What I did to warrant such a response, I have no idea, but if it makes you happy, so be it. BTW, how do you know I don’t work nights?

If they are tired talking points, refute them if you can.

Speaking of law (and how those for the Death of Terri hail the courts as all powerful and knowing). Remember, the judge disregarded the law by naming a bigamist as legal guardian (FL law clearly states one cannot have 2 wives). All he had to do to shut many of the likes of us up would have been to tell Mr. Schiavo he was not the guardian, however, he believed he was honest in relaying her desire not to live that way. At that time, he could have turned her over to her parents, and told them the tube was coming out in 6 months whether she would eat orally or not, OR if they could prove she was responsive to therapy and wanted to live. Such a ruling would have left no doubt (or less doubt) on the situation and this would NOT be a news story today.

But then again, it doesn’t matter because most seem more intent on flames than discussion (Mr. Deters, I disagree with the majority (well all) of the columns you write, but I do have to hand it to you, you have the ability to stir emotions… sort of reminds me of Rush).

How are liberals even going to reach their Utopia with “people” who care about each others’ lives on this planet?

How are conservatives ever going to reach their Utopia while there are people still alive on this planet?

Whatever happened to the conservatives who wanted less government interference? Now so called “conservatives” are for empire, interfering in woman’s personal lives and a family’s decisions on what to do with a loved one who is brain dead.

Shouldn’t the public be focussing on the mess in Iraq that is only a prelude to the upcoming war in Iran and Syria? On how we are building permanent bases there? On how our whole economy is a house on stilts becasue of the massive amount of devt?

Well, Mr. Pearson, nice to meet you.

I’ll answer some of your questions. First off, if I had a sick brain dead family member who needed to be spoon fed for the rest of their life AND they had said they did not want to live like that…it’s done. I would let them die. I would be sad, I would be outraged at God’s cruelty, and I would let them go.

If they told me that they wanted to live no matter what, well, I would think that’s sort of wierd, but I would do my best to carry out their wishes.

If they didn’t tell me what they wanted, well, to be honest, I would let them pass away. See, I believe that human life is based on experience, not on existence. To simply “exist” is not enough, you must have experiences. Therefore, brain dead is dead.

What you fail to understand is that the judiciary does not have to consider what Congress and the President want done if it’s not their duty, job, or in their capacity to do it. Honestly, it is simply too much of an imposition for Congress to step in (or the President) and save her life. it was the bounds of their power they were overstepping in the first place that made the judge disregard their silly law.

The only justification for it would be to save everyone’s life in a similar situation. Which is simply not going to happen.

The Tom DeLay tort reform was in my comment where I expanded my article, not the original article.

And we return to your (and everyone else’s who can’t let this poor woman go) OPINION that the judge is not rational, wants her to die, etc. etc. Judges make judgment calls. Every day. About this sort of thing all the time. You might disagree that you would do it differnt. But you can’t do anything about it, except look to a different judge. And the fact that every other judge that has ever looked at this case says the same thing…tells me you are in the distinct minority of people who feel that way.

Lastly, Mr. Schiavo is not a bigamist. He has not divorced Terri Schiavo and has not married the woman he lives with. Just because he’s acting like one, doesn’t make him one. I’m sure you’d keep your genitals cloistered for years while you kept your wife alive, therefore keeping you from earthly pleasures, because hey, that man in the sky told you not cheat! But Michael Schiavo is not a bigamist, not by any definition of the law, except that espoused by Sean Hannity…legal scholar!

Mr. Perason, er, Dave, I enjoy debating with a taxpayer with a legitimate job. I too am one of those, and I’m glad that similar people can see eye to eye!