I saw this posting at CodeBlueBlog over here. It's written by a doctor who took a look at what is allegedly Terri's CT. It's a worthwhile look.

Let me invoke the ancestral voice of one of the leading shapers of American politcs from our fledgling days.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

As usual, Daniel Wesbter nailed it. I like the idea of keeping Mrs. Schaivo alive though I do not like the idea that the federal government has the power to intervene over the wishes of her husband. The Bush adminstration says this will not be a precedent. Somehow that does not assure me.

The truth is this. Governments do not let go of power. Indeed, governments always grasp for more. Resistance to judicial tyrany has been one of the hallmarks of American conservatism over the last half century. A large part of that hostility has come over the issue of life. Shall American conservatives now bow to our robed masters on the same issue ? The government that can save Mrs. Schavio can also pull the plug on her. Let us say a woman is pregnant. If she has the child, she will lose her life and perhaps that of the child. Does the federal government have the right to step in and force her to have an abortion ? I do not think so. But many are now calling for our robed masters to have exactly that power. Conservatives are embracing leviathin for their own causes.

This should come as no suprise. The Bush administration has grown the federal government at rates not seen since the presidency of Lyndon Johnson.

The government that has the power to offer life also has the power to take it away. If we head down this path, I fear we on the right will concede that right which we have fought against, in terms of life, since Roe.

I am doubtful that the Eleventh Circuit will overturn the district court's ruling. Whatever your take on the merits, her parents' lawyers blew it - the legal focus on the procedure the Florida courts used rather than any separate and independent due process right that Terry Schiavo may possess severely limited both what the district judge could consider in his review and the petitioners' chance of success.

And, for all of this activity contrary to the idea of persistent vegetation, Terri has never--even once--been given a CAT scan.

I am pretty sure this assertion is simply wrong as a factual matter. From the Florida court's first opinion (I apologize that I can't find the hyperlink):Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid.I suppose the question is should it matter? These are the finding of independent medical examiners. Look, I am wary of taking Michael Schiavo's testimony at face value. At the same time, I don't trust Terry's parents either - if there were actual signs that she was not in a persistent vegetative state (and not simply signs her parents and their supporters desperately want to see), I believe the independent medical examiners appointed by the courts would have seen them. Terry's parents obviously love her, and they don't want their child to die; but that does doesn't mean that they can override her wishes. And its her wishes that the courts ultimately decided, not those of Michael Schiavo and not those of her parents. What they wanted was irrelevant (except to the extent it weighed on the credibility of their testimony) - the court applied the procedures established by the Florida legislature to determine what Terry would have wanted had she not been incapable of making that decision. After weighing the evidence (including an assessment of Michael Schiavo's credibility), the court decided that she would have wanted the feeding tube removed. In the end, the courts didn't decide to kill Terry Schiavo - they decided to let her die (as they found she would have wanted) and permit her guardian to have the tube removed. I think we should respect the courts' and Terry's decision.Apologies to Karol for the overly-long comment.

We like long comments here, Alceste, so feel free. :-)

I love James Taranto's point about Terri's marriage, made here. A good read.

Alceste, I have not seen a better breakdown of this issue than your comment. I guess I'll only repeat in my own words because, well, I like the sight of my own writing. This case is not about Michael Sciavo's wanting to kill his wife. It's about Terri wanting to die. A desire that has been proven to judge after judge (and an independent guardian appointned by "Terri's Law"). This is what she wanted and whether her parents accept it or Michael lives with another woman, there is a constitutional right to refuse life saving treatment like a feeding tube. Terri exercised this right. All these shenanigans have done over the years is force feed treatment on a woman who the courts decided would not want it.

An assertion by someone with obvious gain (in many different aspects) to be had by her death is not "proof" in any meaningful way no matter what some asshat judge claims.

I'm sorry, but I won't accept Michael Schiavo's heresay and a judge's agreement with that heresay as "proof."

The judge didn't simply accept the testimony of Michael Schiavo either. He recognized that his testimony was hearsay and required corroboration, which was provided by the credible testimony of Schiavo's sibling and in-law. He then weighed the testimony against that provided by Schiavo's parents (which, of course, was also hearsay). Everyone who testified had some bias - but as far as I have been able to tell from actually reading the opinions - the judge appears to have made very carefully-considered rulings in determining Terry's intent and legally acknowledging the medical diagnosis. Was the judge right? With respect to Terry's intent, I am unsure. No one can be. But the procedures in place were followed and a reasoned decision was made - that's all we can ask the courts to do.

Dawn, you're a lawyer, and you work at a large law firm. Surely you've seen enough to lose faith in the courts by now. I have seen so many courts do such stupid, stubborn things -- ignoring the facts, ignoring the law, deliberately mistaking facts and law to serve their own purposes -- in complex commercial cases and in constitutional cases and in run-of-the-mill child custody cases, that it means nothing to me that a judge decided something again and again and again. I've seen them be wrong again and again and again. They're often so dense it must be deliberate. And while I'd like to say this is especially true of state courts, the truth is that I've seen it just as badly in federal district and appellate courts.

I don't know what Terry would have wanted. I don't know if Michael is lying (though I know I suspect he is). But I do know that the fact that a court has found something, however many times, does not persuade me it is more likely to be so. And I am surprised by all the lawyers who argue otherwise. Surely as lawyers we know that the idea that courts make impartial correct decisions is a fiction necessary to society, but it has little relationship to truth.