Differences, yes, but hypocrisy nevertheless, because DeLay projects moral superiority and a total lack of humility regarding the Schiavo matter. He attacks those who disagree with him with a hateful, snobbish, crusading vengeance. My former Congressman is an ass.

Can some moonbat leftist please give me your definition of "hypocrisy?"

The L.A. Times will, however, have an excellent hypocrisy angle the next time any Schiavo-bill Republican pretends to support states' rights.

I can respect either side of the issue of whether or not to let Terri die. But that bit of special legislation was an abomination.

Anyone who has spend any time reviewing the facts of the Schiavo should realize there is no comparison to Rep. Delay's father. To use this case in attacking Rep. DeLay truly shows a total lack of humanity regarding his fathers situation; done with hateful, snobbish, crusading vengance. These people are a**es.

Tom Delay describes the situation with regard to Terri Schiavo as not merely wrong or immoral but as murder on one occasion and "medical terrorism" and "barbarism" on another.

I would be curious for insight into how Terri Schiavo's situation constitutes a case of "barbarism" and "medical terrorism" whereas even questioning the decision made in the case of Tom Delay's father is indicative of a "total lack of humanity."

My only question on the Delay article is this; given that the man had no living will written down to specifically express his wishes, why did the Delay family not choose to "Err on the side of life" as we're told we should always do these days?

Of more interest and import is the continual increase of advocacy in non-objective journalism. The Times, whether of LA or NYC have reached the point where they ought not be read by serious people.

Pretty soon, Times of all regions will be written by man-whore reporters.

Still, why is Schiavo "medical terrorism" while inquiry into DeLay indicates a "total lack of humanity"?

If "he was in a state of steady deterioration and at death's imminent doorstep within days of his accident" then why the need to disconnect him at all?

Any decision to take a loved one off of life support is going to be a wrenching decision. On the other hand, if nature is willing to make the decision for you, in no more than a matter of days, then why not let nature do so?

greg

Delay's private experiences with this sort of thing are completely fair game for the simple reason that he's made the Shiavo/Schindler private family experience the subject of public legislation. He's seen fit to create a public law to attempt to prevent Michael Schiavo from doing something comparable (not identical by any means, but comparable) to what Delay did with his family in private.

I don't think this means Delay was wrong in doing anything he did, with his father or with Terri's law. I'm pretty sure the decision to cut off life support was a very difficult one, one he's probably thought about a lot since. Thus, seeing a somewhat similar, but more questionable decision by Michael Schiavo might have had special emotional resonance with Delay for the very reason that he went through the same thing.

But I think at the very least, if he's going to point such scrutiny at the private lives of others, he has no complaint if such scrutiny is directed back at him.

While I agree that the LA Times piece was shady, and the comparisons between the condition of Terri and the condition of Delay's loved one are different, let's apply this reasoning consistently. Let's also look at the dozen examples of such false comparisons with other people made by the other side during this entire circus. The conservative shows have trotted out numerous people who "miraculously" regained consciousness from comas, or recovered from lesser problems, as evidence that Terri might do the same - and all without pointing out the major differences between her condition and theirs. None of them were in PVS, and none of them had a large portion of their brain necrotized. Then you have Dr. Hammesfahr claiming that he has helped patients "far worse than Terri", but without being able to point to a single case study or any test results to support that claim, and it turns out that his work was with rehabilitating stroke patients, which is something other doctors do every day. So let's criticize the use of bad analogies on both sides.

Joshua, basically, you've got two arguments going here: the first being that one situation is in legal dispute by the parties, the other not, and the second that the "biological circumstances were vastly different". My challenge to you is that if one grants that differences in the medical circumstances has any real significance to the outcome you desire in this discussion (Proposition: Michael Schiavo's actions are not justified in his case, Rep. DeLay's were justified in his own), then the issue of there being a legal dispute or not is not germane. Arguing that the fact of a legal dispute can be used to "augment" the strength of medical differences as an argument is immoral, or at least, it seems to me. Am I the only one who sees it that way?

Because I am not trying to make the case that your two arguments are mutually exclusive, I cannot say that the converse would also be true: if one grants that the differences in legal circumstances has real significance to your desired outcome, then the issue of whether there are medical differences is not germane. Still, given the State of Florida's legal definition of "feeding tubes" and "artifical ventilation" as equivalent examples of "life support," it could give one pause.

I think you, and by extension, some others making this dual argument, are trying to win this debate by overmaking your case, even if by using approaches that don't exactly mesh, morally. That in and of itself would be a hypocritical approach if it were intentional. I don't impute that to you--but it cannot be a honest approach to turn on and off these arguments for advantage.

And yes, I understand that your thrust is about the LA Times, but I think it is accurate to say that your attack on that paper is based on the arguments I outline above. At its root level, a "culture of life" approach cannot be ethically shaded with fine points without losing its significance, and therefore its power, can it?

As far as dragging Tom Delay's private life into the public sphere, I'd be inclined to agree that was fair game in and of itself (although the comparison is still ridiculous), except that the Schiavo case was already very public long before DeLay got involved.

On the other hand, if nature is willing to make the decision for you, in no more than a matter of days, then why not let nature do so?

Actually, Greg, the vast majority of people would agree that when medical treatment can only prolong death, the moral thing to do is discontinue the treatment.

given that the man had no living will written down to specifically express his wishes, why did the Delay family not choose to "Err on the side of life" as we're told we should always do these days?

First, Balta, I find your sarcasm completely tasteless. Second, you're vastly distorting the pro-life argument if you're reducing it to "there's no living will." If Terri Schiavo's family had agreed that she wouldn't want to be kept alive by feeding tube, none of us would ever have heard of this case, in spite of the lack of a living will. Decisions like that are made every day, in fact.

The article isn't balanced and isn't entirely fair to Tom DeLay. However, sometimes in life we reap what we sow. It doesn't mean we deserve what we reap, only that we've had a hand in the planting and shouldn't be surprised if something other than a sweet crop appears.

I'm not convinced this issue wasn't going to come up in the next few years in some other venue, as the Pope and others have described it as evil to withdraw feeding tubes even if there is a living will to that effect. The fact is that certain elements of the right-to-life movement are very militant.

Do as I say.
Not as I do.

"the vast majority of people would agree that when medical treatment can only prolong death, the moral thing to do is discontinue the treatment"

Yes, just like there is a vast majority of people who oppose what Congress did. But obviously there is a loud minority of fundamentalists whose creed is to hang on more-or-less at all costs (and part of this creed calls for imposing the same creed on everyone else; actually, DeLay's example seems to indicate that the creed calls mostly for imposing the belief on others, but granting an exemption for oneself). We have just witnessed the spectacle of that minority leading Congress around by the nose.

"If Terri Schiavo's family had agreed that she wouldn't want to be kept alive by feeding tube, none of us would ever have heard of this case, in spite of the lack of a living will."

Like many people, you're making the assumption that the Schindlers are interested in respecting Terri's wishes (and the only issue is that there is dispute over the nature of Terri's wishes). Not so.

The Schindlers said "that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it" (link).

In other words, there is reason to believe that even if the Schindlers had heard the same (verbal) living will allegedly heard by Michael, that they would probably conceal that fact, and we would all be in the exact same situation.

I'm disappointed in the Republican Party as most of my fellow conservatives. Delay deserves what he got because he has attacked the character of all who participated in the decision to halt life sustaining treatment for Terri Schiavo. Thats what is at the heart of all this. Who decides? In Delay's personal experience it was him and his family. He was lucky nothing was contested. What if medical opinion and lack of written wishes had been contested in Charles Delay's fate?

It is not like several judges had not reviewed appeals by the Schindlers. Republicans in Congress have also made much of apparent contradictions in Micheal Schiavos statements and actions, but have completely ignored court testimony by the Schindler family in terms of Terri's wishes, Micheal's character, and Terri's medical condition.

Both cases involve end of life medical decisions and that is reason enough for Tom Delay to be questioned. There are huge differences between Charles Delay and Terri Schiavo, but there are similarities too. The important similarities are important in that they revolve around the legal questions and lack of legal review. Charles Delay had no one question his diagnosis and no court investigated his family's decision. Terri did but Congress argued it wasn't sufficient. Both had no written will. Both died due to lack of life sustaining treatment.

Needless to say, the rhetoric and villification in the Schiavo case is disgusting especially after the State of Florida's judiciary was supported by the Federal Judiciary on the matter of proper procedure and due process. If Congress wants to act let them pass laws that review all cases in which "plugs" are pulled or fail to be inserted. Let Congress set up rules on living wills. But keep Congress and demagoguery out of the lives of individuals, especially those fought extensively in the State Courts.