Opinions expressed by Bud Beck on this site are solely the opinion of Bud Beck . Political Gateway tries to bring input from all sides of the political arena to allow free and open discourse on a range of subjects.

Category: Political Commentary - Moderate   
Posted Mon Mar 21,2005 2:24 AM   Last Edited:

The irony of the Terry Schiavo saga becomes more pronounced as George W. Bush flies back to Washington from Crawford, Texas to sign any legislation passed by Congress to prolong the life of the Florida woman.

What is even more ironic is the fact that at the same time less than fifty miles from Terry Schiavo's hospice suite, a pathetic and decrepit looking 46 year old, John Evander Couey, the alleged murderer of nine year old Jessica Lunsford, stood before a judge in the first phase of what will undoubtedly become a capital murder trial.

On one hand the president will stand up for Terry Schiavo's right to live, but on the other hand he will undoubtedly support the state's right to take Couey's.

As Governor of Texas 152 people were executed during his tenure. George W. Bush is the most-killing Governor, in the history of the United States of America, ever.

That said, I should also point out that George W. Bush was not responsible for the increased pace of executions in Texas. He simply refused to slow them down.

At the same time he was also not responsible for the state's ancient and arcane clemency procedures. He just saw no reason to change them.

However, saying those two things, no one can deny that Bush, while Governor, steadfastly and vehemently opposed changing the clemency procedures. He repeatedly opposed any change in the status quo. He maintained his opposition even in the face of and following continual stinging criticism by the courts in the state.

As the Governor of Texas he vetoed legislation which would have provided funding for basic indigent defense. In an outrageous and almost laughable statement, he called the bill, which had wide spread bipartisan support, ".....a threat to public safety."

When he was offered an alternative to capital punishment in the case of persons with diminished capacities, he refused to bend. Bush opposed any and all legislation regarding instituting life without parole and banning the execution of people with IQ's less than 65. In his mind, there was no differentiation and the "mentally retarded" or "mentally challenged" should be afforded no extra protection under the law.

As Governor of Texas, often citing state's rights, he was the leading spokesperson in favor of the death penalty. Today, in an admittedly different situation, he chooses to steal the jurisdiction of Florida courts and support a law that will go in the face of everything he has historically supported.

Has Bush been trapped by his own inflexible beliefs and rhetoric? And, as he and the Congress interfere with and usurp "state's rights" in an issue doomed to be deemed unconstitutional at a later date, is he playing a major part in the opening up a Pandora's Box of similar challenges?

I remember a smaller and more localized case regarding Dorothy Jacobus in Kane, PA. She was an alzheimer's patient in the Lutheran Home and I became aware of her situation when her daughter, Kitty, was denied visitation and arrested for trespass on Mother's Day.

The story sounded almost laughable until the details were told.

Dorothy Jacobus was the wife of a once prominent but now retired local attorney. As she became ill and began to fail mentally and physically he was appointed her legal guardian by the judge of local court. No longer able to care for his wife at home, he institutionalized her.

While we have all heard the nightmare stories of nursing homes, The Lutheran Home, while not perfect, was far from coming close to anything like that. Still, like so many institutions that care for those who cannot be helped, only maintained, it was definitely understaffed which in turn reduced the amount of personal attention patients like Dorothy Jacobus received. On several occasions while visiting her mother, Kitty drew attention to situations she felt were not acceptable.

Accepting the fact there are two sides to every story, the staff of The Lutheran Home, perhaps understanding the dynamics of the family, especially the issue of Mrs. Jacobus' institutionalization, took exception to Kitty's complaints. While she was a family member, she was not the guardian. They felt any complaints regarding the care of their patients should originate with the guardian, Kitty's father.

The relationship between Kitty and her father was strained. It dated back to the onset of Mrs. Jacobus' first hint of diminished capacity. By the time of the Mother's Day arrest the two barely spoke to one another.

There were also financial considerations.

While Medicare covered some of the expense, it did not cover it all. The continued care was very expensive and was a monthly drain on the fortune a man worked his entire life to accumulate. As long as he had assets, he was responsible for the support of his wife.

Like Terry Schiavo, Dorothy Jacobus could breathe on her own but was provided nourishment through a feeding tube. And so after years of hospitalization, it came down to the guardian petitioning the local court to allow him to have the feeding tube removed and "allow his wife to die".

The circumstances for what many might call "mercy" killing are certainly similar. Michael Schiavo and his attorney, George Felos, like the situation of Dorothy Jacobus, is that it is mercy sought not for the patients but for those who must bear the financial responsibility for them.

Granted, Terry's parents, the Schindlers, want to accept financial responsibility for their daughter. However, should Michael Schiavo give up this responsibility, the question of the fact Michael recovered a $1 million settlement for medical malpractice is open to interpretation. When he filed his petition for the court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed in May 1998, a majority of the money was gone, spent for items not involved in Terry's care. How much responsibility must he bear?

The same question was asked by Kitty Jacobus of her own father regarding her mother.

In the end the judge ordered Dorothy Jacobus' feeding tube removed. It took her twenty-three days to die.

Did she suffer? You decide.

Is Terry Schiavo suffering right now?

Again, you decide.

The humanity of Terry Schiavo's death sentence could be compared to Dorothy Jacobus and thousands of others just like her. If Terry's death sentence is commuted, how many more must be commuted also? Dorothy and Terry are not the exceptions. They are the rule.

And what of John Evander Couey? Remember him?

Doesn't the soul of little Jessica Lunsford cry out for revenge?

That of course takes me back to where I began - the difference and the commonality of the two cases.

If capital punishment is acceptable to the President of the United States, why then isn't this so called mercy killing?

Why do he and the Congress feel it necessary to pass a law to overcome a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court? Why must they usurp jurisdiction in this case? What point of law do they hope to make?

And if they make a point of law in the Terry Schiavo case, shouldn't it likewise apply to those who are waiting on death rows across this nation including Scott Petterson and eventually John Couey?

When is it wrong and when is it right? And who gets to decide?

Should these decisions become legislated issues passed by Congress and the President of the United States, or should we go back to a much older prescident that states: "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?