THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE
DeLay's Own Tragic Crossroads
Family of the lawmaker involved in the Schiavo case decided in '88 to
let his comatose father die.
By Walter F. Roche Jr. and Sam Howe Verhovek, Times Staff Writers
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-delay27mar27,0,5710023.story?coll=la-home-headlines
CANYON LAKE, Texas — A family tragedy that unfolded in a Texas
hospital during the fall of 1988 was a private ordeal — without
judges, emergency sessions of Congress or the debate raging outside
Terri Schiavo's Florida hospice.
The patient then was a 65-year-old drilling contractor, badly injured
in a freak accident at his home. Among the family members keeping
vigil at Brooke Army Medical Center was a grieving junior congressman
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
More than 16 years ago, far from the political passions that have
defined the Schiavo controversy, the DeLay family endured its own
wrenching end-of-life crisis. The man in a coma, kept alive by
intravenous lines and oxygen equipment, was DeLay's father, Charles
Ray DeLay.
Then, freshly reelected to a third term in the House, the 41-year-old
DeLay waited, all but helpless, for the verdict of doctors.
Today, as House Majority Leader, DeLay has teamed with his Senate
counterpart, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), to champion political intervention
in the Schiavo case. They pushed emergency legislation through
Congress to shift the legal case from Florida state courts to the
federal judiciary.
And DeLay is among the strongest advocates of keeping the woman, who
doctors say has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years,
connected to her feeding tube. DeLay has denounced Schiavo's husband,
as well as judges, for committing what he calls "an act of barbarism"
in removing the tube.
In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman
quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die.
"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay,
the congressman's 81-year-old widowed mother, recalled in an interview
last week. "There was no way [Charles] wanted to live like that. Tom
knew we all knew his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."
Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the
congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay.
When his father's kidneys failed, the DeLay family decided against
connecting him to a dialysis machine. "Extraordinary measures to
prolong life were not initiated," said his medical report, citing
"agreement with the family's wishes." His bedside chart carried the
instruction: "Do not resuscitate."
On Dec. 14, 1988, the DeLay patriarch "expired with his family in
attendance."
"The situation faced by the congressman's family was entirely
different than Terri Schiavo's," said a spokesman for the majority
leader, who declined requests for an interview.
"The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to
survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain
him," said Dan Allen, DeLay's press aide.
There were also these similarities: Both stricken patients were
severely brain-damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without
medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be
spared from being kept alive by artificial means. And neither of them
had a living will.
(snip)
The family then turned to lawyers.
In 1990, the DeLays filed suit against Midcap Bearing Corp. of San
Antonio and Lovejoy Inc. of Illinois, the distributor and maker of a
coupling that the family said had failed and caused the tram to hurtle
out of control.
The family's wrongful death lawsuit accused the companies of
negligence and sought actual and punitive damages. Lawyers for the
companies denied the allegations and countersued the surviving
designer of the tram system, Jerry DeLay.
The case thrust Rep. DeLay into unfamiliar territory — the front page
of a civil complaint as a plaintiff. He is an outspoken defender of
business against what he calls the crippling effects of "predatory,
self-serving litigation."
The DeLay family litigation sought unspecified compensation for, among
other things, the dead father's "physical pain and suffering, mental
anguish and trauma," and the mother's grief, sorrow and loss of
companionship.
Their lawsuit also alleged violations of the Texas product liability
law.
The DeLay case moved slowly through the Texas judicial system,
accumulating more than 500 pages of motions, affidavits and
disclosures over nearly three years. Among the affidavits was one
filed by the congressman, but family members said he had little direct
involvement in the lawsuit, leaving that to his brother Randall, an
attorney.
Rep. DeLay, who since has taken a leading role promoting tort reform,
wants to rein in trial lawyers to protect American businesses from
what he calls "frivolous, parasitic lawsuits" that raise insurance
premiums and "kill jobs."
Last September, he expressed less than warm sentiment for attorneys
when he took the floor of the House to condemn trial lawyers who, he
said, "get fat off the pain" of plaintiffs and off "the hard work" of
defendants.
Aides for DeLay defended his role as a plaintiff in the family
lawsuit, saying he did not follow the legal case and was not aware of
its final outcome.
The case was resolved in 1993 with payment of an undisclosed sum, said
to be about $250,000, according to sources familiar with the
out-of-court settlement. DeLay signed over his share of any proceeds
to his mother, said his aides.
Three years later, DeLay cosponsored a bill specifically designed to
override state laws on product liability such as the one cited in his
family's lawsuit. The legislation provided sweeping exemptions for
product sellers.
The 1996 bill was vetoed by President Clinton, who said he objected to
the DeLay-backed measure because it "tilts against American families
and would deprive them of the ability to recover fully when they are
injured by a defective product."
(from http://balta.blogspot.com/)
Update: You know, it's probably worth a few minutes of my time to say
exactly why this matters in comparison to the Schiavo case and respond
to a few of the questions raised to the point. First and foremost,
this is important because of the phrase we've heard over and over in
the last week; I keep hearing how we should "Err on the side of life."
By choosing to end the man's suffering, they failed to err on the side
of life. I would say that in any case like this, there is always the
possibility of a 1-in-a-billion miracle recovery. The odds in the
Schiavo case are equally poor. We are told to err on the side of life
in 1 case, but not in the other. That is the first problem.
Secondly, the point has been raised that Schiavo's internal organs are
working perfectly well, while Mr. Delay's father needed a ventilator
and other machines to stay alive. This may be true, but I think that
this is an attempt to make a distinction where none exists. The laws
of that state and this nation consider, correctly, a feeding tube to
be a means of life support. This is totally correct. Ms. Schiavo
cannot swallow. While she is able to digest, she is unable to survive
without technological assistance. The part of the body which allows
her to swallow simply does not work. (interesting note here; those
folks who keep trying to bring Ms. Schiavo "Bread and Water"? If one
of them actually succeeded in getting into her room, they'd end up
killing her because she wouldn't be able to swallow and it would choke
her.)
Modern medicine has found means to keep people alive if their lungs
stop working, and they've found ways to do so if the patient cannot
swallow. Both of these are means of keeping people alive who should
not be alive. Both are means of life support. Just because the
condition is focused on a different part of the body does not in any
way mean that the comparison is impossible.
Third, it has also been suggested that the condition of Mr. Delay's
father was worsening at the time. While this may be true, I would say
it is also irrelevant. In both cases, "erring on the side of life"
would have involved hoping that the patient could make a truly
miraculous recovery from a condition that all medical knowledge says
they shouldn't be able to recover from. If "Always erring on the side
of life" is going to be the guiding rule in all cases, then it doesn't
matter if the patient is simply not improving or is actually
worsening; in either case the prognosis of continued life support
would be further suffering and eventual death.
Finally, it has also been noted that Mr. Delay was not the actual
decision-maker in that case. Again, this is true, but similarly, the
Schindler family is not the actual decision-maker in the Schiavo case.
Legally, that role falls to Mr. Schiavo. The position Mr. Delay was
placed in is actually quite analogous to the situation the Schindler
family was in; he was not legally allowed to make that decision, but
in this case, that has not stopped the Schindler family from trying.
This argument in fact draws the distinction even more clearly between
Mr. Delay's behavior in the 2 cases; in 1 case, he did not have the
decision-making ability and he chose to not oppose the decision made
by the other family members, in the other case, the family did not
have the decision-making ability, and choose to oppose the decision
made by the decision-maker.
Tom Delay in the Schiavo case has claimed that people who do not have
legal authority should be allowed to keep the patient alive. In the
other case, he did not have legal authority, but did not speak up.
This is actually very important; in the exact same circumstances as
the Schindler family, who's cause Mr. Delay now chooses to trumpet,
Mr. Delay made the opposite decision.
For those reasons, Mr. Delay's behavior in his father's case stands in
stark contrast to his behavior today, and is very much worth
questionning.
DeLay thinks this is all about him... what an egotistical *****.
DeLay Unplugged
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/
People say different things when they’re among friends than they do
when everyone’s watching. It’s only human nature; we’re more inclined
to let our guard down and speak our minds when we’re confident that no
one will use our words against us later.
Which is exactly why Tom DeLay’s remarks to the Family Research
Council last week about the Terri Schiavo controversy were so
illuminating. DeLay was laying it all on the line because he thought
everyone in the room was an ally. Fortunately for the rest of us, he
was wrong.
First, let’s back up a moment. The first hint that the Republicans’
concern for Terri Schiavo had more to do with politics than a “culture
of life” came Friday night. A talking points memo from the GOP
leadership described Schiavo’s plight as a “great political issue,”
and encouraged Republican lawmakers to keep their base in mind: “This
is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that
the Senate is debating this important issue.” A party of moralists
anxious to do what’s right without concern for partisan gain? Not so
much.
But DeLay’s comments to the FRC, delivered the same night the GOP memo
reached lawmakers, should help expose this exploitative charade
entirely.
On Friday, as the leaders of both chambers scrambled to try to
stop the removal of Ms. Schiavo’s feeding tube, Mr. DeLay, a Texas
Republican, turned his attention to social conservatives gathered at a
Washington hotel and described what he viewed as the intertwined
struggle to save Ms. Schiavo, expand the conservative movement and
defend himself against accusations of ethical lapses.
“One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help
elevate the visibility of what is going on in America,” Mr. DeLay told
a conference organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative
Christian group. A recording of the event was provided by the advocacy
organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
“This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks
against the conservative movement, against me and against many
others,” Mr. DeLay said.
Mr. DeLay complained that “the other side” had figured out how “to
defeat the conservative movement,” by waging personal attacks, linking
with liberal organizations and persuading the national news media to
report the story. He charged that “the whole syndicate” was “a huge
nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in.”
There was no reason for niceties or subtleties, so DeLay didn’t use
any. The result was DeLay Unplugged.
Aside from the paranoid victim-complex — that part about a liberal
“syndicate” started approaching tin-foil hat territory — DeLay’s
remarks are important as part of the Schiavo controversy. DeLay and
Frist, who also spoke to the FRC, made themselves quite clear.
It was obvious before, but these guys were openly acknowledging their
political agenda here. We see the top GOP congressional leaders
meeting behind closed doors with a top religious right group, not only
committing themselves to working on the Schiavo case, but insisting
that her tragedy represents a unique opportunity for America’s right
wing in a broader culture war.
Look at DeLay’s comments again. It’s not about one woman who’s been in
a vegetative state for 15 years; it’s about “elevating” the moral
failures DeLay and the religious right see in America. They’re
interested in Schiavo’s fate, but they’re really interested in using
her case to respond to the “attacks against the conservative movement,
against [DeLay] and against many others.”
Over the weekend, DeLay said he was “disgusted” by the
“great-political-issue” memo, presumably because it framed the Schiavo
case in a callous, blatantly partisan way. With this in mind, is DeLay
also prepared to say he was “disgusted” by his own speech to the FRC?
"[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority, but it's also designed to protect the people against bureaucracy, against the government." -- Judge Lawrence Tribe
.
|
