# Terry Shiavo and the Sanctity of Life...



## Makalakumu (Mar 19, 2005)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7212079/



> Republican leaders said they had struck a deal on legislation aimed at allowing Shiavo to resume being fed while a federal court decides the right-to-die battle between her parents and her husband.
> 
> "We think we have found a solution" to the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said at a Capitol Hill news conference.
> 
> ...



Apparently, the GOP believe in the _Sanctity of Life_.  This case sure brings a lot of attention to that _fact_.  What do you think?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7212079/
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the GOP believe in the _Sanctity of Life_. This case sure brings a lot of attention to that _fact_. What do you think?


I think that quality of life should be considered.  Is she being kept alive for her own sake or that of her parents?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 19, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I think that quality of life should be considered.  Is she being kept alive for her own sake or that of her parents?



They are starving her to death.  We put our family pets down more humanely and for less cause.  She may be in a "vegetative state" but who knows what that means?  If they want to kill her, they should use morphine or something painless.

That is one talking point for sure.

The other is the way these politicians are crawling out of the woodwork to slap on the moral armor and rattle their swords.  The smell of a hypocrite is thick in the air...


----------



## stauburn (Mar 19, 2005)

As a nurse, I see many people in her health state and her family situation all the time. I can tell you of countless times I have seen families battle over this same dilemma none of which as gone to court.I have personally been involved in the withdrawl of support of IV's & feeding tubes and I can honestly say that the patients never appeared to have suffered ( some appeared to suffer more while we were keeping them alive)and they all were provided excellent comfort care( pain meds, bathing, skin & mouth care etc.)

We can argue this subject forever, but what it shows us is the importance of having a living will that clearly outlines our wishes and who makes our healthcare decisions for us if we are unable too.

Peace


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 20, 2005)

This is a horribly sad situation. Couple of random thoughts:

Republicans and Sanctity of Life, please, like baseball and steroids, this is about headlines for the politicians. Florida has the executed 59 people since 1976, with 384 on 'Death Row'. 

Assuming the Republicans in Florida are Christian, I remind them 'A man shall leave his family, and a woman leave her home, and the two shall become one'. The politicians should honor the wishes of the husband. 

Starving to death is certainly not humane. There are times when Dr. Kavorkians' machines are beneficial.

Shame on the Florida legislature. Shame on Jeb Bush. Shame on the Federal Republicans. Shame on her parents.

There are times when medical science is too good for its own good.


----------



## Melissa426 (Mar 20, 2005)

This is a link written by a bioethicist regarding the case. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7231440/

Regardless of how you feel about end of life decisions, I hope you will consider writing your US house and senate represenatatives and urge them NOT to meddle in this woman and her husband's personal tragedy for the sake of political grand-standing.  I think it could set dangerous precedents. 

www.house.gov

www.senate.gov

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 20, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Republicans and Sanctity of Life, please, like baseball and steroids, this is about headlines for the politicians. Florida has the executed 59 people since 1976, with 384 on 'Death Row'.



One can only shake your head and wonder...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7212079/



> A small group of supporters, including some who have camped out for days, congregated outside the hospice. New protest signs were put up Sunday saying *Save Terri Schiavo From State-Sponsored Murder*! and Free Terri, jail the rest.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 20, 2005)

One can also wonder where in he** these people have been for the past fifteen years.  Do they pay her medical bills?  Have they been agonizing over this poor woman and hoping for her recovery?  Of course not.  They are doing this for themselves as well -- same as the anti-abortion group.  They don't know her.  They aren't related to her.  They are meddling in someone else's life for their own comfort and to advance their own agendae.  Shame on _them_.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 20, 2005)

stauburn said:
			
		

> We can argue this subject forever, but what it shows us is the importance of having a living will that clearly outlines our wishes and who makes our healthcare decisions for us if we are unable too.


 Terry Shiavo had a living will, but it is not enough.  You must find a person in whom you are willing to place all your trust and assign them a Durable Medical Power of Attorney.  You must also make your wishes known to friends and family and provide them with end-of-life documentation.  I can't express how very little this is ever done.

 As far as my personal opinion on this case, I am quite torn.  I believe in the right to die, however, this woman would apparently respond at times to stimulation from people she recognized.  There is talk that she improved with some therapy but her husband ended her therapy (most likely couldn't afford it).  So ... could there be a spark?  It doesn't appear to me that she is "asleep" as in a coma.  Though she needs constant, complete care, part of her is there.

 It must take terrible courage to sign your daughter's life away - to give up hope and assign all trust in the all-that-is.  I pray I never must make that decision.


----------



## BrandiJo (Mar 20, 2005)

i think starving her will be inhumane, but its her right to live or die and her husband should have that choice but not this way and not if she has any hope of recovering


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 20, 2005)

If she's going to recover, she will despite any heroic efforts by medical science.  It's been fifteen years.  If she's still in a vegetative state, then being off the machines will prove whether she is truly going to survive.

Of course one doesn't ever want to make a decision like this about one's child, but she's a married woman, and I would imagine that, even in a place like Florida, her husband is her legal guardian/voice.  It is not up to her parents any longer from what I have been reading.

And -- outside interference is abhorrent -- especially that of the government.

Too much control over our personal lives is an infringement on our personal liberty in my opinion.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 20, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> One can also wonder where in he** these people have been for the past fifteen years. Do they pay her medical bills? Have they been agonizing over this poor woman and hoping for her recovery? .


Agoinizing?  Do you mean her husband?  Correct me if i am Misinformed, but isnt he "shacked up" with another woman he has two children with?  And doesnt he stand to gain, on top of the large Malpractice settlement he won, another 1.7 MILLION bucks if she is allowed to die?

Ill reserve judgement on the case, but I would think her husbands motives would be suspect.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 20, 2005)

I love it when civil libertarians start demanding that the State step in to private lives.

I've heard and read a lot of accusations against the husband. Oddly, there doesn't seem to be any evidence for them. 

But if there were, so, this would mean that every time we disapprove of what goes on in someone's marriage, well, let's just have a crowd of right-wing yahoos show up on the front lawn and start screaming.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Mar 20, 2005)

One of the toughest secisions in medicine is deciding whether an action will prolong a life or prolong the death process.  This is a frequently difficult decision.  

Jeff


----------



## Tgace (Mar 20, 2005)

My wife told be that she had heard on the news that Mrs.Shiavo was anorexic/bulimic and that contributed to her collapse and current condition (unverified). How cruelly ironic if she were to be starved to death in the end....


----------



## Mark Weiser (Mar 20, 2005)

Wow there are so many aspects of this case to hit on. 

Right to a dignified death
right of privacy
debates that pits religious zeal aganist medical ethics
having people screaming for the President to send in US Marshals and Secert Service Agents to protect her. I belong to another Talk group and this was really suggested.
Have the President of the USA get involved.
From my nursing experience we are taught that quality of life is the issue not the amount of life. Being unable to led a life that was standardized for this client before her unfortunante event has to be weighed. Socialist type people in government getting involved are in it for one reason it is the hot issue of the week or month for re election purposes. We have clients just like her in my nursing home I work in and they die with or without g tubes. 

This decision is to be handled by the Husband alone. When she left the house and married this man. She is not under the authority of her father or mother for the rest of her life as long as she is married. This is a legal precedent. 

So in short I think the government and all others not in her immeadate family should be quiet and let this family grief and be at peace.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> My wife told be that she had heard on the news that Mrs.Shiavo was anorexic/bulimic and that contributed to her collapse and current condition (unverified). How cruelly ironic if she were to be starved to death in the end....


I heard that as well.  Too bad no one was screaming to help her when she really needed it.

And Robert, a tip of the hat to you yet again.

Techno, I may sound a bit cold saying this, but if your spouse was in a vegetative state for fifteen years, would you still be of a mind to live your life the way it was?  I can say with certainty that I absolutely would _not_ want my husband to -- but then again, I also know he would never allow me to suffer, and that the converse is true as well.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 20, 2005)

I suppose that an issue close to the crux here is do we trust medical science enough to believe them when they say that this woman is in a "persistent vegetative state"? She apparently has some sort of brain function as reports state that she responds in some manner to stimulation (when spoken to). For all we know she could be conscious "in there" and then the prospect of starving a conscious person to death is somewhat less palatable.

For those with medical training. Is feeding all that is done to support cases like this? I would think that various medications to prevent infections, pneumonia, influenza etc. would have to be administered as well. Is just reducing care to basic life support (food/air) an option?


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 20, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7212079/
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the GOP believe in the _Sanctity of Life_.  This case sure brings a lot of attention to that _fact_.  What do you think?


 
 If it was me in the same situation I would want someone to pull my plug and let me go meet with God.


----------



## AnimEdge (Mar 20, 2005)

IS taht actually what they are doing when they remove the feeding tubes is starving to death? i allways thought it was a figure of speach i did not know that that is actually what they do, that is pretty harse to starve to death.

What is the point in having her live anyways? Is there even a chance of her becomeing back to "Normal"? Or is it just a power struggle? Man if i was in her place i woudl hope for them to "let me go"


----------



## Melissa426 (Mar 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I suppose that an issue close to the crux here is do we trust medical science enough to believe them when they say that this woman is in a "persistent vegetative state"? She apparently has some sort of brain function as reports state that she responds in some manner to stimulation (when spoken to). For all we know she could be conscious "in there" and then the prospect of starving a conscious person to death is somewhat less palatable.
> 
> For those with medical training. Is feeding all that is done to support cases like this? I would think that various medications to prevent infections, pneumonia, influenza etc. would have to be administered as well. Is just reducing care to basic life support (food/air) an option?


The vast majority of doctors who have evaluated her have come to the conclusion that she is in a PVS. I have heard that her brain is essentially gone, the only part that works is the part that tells her heart to keep beating and her lungs to keep breathing.

Her parents and family believe because she exhibits some reflexive movement, that she is responding to them and just needs therapy. She probably is getting various medications to prevent infections, etc, but that is not what is keeping her alive. Her tube feedings are. Without them, she will develop severe metabolic imbalances which will cause her heart, lungs, and kidneys to fail and that is what will cause her death.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 20, 2005)

In other words starvation...

I guess that if she were just bedridden, not moving, making noise, blinking her eyes etc. it would be easier to accept pulling the tube.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 20, 2005)

RRouuselot said:
			
		

> If it was me in the same situation I would want someone to pull my plug and let me go meet with God.



I 100% agree.  I wish we could do it more humanely though.  Heck, we put our family pets down easier.  Not that I'm saying she needs to be "put down".  We can find much more sympathetic and emotional words for this...

Also, the irony that Tgace pointed out is striking...


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 20, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Agoinizing? Do you mean her husband? Correct me if i am Misinformed, but isnt he "shacked up" with another woman he has two children with? And doesnt he stand to gain, on top of the large Malpractice settlement he won, another 1.7 MILLION bucks if she is allowed to die?
> 
> Ill reserve judgement on the case, but I would think her husbands motives would be suspect.


 I read an article on the husband's side of the story from either cnn or reuters a few weeks ago.  Basically, what I remember was:

 That money from the settlement is gone, paying for the medical services (it isn't cheap).  He would not be getting any more money if she dies as that insurance policy, too, were used to pay for the services.  However, there were other right-to-life groups, even Shiavo's parents, and a couple of Florida Senators that offered the husband large sums of money if he would just leave the wife alone (drop the feeding tube issue).  He refused *all* offers of money, stating he will continue to honor his wife's will.     

 I will have to do a search to find that article again.  

 If it was just for money, wouldn't he just take it and go???  Apparently he has other reasons. :idunno:

 - Ceicei


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 20, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> The vast majority of doctors who have evaluated her have come to the conclusion that she is in a PVS. I have heard that her brain is essentially gone, the only part that works is the part that tells her heart to keep beating and her lungs to keep breathing.


 I've also heard speculation that she might not be able to feel pain.  That's pure speculation though.  If her brain is essentially gone, she might not "suffer" when the feeding tubes are removed.  But then again, she is not able to tell us.  Who is to say that she isn't suffering because of being kept alive?  

 - Ceicei


----------



## AnimEdge (Mar 20, 2005)

Thats what makes this such a "toughy" subject, what does she feel? What is she thinking? Is she thinking? For me if i was stuck there, and lets say was esentually numb (couldnt feel pain) but was aware or even if i felt pain, just the fact of knowing(if i could) of what i have lost, what i was, what i could become now, to me well for me i should say, there would be so many "Ifs and What Ifs" that i woudl want them to let me go and have "God*" deal with me but hey thats me, but i agree, you woudl think tehre would be nice ways to go than to 'starve'


(Whatever God/s you woudl like )


----------



## AnimEdge (Mar 20, 2005)

Hey i found this(unless it has allready bene posted somewhere): Interesting Read i might add:
http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/2005/03/about_terri_sch.html


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 20, 2005)

How do I feel about the whole issue? I really do not know. There are so much white-washing and bias going on that it is enough to make a person's head swim. 

 What I do believe, however, is the guardianship at marriage is to the spouse, not to the parents. This is just a general belief. I do acknowledge that not all marriages are good. As I have mentioned earlier, there is so much going on with this case that I do not feel comfortable making a pro or con about this particular case. What does interest me are any evidence and the bare facts. Unfortunately, people with both sides of the issue try to interpret their views on these evidence or will select only parts of these facts to support their side.

  - Ceicei



			
				AnimEdge said:
			
		

> Hey i found this(unless it has allready bene posted somewhere): Interesting Read i might add:
> http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/2005/03/about_terri_sch.html


  AnimEdge,
  Interesting article.  There are many following comments on that link you gave that were for Terri staying alive.  

 There was one comment that caught my eye stating the original article didn't provide all the information. I pasted that comment below as the poster provided more links:

  - Ceicei

  ***************************************
  I believe you are mistaken on several points.

    1. The 4 minutes of video posted online were edited to deliberately misrepresent the entirety of the video:

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/10/Tampabay/Schiavo_tapes__snippe.shtml

 "For nearly an hour, her parents and the doctor tell her to open her eyes, close her eyes, look this way, look that way - with little apparent response."

    also see

http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBQ67CTI6E.html

    "Less widely known are four hours of images, taped in summer 2002, of Schiavo's inert stare from her hospice bed."

    Did you watch all 4 1/2 hours of videotape?

    Most of the affidavits posted on terrisfight.org rely on only those 4 minutes of video for their opinion.

    3. The bone scan.

    Walker was clear in deposition, here:
http://www.hospicepatients.org/dr-walker-t-schiavo-bone-scan-deposition.txt
 that the alleged injuries could easily have been caused by the paramedics and the physical therapy in the year between her collapse and the bone scan. 

    That is what Dr. Carnahan, her treating physician, who actually ordered the scan thought, per his affidavit.

    Walker never bothered to personally examine Terri.

    2. Even http://www.terrisfight.org acknowledged that less then $50,000 remains in trust:
http://www.terrisfight.org/myths.html 

    What's the source for your claim that the husband will receive $1.6 million on her death?

    3. The report of Jay Wolfson, guardian ad litem, December 2003, here:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

    is clear Terri received "aggressive" therapy through 1994.

    He notes she failed at least 3 "gold standard" modified barium swallow tests during that time. 

    What's your source for the claim that she can now swallow?

    4. The bedsore was only after she temporarily moved to assisted living when the Hospice was being renovated.

 It is remarkable that she went 13 years without one, and is a testimony to the care provided by her husband, as Wolfson and Pearse (an earlier GAL, in his report) noted.

    Please read Wolfson's report, and see this link for the legal issues involved:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

    Here's the CT scan, so you can see how blurry it is:
http://miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/CT%20scan.png

    No need for an MRI (actually, you're really referring to an fMRI) to see the extent of the damage.

    There's no known way to repair damage that severe.

   Posted by: Bill | March 20, 2005 02:41 PM


----------



## Ping898 (Mar 20, 2005)

I didn't bother reading all the other comments, but my 2 cents, I think it is terrible that the lawmakers keep barging into where the courts have already ruled.  
My mom has said that she doesn't want to be kept on life support if there is no hope.  Now she does have a living will, but I would hate to think there is someone that could stop me from fulfilling her wishes.  I know the current rules and laws wouldn't, but who knows what the future will bring.  I'd hate to think that cause it went against someone's belief's and convictions that laws would be made that would prevent the final action to take place.  
I don't know for sure that she told her husband for sure she didn't want to live in her current state and I know his motives probably aren't entirely pure, but I think the courts have ruled that they believe this is the course of action she wants taken and right or wrong, I think it should be allowed to finish.


----------



## stauburn (Mar 20, 2005)

In response to Tgace's question. There are actually different levels of withdrawl of life support. Most people are used to the idea of removing people from ventilators but are unsettled when it comes to cases like Terri's.  In some cases the feeding will be stopped but the IV fluids and meds will be continued, In others, some families or patients will just stop everything completely and just allow nature to take its course.It usually comes down to the comfort level of that people or person making the decision. 


It is sad that in today's society that we treat death as something wrong and unnatural. People get sick, get hurt, get old and die....That's what supposed to happen. Us as martial artists are training for a higher purpose and part of our training teaches us that death happens, it is an inevitable part of life.So take care of yourselves and your families and make your thoughts and wishes known so that no suffers more that need be.

Peace


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 21, 2005)

I'm sorry that this woman died. However, she DID die--and the only thing keeping the meat alive is exactly the extraordinary medical technology that some folks feel we cannot trust to judge whether or not this body is brain-dead.

Tens of millions down the tubes on this. On the politics, on the ads, on the lawyers, on Congress screwing around, on security, on the TV coverage.

Meanwhile, of course, millions of Americans kids go to bed hungry, or abused, or without their vaccinations, or without a decent education. But the hell with them--much better to exercise a national prurient interest in other people's business, as well as the current religious sanctimony.

I heard somebody on the radio, other day, complaining that pulling the feeding tube (and incidentally, how many of you out there, a) know what this means, b) have taken care of people with feeding tubes?) was, "playing God."

Looks to me like the Big Guy's already weighed in on this one.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'm sorry that this woman died. However, she DID die--and the only thing keeping the meat alive is exactly the extraordinary medical technology that some folks feel we cannot trust to judge whether or not this body is brain-dead.


 Before I get flamed on this, please know I believe in the right to die.  But I have a question here - are you implying that she is brain-dead?  It is my understanding that she is severely brain-damaged, not brain-dead, and she is not on life support systems.  Meds, care, the feeding tube and whatever electrical activity is left in her brain and brain stem are what are keeping her alive.  

 Do you consider there to be a difference between severely brain-damaged and brain-dead?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 21, 2005)

As far as I know she is only on a feeding tube, not a ventilator. And she does move so there is obviously some brain activity going on. Whether she is "conscious" or not is in question..at least that is what I thought.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 21, 2005)

President Bush was awakened at 1:11 AM to sign legislation giving Federal Courts authority to review the Shiavo case. Insert your own 'Theif in the Night' joke here. 

Congress enacted a measure aimed at 1 person, claiming that the legislation does not set president for any other cases. (Much the same way the Supreme Court acted in Bush v Gore).

House Majority Leader Delay made the statement that the 'sanctity of life' is more important than the 'sanctity of marriage' - which I guess justifies Newt Gingrich's affairs, Henry Hyde's affairs - but demands a review of the positions on gay marriage. ... Is marriage a sacred thing between a man and a woman, or isn't it? 

That our Federal Government become involved now, that the Florida legislature was invovled earlier (and defeated in the courts, by the way), is a sure sign that our Democracy is in its declining days. 

Can Barney's appointment to National Security Advisor be far behind from President Caligula? Is Rome burning while Senate Majority Leader Nero fiddles?

It is a sad day in my country.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 21, 2005)

for gods sake, the women has been laying in a bed, unable to actively comunicate with anyone for 15 years.  Let her die already.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 21, 2005)

A Senate Memo was circulated among Republicans in the Senate urging them to get involved in this case for political reasons.  The memo lays out the talking points for the arguments and talks about using this case to strengthen their position on the Sanctity of Life.  The memo was leaked and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has said that he doesn't know where it came from.  

I will see if I can find the memo...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 21, 2005)

A disturbing issue, to be sure.

When I see Terry "smile," I find it hard to endorse her death.  It may be a reflex, a faint ghost of her former self.  She may not be "at home" at all, in any capacity.  But the smile does indeed haunt many of us.  It haunts me when I think of pulling the plug.  Were I tasked with it, I'm not sure I could do it.

Quality of life is certainly an important issue here.  Were it me, I'd want to be done with it and shuffle off this mortal coil...even if it took more of a shove than a shuffle.  But it is not me.  

The lesson here...and there is one...is for all of us to have a solid "Living Will" that allows, or mandates, that the plug is pulled should we be thus diminished.

Now it ought be noted that Texas will pull the plug if the family can't pay for the support and if there is no discernable hope of recovery.  The law allowing this was signed by then Governor George W. Bush:

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/03/schiavo_hudson_and_nikolouzos.php

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3073295

A baby...six month old Sun Hudson...was removed from life support not long ago using this law.  It was against his mother's wishes.  She had not--in the ten day window provided by the state-- been able to find an institution that would provide for the child.  

A disturbing issue, to be sure.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## oldnewbie (Mar 21, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> A disturbing issue, to be sure.


 I agree, it is disturbing the extent that the families on both sides, have gone to get what "they" want.
 Here in Tampa, we have had to watch/listen to the goings on for years.  It is no longer what "Teri" wants, it is nothing but a family fued.

 The other day, the parents were interviewed, and asked IF the "latest" test they wanted to do, showed that there was no brain activity, would they let her "go". They refused to answer the question.

 The Husband has been offered, $1 million (recently from Calif. I think)
 $3 million (From Mel Gibson I heard), and $10 million (stated by the Husband) to give her to the Parents/ let extra testing happen/ walk away, etc. He has refused.

 But isn't that the real point here? Is she there?

 The Husband says she is gone, and would not want to live that way.
 The Parents say she is there, and MAYBE could be returned.

 But, no one wants to find out.

 Both sides have Experts that say want they want them to say.

 So now it has escalated to Congress and the President.

 I say, don't blame Congress and Bush, blame the husband and the Parents.


----------



## Melissa426 (Mar 21, 2005)

This is too bizarre.
I am actually, and this is a rarity, in agreement with McRobertson  :uhyeah:

Seriously, feeding tubes are used to provide nourishment... proteins, fats, and carbohydrates, and assorted vitamins and minerals and water.  Without tube feedings, her body will start using her fat and protein stores to maintain its functions. That could take weeks to deplete. 
 What she will die from is the lack of hydration.  Will her mouth her dry and parched? No, that  can easily be treated with what the Nursing homes refer to as "Mouth Care."  Will she feel hunger pains or thirst?  It will probably never be known, but if her brain is as damaged as the multitudes of doctors who have evaluated her claim (as opposed to the congressmen who are grandstanding for political gains) and  courts have judged, it isn't very likely.  In the meanwhile, she is being given drugs to medicate her if there is the possibility of discomfort.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## ginshun (Mar 21, 2005)

What ever happened with the deal that Congress was going to sapina her to testify?  I had hurd on Friday that they did it, just to do it, thinking that it would at least delay the whole deal.  Obviously this was done knowing full well that there was no way she could actaully testify.  I didn't pay any attention to news all weekend, anybody else here anything on this?


----------



## Ping898 (Mar 21, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The lesson here...and there is one...is for all of us to have a solid "Living Will" that allows, or mandates, that the plug is pulled should we be thus diminished.


Last time I checked though, I thought a living Will wasn't legally binding.  Thus even if you have one, no garuntee they will pull the plug if your husband/wife/mother/father or whomever is your guardian won't allow it.  

And I don't blame the parents and husband for this intrusion into our lives.  I blame congress and Bush.  They butted into a personal situation where I don't think they belonged.  The parents and husband both think they are doing what Terri would have wanted and though things may have gotten perverted along the way, both (I hope) at least started this battle out of love and respect for this woman.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 21, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> And I don't blame the parents and husband for this intrusion into our lives. I blame congress and Bush. They butted into a personal situation where I don't think they belonged. The parents and husband both think they are doing what Terri would have wanted and though things may have gotten perverted along the way, both (I hope) at least started this battle out of love and respect for this woman.


 Ya, but if the family could have come to some sort of decision a long time ago, the courts, congress and Bush would never have been invoved. Its not like they just butted in were they were not wanted, the courts congress and bush were pretty much forced into it. Blame the media for publisizing it maybe.

  Who knows where the blame belongs? It seems to me that there is quite a bit of blame to be spread around.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 21, 2005)

1. Do I see a difference between complete brain-death (and there is no such thing, really--we're talking about loss of all higher functions that make a person a person) and this? Yes; this is worse.

2. The family came to a decision, about a decade ago. The husband, for reasons that are not yours or mine or some fool's to decide, chose to take his wife off life support. Everything else is meddling--unless somebody actually has more than slander to offer about the husband.

3. The right-wingers have been pushing this sort of nonsense harder and harder for decades. It started under Ed Meese, who promulgated hospital rules that kept anencephalic babies--born without a brain, folks--on ventilators for weeks. The latest version is this crap about, "working through the legal process," which happened years ago. Every single report I've read says that the husband did what he was supposed to do--and the parents, who legally and morally don't get a say, aided and abetted by a pack of nutjobs, have been screwing around for years.

4. If anybody has any evidence--actual evidence, not speculation--indicting the husband, they need to get it to the Miami PD forthwith.


----------



## Ray (Mar 21, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Who knows where the blame belongs? It seems to me that there is quite a bit of blame to be spread around.


This must be an important issue to our society, aside from the individual in question.  It is generating a lot of discussion - and that must be a good thing.


----------



## oldnewbie (Mar 21, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> And I don't blame the parents and husband for this intrusion into our lives. I blame congress and Bush. They butted into a personal situation where I don't think they belonged. .......


 Congress and Bush were requested to butt in based on appeals from the Family.. not on their on accord..


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 21, 2005)

Legally and morally, it's the spouse's decision, unless there is some over-riding consideration. There wasn't. If Congress gets involved, they're therefore butting in.

This has gone through the State courts for 15 years; there're 21--yes, 21--written opinions. It's already been to the Supreme Court; they refused to hear the case, which means that they believed the lower court had jurisdiction, and there was no reason to review. 

This is garbage. It's right-wingers and anti-abortion types interfering in a marriage. 

The woman is in a persistent vegatative state. I heard her doctor on the radio today; most of her brain has died, and been replaced by cerebrospinal fluid. It's grotesque to, "keep her alive---" zombiefication, is what it is.


----------



## Melissa426 (Mar 21, 2005)

oldnewbie said:
			
		

> Congress and Bush were requested to butt in based on appeals from the Family.. not on their on accord..


Appeals from the family which were enhanced by the multi-million $ backing of large religious extreme conservative organizations, who care little about Ms. Schiavo and more about pushing their own agenda.


----------



## Kane (Mar 21, 2005)

If Terry Shiavo dies, it will be the end of our country morally. However, most people in America support Terry Shiavo to live. All Republicans and even 1/2 the Democrats support her to live. These sick vermin in Congress need to be thrown out by the next election. I don't care if another super liberal democrat takes power. We need Congress members with sanctity of life, that don't support the culture of death.

 Republicans are not alone in this. Majority of Democrats are for the life of Shiavo. This goes to show that these minorities for the death of a defenseless woman like Shiavo are souless gouls.

 Why is that that horrible husband wants her dead so badly. He is so passionate that it makes you wonder whether he did it. Within no time at all he has a new wife and two kids; it is so obvious why he wants her dead.

 rmcrobertson and ginshun, no offense but you two disgust me. I know it is your opinions, but I don't know how you can support her death.


----------



## Kane (Mar 21, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Appeals from the family which were enhanced by the multi-million $ backing of large religious extreme conservative organizations, who care little about Ms. Schiavo and more about pushing their own agenda.


 Oh yea I'm sure you know everything. That is why they put their jobs on the line to save Ms Schiavo.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 21, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> If Terry Shiavo dies, it will be the end of our country morally. However, most people in America support Terry Shiavo to live. All Republicans and even 1/2 the Democrats support her to live.


Back up this statement please. 

I believe you exactly the opposite of what the American people think. 

If you spend your time listening to 'talk radio' (e.g. Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh) it can be understood why the conclusions you state can be reached. They are however, in accurate.

And yes ... I do have the misfortune of listening to the radio entirely too much ... which is why I know you do too ... "culture of death" is not a phrase that comes to a person who is thinking on their own, but only of those parrotting 'talking points'.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 21, 2005)

I love how many of the same people who say "Kill Her" scream about how wrong the death penalty is.

Here's a concept.  You are so outraged about people getting involved, dont.  Just leave the topic alone.  If everyone would have done that instead of getting involved in heated debate in the first place this probably wouldnt have become the circus that it did.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 21, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I love how many of the same people who say "Kill Her" scream about how wrong the death penalty is.


The death penalty is enacted by the State, which has no business in taking a life.

I am not saying 'Kill Her'.

I am saying that medical decisions are between her and her doctor (strange, where I have argued that before?). 

In the event that she is not able to discuss her wishes with her doctor, the decision moves to the next "controlling legal authority", which is her husband.

So much for 'marriage'.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 21, 2005)

Gee, thanks, "Kane." Hey, here's a question--have you ever taken care of patients in a persistent vegatative state? I have--infants, kids, adults. 

This poor woman died fifteen years ago. Her husband, her doctors, made what I believe to be the right decision--and her parents, with growing support from a group of extreme right-wingers, stuck their noses in.

Disgusting? I'll tell you what's disgusting--keeping this poor woman's corpse, "alive," all this time. Poking your nose into other people's private lives and private decisions. Spreading lies about a man--Michael Shiavo--you don't know from Adam, and have no tangible reason whatsoever to believe has done anything wrong.

Not that it really matters, but the polls actually show that by around 70% majorities and up, Americans think that this is nuts--and think that Congress has no business whatsoever fooling around with this decision.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Mar 21, 2005)

Only 2% of Americans believe that the government should decide this type of right-to-die issue.  Know who conducted this poll?  Fox News.


----------



## stauburn (Mar 22, 2005)

Kane , how would this be the end of the country morally? This type of situation happens very often in this country. The difference in this case is that Terri's parents took it to court, lost twice and the whole affair is happening in a state where the govenor and the president are related( not intended to rag on the president...).

I would like to challenge you to spend a weekend in Terri's place. This is the challenge to you: Have yourself medically paralyzed, which means medications are given to you to inhibit all of your voluntary and involuntary muscle movements. You will need to be  intubated and placed on a ventilator because you won't be able to breathe because you diaphragm isn't working. You mind will be keep completely aware because you will recieve no sedation( morphine, ativan). Giving Terri the benefit of doubt assume that she is completely aware of her situation, you can get a hint of what she is going through....Do you think you can live like that for 15 yrs?

As for a living will, as  far as I know the hospitals are not legally obliged to follow them. Doctors will always discuss it with the family members and usually if there is any major disputes between the family members, the doctors seem to perfer to perform too much than too little medical treatment until things can be sorted out. Believe me , I have participated in the  resessitation of many patients that had living wills


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 22, 2005)

stauburn said:
			
		

> You will need to be intubated and placed on a ventilator because you won't be able to breathe because you diaphragm isn't working. You mind will be keep completely aware because you will recieve no sedation( morphine, ativan).


 Again, correct me if I am wrong, but she is not on "Life Support" of any kind, meaning her lungs and heart are functioning on their own... the machines she is on perform functions such as feeding, etc...

 Just as a side note, when I signed the papers to take my Mom off of life support, they did an EEG(?) and showed that their was no brain activity... what does Terri's show?


----------



## Melissa426 (Mar 22, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Oh yea I'm sure you know everything. That is why they put their jobs on the line to save Ms Schiavo.


I don't claim to know everything.
I would like to know who you think put their jobs on the line to save Mrs. Schiavo.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Melissa426 (Mar 22, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Again, correct me if I am wrong, but she is not on "Life Support" of any kind, meaning her lungs and heart are functioning on their own... the machines she is on perform functions such as feeding, etc...
> 
> Just as a side note, when I signed the papers to take my Mom off of life support, they did an EEG(?) and showed that their was no brain activity... what does Terri's show?


Technopunk, 
Brain death is not the same as persistant vegetative state. I am not a neurologist and can not explain the difference adequately, however. 

But I think the whole gist of the argument is that the decision should be left to the doctors and the family. In this case, because there was a familial dispute, the Florida courts had to get involved. They have ruled repeatedly in Mr. Schiavo's favor.

If one of your family members had disputed your right to have your mom taken off life support, stating that they disagreed with the doctors, what would you do? I was part of the decision made by my stepfather and the rest of my family to stop nutritional support on my mother when she was terminally ill, because we knew she would not want to continue in her condition. She was a lot more alert that Ms. Schiavo, but not completely with it. 
I realize it is two completely different situations, but you know that it's an incredibly hard decision. Mr. Schiavo believes he is doing what his wife would want, and the courts agree with him. IMHO, the rest of the country should just butt out.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 22, 2005)

*Kane in bold:

If Terry Shiavo dies, it will be the end of our country morally. *


I wish people would make up their minds as to WHEN our country died morally.  

For you, it shall be this historic moment.  Bang.  With her death we're dead and corrupt.  All those unseemly and sordid things from our country's past bear no weight.  The slaughter of innocents in domestic wars, the mistreatment of immigrants, child labor, eugenics, kleptocratic businessmen, organized crime--and I'm just working the nineteenth century here.

Killing children with an air delivered munition is euphemized and dismissed as "collateral damage," but this one act is going to irrevocably cripple the nation's morals?  The baby that was taken off of life support in Texas awhile back--against his mother's wishes--didn't do it...but this will?

And all this in spite of the (alleged) fact that most of the country is against her demise?  How does that work?  All those who oppose her death give up and go home after she dies?  They quit their morals and join the ranks of the forsaken?  Will you be the exception?  Will you be the lone voice crying in the wilderness admonishing us for our sins?

For all the ethical questions this case brings to light, no matter how it breaks it will not be the final death knell of this country's morals.  Goodness, if we survived the roasting of 100,000 men, women and children in one fireboming raid over Tokyo, I suspect we can survive this.  

The fact that there are people  discussing this issue (or the events of March 9, 1945, for that matter) CLEARLY indicates that this country's citizens have a sense of morals...even if we can't agree on what they should be.  We are not a nation of sociopaths...even though we have our fair share...and for all our failings as members of a supposedly informed electorate, we at least have the sense of bringing these things to the table.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## ginshun (Mar 22, 2005)

Ya, "culture of death" is deffinately a term heard pretty much daily now if you listen to Michael Savage, which I will gladly admit that I do.  The guy is crazy, but fun to listen too.

 I am not sorry for my opinion on this matter either.  The woman lays in a bed without the ability to eat or comunicate with anyone. Pretty much all evidence shows that she will be like that for as long as we choose to keep her alive.  The husband says that they had discussed this type of situation before she ended up like this and says that her feelings were that she would not want to live like this.  I have seen no plausable explanation to believe otherwise.  Its obviously not money, as he has been offerd millions of dollars to let her live.  All I have seen is cosperousy theories on his motives.  Why can people not accept that maybe his motive is that he is doing it because that is what she would have wanted?

 Personally I know I would not want to be kept alive were I in her situation, and I haven't seen any credible evidence that she felt any different when she was able to make the decision.


 By the way, I have be grouped together with and agree with rmcrobertson, and hence the world is soon coming to an end.  It was nice knowing you guys.


----------



## stauburn (Mar 22, 2005)

In my best explaination..with help.

Brain death- Absence of cerebral responses to light, noise, motion , pain, relfexs, muscle ativity, crainial nerve reflexs, spotaneous respirations. Tests to verify brain death include EEG's , an angiogram to test for absence of cerebral blood flow, apnea test ( removal from ventilator for up to 3 min to check for any spontaneous respiratory effort) and a caloric ice test which is squirting ice cold water into the patients ear canal to see if there is a reflex that cause your eyeballs to move side to side

Vegatative state- It is a chornic condition that is the result of a severe brain injury. You can be in a coma for a while then return to an awake state but with a total lack of cognition. The higher functions of the brain have been permantly damaged but the brain stem remains intact so the patient maintains  normal respiratory efforts and blood pressure. Patient also may have involuntary  lip smacking, chewing and roving eye movements

My source is from Critical Care Nursing: a Holistic Approach 7th edition

I hope that this helps you

Techno.. I know that She isn't on a ventilator , I was just trying to but Kane physically in her place. You cannot be medically paralyzed without being on a ventilator because you cannot breathe.

p.s the federal court upheld the ruling.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 22, 2005)

ANOTHER court decision, last night, says to leave things alone. That makes twenty-two times this case has been to court--different judges, venues, levels--and twenty-two times it's been decided.

I heard lawyers for the parents, and the parents, and all sorts of Bible-thumpers, saying all day yesterday that all they wanted was, a) a Federal-level hearing, to make sure her Constitutional rights weren't being violated, b) a chnace to ensure that she got the same appeals a death row inmate would have.

She did. Again. The parents are appealing this 22nd decision to the Circuit Court. It seems clear that they couldn't care less what the law says--just keep going till you get what you want, who cares who gets hurt.

She's not on life support? OK, fine. Then she'll be feeding herself, cleaning herself up, curing her own pneumonias, bed sores, infections, doing her own physical therapy from now on. This has all been done for her for what? twenty years now? if that's not life support, what is?

This woman died years ago. This is ghoulish.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 22, 2005)

I've looked into this some and really thought about it.
By one doctor's report her cerebral cortex has 'liquified'. I, personally, don't consider her alive. Her lower neural synapses are firing...sure. Those from the medula oblongata.... but she is not in any sense 'aware'...by the reports of the doctors that have worked with her for a long time. Those same doctors say that there is ZERO chance of her coming out of it. (Liquified seems pretty darn permanent to me)
I'd say that removing the tube is:
humane
sensible
and 
moral

I don't think it should have gone FEDERAL! Wasn't there like 21 different hearings on this case, all of them saying to remove the tube. I'd think that any sensible Federal judge would look at this and not have to think very long... leave the other 21 judgements 'as is'. 
Bush overstepped 'states rights' I think, something I thought our party was rather big on.
Oh well.
Just my thoughts.
Your Brother
John


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 22, 2005)

This is a terrible case.

Terrible because, for political reasons, tons of people (and legislators) outside of the family have been dragged into this affair.  Terrible because a woman who only has a viable brainstem has been kept alive for 15 years.  *15 YEARS.*  Terrible because she is not being allowed to die.  

No-one is screaming "kill her!", BTW - they are saying, "Why aren't her husband's wishes - and her own - being respected and honored?  It's HER LIFE (or was)."

As to brainstem and reflexes....

It is a devastating thing to have the hope that your loved one is "still there" when you see a reflexive movement.  Smiling, etc.  The same kind of reflexive movements are seen in young babies.  Unfortunately, these reflexes are not what a hopeful viewer interprets them to be.  If a (young) baby smiles at you, you interpret it as happiness, as closeness, etc.  But when infant reflexes have been examined, infants will "smile at" anything and nothing.  It is a reflex, uncontrolled.  

Because this poor woman has reflexes left does not mean she can hear or process her loved ones.  With only a brainstem left (like an ancephalic baby, who will die soon after birth), she can breathe, swallow (I think), her heart can beat.

This is inhumane, and cruel.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 22, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> This is a terrible case.
> This is inhumane, and cruel.


Agreed

THIS is the Crux of it I think:


> No-one is screaming "kill her!", BTW - they are saying, "Why aren't her husband's wishes - and her own - being respected and honored?  It's HER LIFE (or was)."


That's just it. Govt. shouldn't mess w/peoples lives that much, not like that. It's HORRIBLE.


> It is a devastating thing to have the hope that your loved one is "still there" when you see a reflexive movement.  Smiling, etc.  The same kind of reflexive movements are seen in young babies.  Unfortunately, these reflexes are not what a hopeful viewer interprets them to be.  If a (young) baby smiles at you, you interpret it as happiness, as closeness, etc.  But when infant reflexes have been examined, infants will "smile at" anything and nothing.  It is a reflex, uncontrolled.


I can't even come close to fathoming that Horror!!!!! I really Feel for the parents and can see why they'd feel the way they do. I can't imagine the pain and the impossible position they are in. But it should be left to the decisions of Terry and her husband.... which have been determined time and again...
end it.

It is awefully wrong that this has blown up like this.
I'm on the side for protecting life and supporting EVERYONE's right to life....PERIOD. I can see the point of those who argue to keep her alive, I sympathize with their sentiment. 
BUT: That's not life.  She's not alive and she's not going to be again. What they are looking to do is to stop her physical organism from lingering further.
Your Brother
John


----------



## Phoenix44 (Mar 22, 2005)

It's beyond terrible...it's terrifying.  The radical right government has finally broken down all barriers between the separate powers intended by the framers of the constitution, and invaded the most intimate of personal situations between a husband and wife.

The message here, incidentally, is that even if you've written an advance directive and appointed a health care proxy, you cannot be assured your most personal wishes will be be respected.  If the government doesn't respect the relationship between Mr. and Mrs Schiavo, and the legal appointment of her husband as guardian, they will not respect your meaningless contracts either.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 22, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> It's beyond terrible...it's terrifying.  The radical right government has finally broken down all barriers between the separate powers intended by the framers of the constitution, and invaded the most intimate of personal situations between a husband and wife.
> 
> The message here, incidentally, is that even if you've written an advance directive and appointed a health care proxy, you cannot be assured your most personal wishes will be be respected.  If the government doesn't respect the relationship between Mr. and Mrs Schiavo, and the legal appointment of her husband as guardian, they will not respect your meaningless contracts either.


THat's pretty 'dramatic' there Phoenix44.
I disagree with the extreme conclusion you draw, but hey... to each his/her own.
Also: If memory serves, though I agree their wishes should be respected, I don't think that they had any form of 'advance directive' or living will at all. 
that's one of the hang-ups.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Ray (Mar 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> ....and all sorts of Bible-thumpers, saying all day yesterday that all they wanted was....


I think it's wonderful that you have the right to your opinion; and the right to strive {within limits} for what you believe is right.  I know that you, in spite of your language, would accord the same rights to others.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> ...The parents are appealing this 22nd decision to the Circuit Court. It seems clear that they couldn't care less what the law says--just keep going till you get what you want, who cares who gets hurt.


How many courts upheld the legality of slavery before it was abolished in the US?  It's a good thing for citizens to be able to appeal, even if they lose every time...it confirms the message and the rulings; and it lets us take another look at what we do (as a society and a nation).


----------



## Deuce (Mar 22, 2005)

I can't imagine the pain that both the husband and the parents are going through at this point. I can see both points of view and can only try to put myself in their positions. I think the husband should ultimately have the final say, especially if there were agreements made before-hand with his wife. 

I mean this poor guy has probably spent many sleepless nights contemplating the decision to take her off the feeding tube long ago, only to have it prolonged with fighting with the parents and court decisions, etc. This has got to be hell for the guy. He's trying to get some closure, make a hard decision based on his wife's wishes and move on with his life, but is unable to.

And the parents are still clinging on to what appears to be a very small and inconceivable thread of hope for their daughter, and I can't say that I blame them. Nor do I blame the husband for his decision. It's hard to say what one would do in this situation unless one was in this situation. I think it's BS that the federal governemnets is involved and BS to deny the wishes of the wife and the husband. Prolonging it is just making it so much harder on everyone invloved.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 22, 2005)

Not being polite on this one.

Listen up, Ray: this woman is DEAD, in every meaningful sense. She's been examined by more than many doctors: they all agree. The case has gone and gone and gone through the courts: they all agree. The husband has stuck by his wife and his principles: he's been clear and consistent about what should be done--which by the way is his decision, legally and traditionally in these cases. 

You are supporting federal interference in private, personal decisions that are fairly serious--and interference, I might add, that is being pushed by Protestant fundamentalists and so-called "right-to life," groups. "Bible-thumpers," is exactly right. The Catholic Church has opposed removing the feeding tube--to my knowledge, they haven't been in court, they haven't been picketing and sending hate mail. 

This is grotesque. You are militating for keeping a dead body, "alive." So, YOU go do the care. YOU pay for it. YOU tell all the poor kids, and sick people, that it's fair to divert the resources THEY need to keep a woman's body with no hope of recovery.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The parents are appealing this 22nd decision to the Circuit Court. It seems clear that they couldn't care less what the law says--just keep going till you get what you want, who cares who gets hurt.


As they are only concerned about not letting what they probably still consider their "baby girl" die (regardless of if thats whats best or not), I wouldnt be too hard on them. Its a sad situation all around and injecting our venoms of various types (political,personal, etc.) into it isnt the "solution" IMO.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Not being polite on this one.
> 
> Listen up, Ray: this woman is DEAD, in every meaningful sense.


We are on the same side of this issue, but it seems that we share a position based on very different justifications. It matters not to me in any sense what this woman's physical condition is or was; only that her choice is being usurped. It doesn't matter to me that her will to die (as stated when she had the faculty to do so) is being denied by family or government, simply that it is being denied at all.

In much the same way as a pregnant woman has the right choose what to do with her own body, so too did this woman have the right to choose what to do with hers. In this case, let it die.

If it can be amply demonstrated that it was indeed her will to die under these conditions, what possible justification is there to deny her that now? There isn't one. There simply isn't.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 22, 2005)

This should be an issue approached with sympathy and understanding because on either side we have people who (apparently) love this person and are trying to do what they think is best for her. That mixed in with pain, not wanting to let go, and other emotions I hope I never have to experience being a husband and father myself. People arguing and grinding their political axes over this issue is more grotesque to me than either a parent not wanting to let go, or a husband believing its time to...


----------



## Tgace (Mar 22, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> We are on the same side of this issue, but it seems that we share a position based on very different justifications. It matters not to me in any sense what this woman's physical condition is or was; only that her choice is being usurped. It doesn't matter to me that her will to die (as stated when she had the faculty to do so) is being denied by family or government, simply that it is being denied at all.
> 
> In much the same way as a pregnant woman has the right choose what to do with her own body, so too did this woman have the right to choose what to do with hers. In this case, let it die.
> 
> If it can be amply demonstrated that it was indeed her will to die under these conditions, what possible justification is there to deny her that now? There isn't one. There simply isn't.


For the sake of discussion, where does suicide fit into that philosophy? Let them jump? (a little facetious there )


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> For the sake of discussion, where does suicide fit into that philosophy? Let them jump? (a little facetious there )


Were you to jump in front of a bullet to save a stranger, should I hold you back, preventing you from doing it, because you are my friend?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 22, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Were you to jump in front of a bullet to save a stranger, should I hold you back, preventing you from doing it, because you are my friend?


Thats more "sacrifice" than "suicide" IMO. What if I wanted to jump off a bridge because I "just couldnt take it anymore"? Should the police intervene? Not that this situation really mirrors this, just seeing how far the "its your body and you can do what you want with it" philosophy goes. :asian:


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Should the police intervene?


IMO, only if suicide is actually against the law in that jurisdiction, or if they fear that it may create a potential hazard to motorists travelling beneath the bridge.  Otherwise, it would be appropriate for people who care about the one with suicidal inclinations to attempt to discourse with them in order to express their love and try to convince them otherwise, perhaps to seek counselling.  Out of love for that person.  As far as that goes, though I'm aware that it is in fact against the law in some jurisdictions to commit suicide, I think that law is unconstitutional.  

Is it not an infringement on my rights to force me to live through physical or mental agony if my preference would be to not?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 22, 2005)

Its not "against the law" per se, here. I can "force" (physically) a suicidal person to go to the hospital for a mental evaluation. Where they can be held by doctors legally for a considerable time. Personally I think its in the best interest of society to not just "let" people kill themselves "out of hand" because there are many people (like teenagers in "angst", and people going through breakups) that are not making rational decisions.

Far more people kill themselves for "emotional" reasons than for "physical" (illness, this case, etc.) reasons.

ps: It is against the law here to assist a person committing suicide.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 22, 2005)

Well, that's certainly part of the problem with the whole debate, really.  At what point can we say, "Mr. X was or was not being rational at the time of the decision"? 

I do agree though, Tom, that it is important that for society as a whole, some form of objective opinion needs be given in order to validate the idea that "this is really what they wanted, all consequences of the action were considered rationally".... know what I'm saying?  But how do we standardize such a thing?  Beyond that, what position do we take in the interim until such a process is defined?  We either sit on the side of individual liberty, or as property of the State.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 22, 2005)

Not to get thrown in with the "right wing, religious extreme" but I do believe that life should be valued over death even to the point of telling others that they cant kill themselves. In situations like this and in terminal illness cases, I can be convinced otherwise. In plain old "personal issue" suicide..no. Ive had to "clean up" after numerous people who couldnt see past what was going on in their lives "at the moment".


----------



## Ray (Mar 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Not being polite on this one.
> 
> Listen up, Ray: this woman is DEAD, in every meaningful sense....
> You are supporting federal interference in private, personal decisions... being pushed by Protestant fundamentalists..."Bible-thumpers," is exactly right....
> ...


Not only are you NOT being polite you're also WRONG on one important fact:  I am not militating for keeping a dead body alive; you'll note that I offered no opinion whether her body should be kept alive.

But I will offer an opinion:  It should be the family that decides in cases like these.  Who is the family and who has that right?  When I decided to let my older brother "expire" in 2002, I had been given "permission" by my other brothers to make that decision.  (I lived close enough to visit him and talk to the docs).  He was divorced and had no children; our father was unreachable.  I can't imagine what may have taken place if we hadn't been unified.

I think it is good that decisions like this are not taken lightly, that they are subject to legal challenge.  It is not (or maybe "it should not be") an easy decision to make.


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> This is grotesque.


You might be right.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 22, 2005)

Listen up, Ray: the family HAS decided. Legally, and by tradition, this is THE HUSBAND'S decision, unless of course there's reason to think he's the one who put her in the coma to begin with. And there isn't.

There have been FIFTEEN YEARS of court decisions--twenty-two separate court decisions on this matter. The husband's made his wishes clear, and he's been consistent. The Supreme Court has turned town hearing the case, which means that they've seen no reason to reconsider lower court rulings.

Yes, the parents want something else. They've gone to court. Twenty-two different courts.  It's gone to the Supreme Court. Their demands have been turned down, again and again and again, for 15 years of this insanity. What's kept it going? Right-wing fundamentalists--a term I am using because the polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans think pulling the feeding tube is the right thing to do. Why'd it get to Congress? Tom DeLay and his crowd of right-wing loons pushed it--oddly enough, at a time when Hizzoner is nose-diving in the polls with regard to Iraq and Social Security.

So tell us: when's it going to be enough? What more than 22 judges, and all her actual doctors, and the husband's wishes, do you want?


----------



## Ray (Mar 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Listen up, Ray: the family HAS decided. Legally, and by tradition, this is THE HUSBAND'S decision, unless of course there's reason to think he's the one who put her in the coma to begin with....Yes, the parents want something else. They've gone to court. Twenty-two different courts....
> 
> So tell us: when's it going to be enough? What more than 22 judges, and all her actual doctors, and the husband's wishes, do you want?


Sounds simple to me, you always have the right answer; we'll just elect you to supreme leader and live happily ever after.


----------



## Deuce (Mar 22, 2005)

I agree. Enough is enough. There should be the option of going to court in cases where the motive of the legal gaurdian may not be in the best interest of the person in question. But in this case, I think it's gone to far. It has already been shown again and again that the decision of the husband is acceptable and justified, regardless of the parents feelings. The parents are no doubt in pain and disagree with the decision of the husband, but I think there should be certain limits applied to situations like this in order to come to a speedy conslusion as to let the family members move on instead of having to deal with this every day for 15 years. This ongoing battle is probably causing everyone more pain than if they would have removed the feeding tube 10 years ago.


----------



## oldnewbie (Mar 22, 2005)

A few facts:http://www.wftv.com/news/4221314/detail.html


 The timeline in the case of Terri Schiavo, who has been at the center of a protracted legal battle between her husband and parents over the husband's attempts to remove her feeding tube:


*1990 *
-- Feb. 25: Terri Schiavo collapses in her home. Doctors believe a potassium imbalance caused her heart to temporarily stop, cutting off oxygen to her brain.


*1992*
-- November: Terri's husband, Michael, wins malpractice suit that accused doctors of misdiagnosing his wife; jury awards more than more than $700,000 for her care, Michael receives an additional $300,000.


*1993*
-- Feb. 14: Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have a falling out with Michael over the malpractice suit money and Terri's care.


-- July 29: Bob and Mary Schindler file petition to have Michael Schiavo removed as Terri's guardian. The case is later dismissed.


*1998*
-- May: Michael Schiavo files petition to remove Terri's feeding tube.


*2000 *
-- Feb. 11: Circuit Judge George W. Greer rules feeding tube can be removed.


*2001 *
-- Jan. 24: 2nd District Court of Appeal upholds Greer's decision.


-- March 29: Greer rules feeding tube to be removed April 20.


-- April 18: Florida Supreme Court refuses to intervene in the case.


-- April 20: U.S. District Judge Richard Lazzara grants the Schindlers a stay until April 23 to exhaust appeals.


-- April 23: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to intervene.


-- April 24: Feeding tube is removed from Terri Schiavo.


-- April 26: Circuit Judge Frank Quesada orders doctors to reinsert Terri's feeding tube.


-- April 30: Lawyers for Michael Schiavo file emergency motion with appellate court asking it to order removal of Terri's feeding tube.


-- July 11: 2nd District Court of Appeal sends case back to Judge Greer.


-- July 18: Schindlers ask Greer to let their doctors evaluate Terri before making a final decision on removing the feeding tube.


-- Aug. 10: Greer denies the Schindlers' evaluation request, as well as their request to remove Michael Schiavo as guardian.


-- Sept. 26: Schindlers' attorneys argue before 2nd District Court of Appeal, citing testimony from seven doctors who say Terri can recover with the right treatment.


-- Oct. 3: 2nd District Court of Appeal delays removal of feeding tube indefinitely.


-- Oct. 17: 2nd District Court of Appeal rules that five doctors can examine Terri to determine whether she has any hope of recovery. Two doctors are picked by the Schindlers, two are picked by Michael Schiavo and one is picked by the court.


*2002 *
-- Feb. 13: Mediation attempts fail; Michael Schiavo again seeks to be allowed to remove Terri's feeding tube.


-- Oct. 12: Weeklong hearing begins in the case. Three doctors, including the one appointed by the court, testify that Terri is in a persistent, vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The two doctors selected by the Schindlers say she can recover.


-- Nov. 22: Judge Greer rules that there is no evidence that Terri has any hope of recovery and orders feeding tube to be removed Jan. 3, 2003.


-- Dec. 13: Judge Greer stays order to remove feeding tube on Jan. 3 until the 2nd District Court of Appeal reviews the case.


*2003 *
-- April 4: Schindlers' attorneys ask 2nd District Court of Appeal panel to "err on the side of life" and overturn Greer's ruling.


-- June 6: 2nd District Court of Appeal upholds Greer's ruling.


-- July 15: The 2nd District Court of Appeal refuses to rehear the case.


-- Aug. 22: The Florida Supreme Court declines to hear case.


-- Sept. 2: Schindlers take case to federal court seeking judicial intervention.


-- Sept. 17: Judge Greer sets Oct. 15 date for removal of tube.


-- Oct. 3: Attorney General Charlie Crist says he won't get involved in case.


-- Oct. 7: Gov. Jeb Bush files a federal court brief urging Terri Schiavo be kept alive.


-- Oct. 10: U.S. District Judge Lazzara rules he does not have jurisdiction to intervene in case.


-- Oct. 13: Protesters and Schindler family begin 24-hour vigil at Pinellas Park hospice where Terri Schiavo lives.


-- Oct. 14: 2nd District Court of Appeal again refuses to block tube removal.


-- Oct. 15: Doctors remove feeding tube; Bush pledges to search for possible legal options to resume feedings.


-- Oct. 17: Two state courts reject the Schindler's request to reinsert the feeding tube.


-- Oct. 20: The Florida House of Representatives votes to give governor the power to issue a stay in the feeding tube dispute.


-- Oct. 21: The Senate and House pass a bill allowing Bush to intervene. He signs the bill, called "Terri's Law," then issues an order to reinsert the tube. Morton Plant Hospital begins rehydrating Terri Schiavo, six days after her feeding tube was removed. A judge rejects a request by her husband's attorney to temporarily restrain the governor's order.


-- Dec. 2: An independent guardian concludes there's "no reasonable medical hope" that Terri Schiavo will improve.


*2004 *
-- May 6: Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird rules the law allowing Bush to intervene is unconstitutional. The governor's attorneys appeal.


-- June 1: 2nd District Court of Appeal agrees to let Michael Schiavo's attorney ask the Florida Supreme Court to take the appeal directly, bypassing the 2nd DCA.


-- June 16: In a 4-3 order, the Florida Supreme Court agrees to take the appeal.


-- Aug. 31: Oral arguments in the case are nationally televised.


-- Sept. 23: Florida Supreme Court strikes down "Terri's Law" as unconstitutional.


-- Oct. 22: Greer refuses to hold a new trial based on recent comments from Pope John Paul II calling the withdrawal of food and hydration from the disabled a sin.


-- Dec. 1: Bush's attorney ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case on "Terri's Law."


-- Dec. 29: The 2nd District Court of Appeal upholds Greer's decision not to grant a new trial.


*2005 *
-- Jan. 24: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal brought by the governor's attorneys.


-- Jan. 28: An attorney for the family of Terri Schiavo asks Greer to allow him to proceed with a motion arguing that her due-process rights were violated because she has never had her own attorney.


-- Feb. 22: The 2nd District Court of Appeal clears the way for Michael Schiavo to remove Terri's feeding tube, then Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer issued an emergency stay blocking removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube for until 5 p.m. EST the next day.


-- Feb. 23: Greer extended the stay by two days, saying he needed time to decide whether her parents should be allowed to pursue other legal and medical options.


-- Feb. 24: An attorney for the Schindler's says the Department of Children & Families is seeking a 60-day stay on the removal the feeding tube while it investigates new allegations of abuse and neglect.


-- Feb. 25: Greer gives Michael Schiavo permission to order the removal of the feeding tube at 1 p.m. March 18.


-- Mar. 18: Feeding tube is removed at 1:45 p.m.


-- Mar. 21: President Bush approves federal review of case.


-- Mar. 22: Federal judge refuses to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.



And it ain't about the money. $700,00 + $300,00 = $1,000,000
minus attorney fees, let's say 40%???? Leaves $ 600,000 +/-

15 years of care, at say $3,500/month (correct me if I'm off) = $42,000 / year, x 15 years = $ 630,000......

I would think she's probably on medicare right now....


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 22, 2005)

This must have been a nightmare.  15 years of this.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 22, 2005)

Ray, you're willfully missing the point. It's not that I get to decide because I'm such a smarty-pants--it's not that ANY one person gets to decide. it's that this has been gone over, gone over, and gone over by all sorts of different legal and medical groups, for FIFTEEN YEARS.

In a different context, I'd say this is a no-brainer. The point is, Ray, what would be enough for you? All her doctors, all the courts, and her husband all agree--so what would be enough for you?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Mar 22, 2005)

Well if there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that my fiance and I are both signing pull-the-plug forms after we're married.  Hope that all we have to do is file them away and forget about them, but let's face it, her parents are pretty religious folks, and I don't think I could handle a similar 15 years of publicity, legal hoops, contention, all while watching my wife's all but dead form everyday.  

Poor guy.  Not only is he still carrying the financial and emotional burden of keeping her body functioning when she's gone, he's getting harrassed, I'm sure, over a decision that couldn't have been easy. I've seen a number of protest signs in Tallahassee (my, but what a year to move to this city) condemning him for killing his wife.  Naive question, but has anyone read whether Terri's parents are paying for her current medical expenses, or have been over the last 15 years?  I know that the writers of the protest signs aren't.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 22, 2005)

Nothing like "being nasty out of sympathy" eh??


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 22, 2005)

NO ONE should have to make this decision for someone they love.

However, if *one* loves someone deeply, as a parent loves a child, *one* should know when to let the loved one go.

Who's being considerate of who here -- as I pointed out way, way, way upthread.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 22, 2005)

Yeah, but thats always easy to say when its not your child. While not in total agreement with them, Im not going to paint them as selfish either....if it was going to be "quick" I could probably let my child go. Weeks of "starvation" regardless of how many medical professionals told me its "painless"...less likely so.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yeah, but thats always easy to say when its not your child. While not in total agreement whith them, Im not going to paint them as selfish either....if it was going to be "quick" I could probably let my child go. Weeks of "starvation" regardless of how many medical professionals told me its "painless"...less likely so.



I don't have a lot to say on the issue, because I can honestly say that I haven't made up my mind yet on exactly how I feel on this one.

But Tgace illustrates the moral dilemma I have.

I am all for the husband having POA to pull life support mechanisms, and doing so. But I am hung up on the idea of pulling the feeding tube and letting her starve to death. Despite justification, I can't imagine that starving someone is the moral way to handle it, or that it is a painless way to go, despite whatever she may or may not have left in her head. Also, I can't say I trust all doctors to verifiably determine how "vegitative" a person is, when there is still some brain activity beyond minimum life support. 

However, I do rightfully understand the arguement that if this person is basically a shell of her former self with no hopes of being nothing but an empty body cavity again, that we should let her rest in peace. 

So, on this one, I am stuck.  I don't really have my mind made up yet.

Another issue to consider: there are larger public policy issues at stake here.

This is why I am against assisted suicide. It has nothing to do with silly neo-conservative or pseudo-religious ideals, either. I am all for someone having the right to take their own lives, or for someone having the right to die. The problem is, if you institute assisted suicide, this opens up the doors for our already corrupted medical and insurance system to say, "Well, I am sorry Mrs. Poor Person, but because you aren't part of an elite percent of the wealthy out there, your insurance doesn't cover pain medication, life support mechanism, or methods to help your husbands quality of life for the next 5 to 10 years. But for $500 bucks, we can hook him up to a machine and he can rest in peace. Well...I'll leave it up to you two to decide..."

We face a similar problem if public policy allows us to pull a feeding tube without the proper documentation (via living will). "Oops, my wife is in a coma from an accident, and I don't feel like waiting for her to wake up again, so I get a doctors note that says that she might never wake up again and I pull her feeding tubes and all other support mechanisms, and watch her die." Or, better yet, "I'm sorry Mr. Poor person, but because you aren't part of an elite percent of the wealthy, your insurance doesn't cover us to keep your wife on life support. But instead of incurring all these overpriced medical bills that we know you'll never pay, for $1000 bucks our doctors can determine that your wife most likely will never wake up, allowing you to pull the plug and let her rest in peace. We'll let you decide..."

The point is, regardless of what the right answer is in this case (an answer that I am not sure of), there are larger policy issues at stake here. We need to make sure that we are protecting life, and the people from any sort of corruption of the system.

Paul


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 22, 2005)

The point, I'd say, isn't that we should think anything through. As far as I'm concerned, the point is that the husband, the woman's doctors, and fifteen years of courts, have decided what the best thing to do is in this case. They've done every single thing they should, and a few more besides.

And led by a group of fanatics, a small group is insisting on over-riding the husband, doctors', and judges' decision.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The point, I'd say, isn't that we should think anything through. As far as I'm concerned, the point is that the husband, the woman's doctors, and fifteen years of courts, have decided what the best thing to do is in this case. They've done every single thing they should, and a few more besides.
> 
> And led by a group of fanatics, a small group is insisting on over-riding the husband, doctors', and judges' decision.



Yes. And those are good points that I agree with, which is why in this case I think it is justifiable to let the woman rest in peace if after pulling every other life support mechanism but nourishment, she is able to die.

I do think that policy should be taken into consideration though for future cases, but for the reason of protecting people from an already curropted system; and that we need to not let policy be dictated by the few religious fanatics who continuesly and unconstitutionally try to impose their religious beliefs on our government.

But I am still hung up on that feeding tube part. How do we justify pulling a feeding tube and allowing someone to starve to death? That is still a part of this that greatly hangs me up.

Paul


----------



## Kane (Mar 22, 2005)

Hmmm, strange how nobody in this thread has brought up how much the credibility of this husband should be questioned. A Nurse who cared for Shiavo for over a year witnessed this "husband" trying in Terry's room with syringes of DEATH. The syringes with poison were found all over her body. The nurse stumbled into her room with the "husband" found alone with the syringes. This man tried to kill his wife, and yet the media tries so hard to hide the identity of this nurse and her story. The hospital staff has even heard Terry's "husband" say and ask "when is Terry going to die, when is the B***h going to die". Those were the exact words, and yet folks like rmcrobertson even dare to bring it up.

 I think a homicide detection needs to be carried out. I cannot believe one has not been carried out already.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yeah, but thats always easy to say when its not your child. While not in total agreement with them, Im not going to paint them as selfish either....if it was going to be "quick" I could probably let my child go. Weeks of "starvation" regardless of how many medical professionals told me its "painless"...less likely so.



I'm finding a lot of empathy for the parents in this case and I am finding some common ground with Tgace on this one.  As a parent, I would feel unbelievably torn.  I would hope that would still be able to reason and see what is most likely best for my daughter...but I don't know.  I've never had to experience this and I hope I never will.  

I think what I really object to is the hypocritical political circus that has sprung up around this issue.  It really is a slap in the face to these grieving people and even the blind can see the blatent manuvering on this.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 22, 2005)

Yes, Upnorth.  You and Tgace will hopefully _never_ be faced with having your child in a life and death situation.  It's not one I wish on anyone else.  Until you've been there, you simply cannot understand.

And, once again, I agree with Robert (restating my position to the point of _ad nauseam_.) In this particular case, the parents _are not_ in charge any longer.

And Kane.  Document exactly _where_ you got all that foofaraw about the 'syringes of DEATH' (merely reiterating what you said and how.)  To make accusations like that in a discussion like this, a source is mandatory I would think.


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 22, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Hmmm, strange how nobody in this thread has brought up how much the credibility of this husband should be questioned. A Nurse who cared for Shiavo for over a year witnessed this "husband" trying in Terry's room with syringes of DEATH. The syringes with poison were found all over her body. The nurse stumbled into her room with the "husband" found alone with the syringes. This man tried to kill his wife, and yet the media tries so hard to hide the identity of this nurse and her story. The hospital staff has even heard Terry's "husband" say and ask "when is Terry going to die, when is the B***h going to die". Those were the exact words, and yet folks like rmcrobertson even dare to bring it up.
> 
> I think a homicide detection needs to be carried out. I cannot believe one has not been carried out already.


 So what is your source of information for this???

 - Ceicei


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 22, 2005)

Actually, I believe that "Mr. Schiavo," is actually one of the Roswell space aliens, who has killed his wife as part of their vast, insidious program of genetic research, and who has been fighting for the removal of all support as one of their coded messages that, using our own satellites against us (see, "Independence Day") is telling his compatriots that it is time for the invasion to begin. 

And I have every bit as much evidence for this claim as for the claim that Mr. Schiavo has comitted a murder, or is trying to withdraw his dead wife's, "life support," for financial gain.

But beyond the lunatic logic, I am glad to see that Michael Savage's daily line has, once again, poured directly into the argument here. I actually heard that little creep say, just today, that the fact that Michael Schiavo went back to school and studied nursing so that he could care for his dying wife was a sign that he was guilty of some crime, because why else would a man study nursing and want to take care of his own wife this way?

If that sort of claim--done to sell books and radio ads and make its maker very, very wealthy--doesn't revolt you, very little will. Fifteen years. Innumerable doctors. Twenty-two court decisions. 

How much is enough for you? And more than that--who do you think you are, to get involved in somebody's marriage like this, to claim you know better than the whole rack of doctors who have actually examined the woman, to attack a husband who--whether you like his choices or you don't--has taken care of his destroyed wife's body as best he can for fifteen years?

It's outrageous arrogance.

Or do you have some actual evidence? No? Didn't think so. But then, hell, we're presently engaged in a war on pretty much the same lack of grounds.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 22, 2005)

My question has yet to be answered.

It seems that with many court decisions and Dr. diagnosis over 15 or so years, the husband had every right to make the decision to pull life support. I don't think this issue is clear for the next time, and I am not convinced fully that proper policy is in place, but in this particular case it would seem that the husband had the right to pull life support.

But...

what about the feeding tube? Is it justified to pull the feeding tube and allow the person to slowly starve to death? And if so, please explain so that I can understand. It's the whole starving to death thing that I am having trouble with.

Paul


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 22, 2005)

I don't find the starving to death thing to be very humane either.  Why have they chosen to go that route?


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 22, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I don't find the starving to death thing to be very humane either.  Why have they chosen to go that route?



I guess that when they pulled all other support mechanisms, she was able to live just so long she was getting food, hydration, and oxygen, as every human needs. She could breath normally with out a breathing tube. There was some brain activity as well, even though she was in a comotose state.

So, that left 2 options. Letting her die through natural means, or pulling the feeding tube that hydrates and feeds her, and letting her starve to death. They're saying pull the feeding tube and let her starve.

Now...my question is, how is that justifiable?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 23, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Now...my question is, how is that justifiable?


 It's justifiable because the husband, as the legal guardian, claims that the wife told him she would not wish to maintained in a permanent state of semi-"life" via feeding tube when twenty-two-odd doctors have already declared her cognitatively inert.

 The concept of it being "inhumane" to starve Terri Schiavo to death by removing her feeding tube is worthy of applause, except she is already a cadaver with a nerve-reflex smile; she will not feel the pain of starvation because everything that made her Terri Schiavo died fifteen years ago.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 23, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> she will not feel the pain of starvation because everything that made her Terri Schiavo died fifteen years ago.



O.K...I can see that, if it is true. 

Does anyone disagree, or have evidence to the contrary?


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 23, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Now...my question is, how is that justifiable?


 So how would it differ with pulling the plug on the ventilator? Injecting the body with sufficient chemicals? Not providing resuscitation efforts after a cardiac arrest (DNR)? These things can and do happen in hospitals and other places (where allowed by some states). Are these actions justifiable?

       Bottom line is those who have medical guardianship make the final decision.

 It is not an easy thing. Death often invokes emotion, especially when it is in a slow process. We generally handle it better if death is swift rather than slow and lingering. Slow and lingering often equate in the minds of many people to be "painful". Terri probably will not feel pain (or at least does not have the mental capacity to process it as "pain" in an emotional sense.)



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Does anyone disagree, or have evidence to the contrary?


 Would she ever be able to recover? Very unlikely, as her brain is mostly liquified. What is left are her basic reflexes.  What purpose is there to keep her alive if she would never, ever be remotely back to how she was? As PeachMonkey noted, she is essentially a living cadaver. Is it justifiable to keep her living on? 

       - Ceicei


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 23, 2005)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> So how would it differ with pulling the plug on the ventilator? Injecting the body with sufficient chemicals? Not providing resuscitation efforts after a cardiac arrest (DNR)? These things can and do happen in hospitals and other places (where allowed by some states). Are these actions justifiable?
> 
> Bottom line is those who have medical guardianship make the final decision.
> 
> ...



Pulling a feeding tube, to me, is different then pulling other methods of life support.

You can remove all other forms of life support; like a non-comotose person, if they can't breath or pump blood or fight off disease through non-artifical means, then it is the natural course of action that the person finally dies when this support is removed.

However, none of you who are as healthy as can be will survive without food and hydration. If you deprive a healthy person of this, they will die regardless. So by starving someone to death, you are effectively killing them rather then letting them die as a natural course of action. And that is the difference. Not to mention that if the person can feel it, this is an agonizing way to go. Cutting the comotose persons head off would probably be more humane then starving them to death, if they do feel the pain and agony somewhere inside them.

But, is the brain truly liquified? Is she truly an empty cadaver waiting to finally be put to rest? Is she truely unable to feel the pain of starvation because her liquified brain just cannot recieve the pain message anymore? I assume the answer to this is yes, or the courts wouldn't have voted in favor of the husband. So, I could buy it in this case.

But, how can we be sure for the next one? This is why I think it is important that public policy protects the people from potential danger. Do we trust that the next doctor for the next person isn't going to convieniently misdiagnose the comotose patient, leading to a pulled plug and an agonizing death? What will the answer be then..."Awe shucks...her brain isn't liquid...silly me! Time to talk to my attorney? Good thing the good ol' gov-ment's been cracking down on them malpractice lawsuits...?"

I think these are reasonable concerns.


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 23, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> But, how can we be sure for the next one? This is why I think it is important that public policy protects the people from potential danger. Do we trust that the next doctor for the next person isn't going to convieniently misdiagnose the comotose patient, leading to a pulled plug and an agonizing death? What will the answer be then..."Awe shucks...her brain isn't liquid...silly me! Time to talk to my attorney? Good thing the good ol' gov-ment's been cracking down on them malpractice lawsuits...?"
> 
> I think these are reasonable concerns.


 Reasonable and viable concerns. That is why the government and congress should have stayed out of this particular case because the issues were already decided legally and medically.

 Now as for other people, I really think theirs should be as case-by-case situations, best determined by the doctors, hospitals, and guardians.

 Malpractice suits have their places, even with caps controlling the possible settlements that could be received. There has to be sufficient evidence to show the safeguards that usually are present medically were absent.

   - Ceicei


----------



## Brother John (Mar 23, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Hmmm, strange how nobody in this thread has brought up how much the credibility of this husband should be questioned. A Nurse who cared for Shiavo for over a year witnessed this "husband" trying in Terry's room with syringes of DEATH. The syringes with poison were found all over her body. The nurse stumbled into her room with the "husband" found alone with the syringes. This man tried to kill his wife, and yet the media tries so hard to hide the identity of this nurse and her story. The hospital staff has even heard Terry's "husband" say and ask "when is Terry going to die, when is the B***h going to die". Those were the exact words, and yet folks like rmcrobertson even dare to bring it up.
> 
> I think a homicide detection needs to be carried out. I cannot believe one has not been carried out already.


WOW...I think you are misrepresenting the report. I head this one on the news today, I heard an interview with that nurse... there was ONE syringe, in the trash...and a vile (is that the correct term??) of insulin. (Commonly used when one is keeping a body alive by machines) She couldn't account for where the vile had come from and found that Terry's blood sugars were "OFF". She said that she thinks that the husband was trying to kill her.
That's all. No "syringes of DEATH" all over her body. One, in the trash. The 'media' hasn't done SQUAT to 'hide' this nurses identity. I heard her in her own voice today.
As to the hospital staff saying that they heard him say "when is this B$#%h going to die?" ...doubt it. Can you imagine?? You've gone through the education and training to be a nurse, a hospice nurse. This is a place where the workers hold onto hope with both hands and wring it for all it's worth! GOD BLESS'M!!!! You've dedicated your life to saving lives when you can. You work with and care for one lady for some time. Then this HUGE media hooplah about "HE WANTS TO KILL HER!!!!" crap comes on and doesn't go away. It's in your face. You recall all the times you dealt with and cared for her. The anger at this husband grows in you. I'd bet a good deal that this "memory" of him saying that isn't true.

Don't believe the hype man! Did you know that her husband won a hefty sum in court from suing the drug company that made the drug that caused her heart attack?? Over $750,000 from what I heard. Do you know how much his tax forms show that he's spent on caring for his DEAD wife's body to be cared for and prolonged?? 
Over $900,000. 

Yeah...sounds like he doesn't care.

Your Brother
John


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 23, 2005)

1. I'll tell you what's obscene about this. It's the violation of privacy; the publicization of what should be intensely private. And why? because a group of fanatics, and right-wing politicians, have latched on to a husband and wife's misery. 

2. We HAVE a set of legal procedures and precedents for this. a) the tradition is that the spouse decides, barring some over-riding evidence that they shouldn't; b) the doctors review the case and make the best call they can; c) the courts review things if there are problems. All this got done. Over, and over, and over, calling in MORE doctors and MORE courts. For FIFTEEN years. The parents, who aren't historically or legally empowered to interfere, have pushed on and on and on, because they've been, "helped," by Bible-thumpers and radical politicians. 

3. What some of you folks don't seem to understand is that if we'd followed the traditional course of things, this would've been over many years ago. Instead, we've pumped technology into keeping this--body--breathing for 15 years. The Bible-thumpers and the right-wing politicans have meddled and meddled, without any legal or moral justification.

Again--this sort of nonsense started to be pushed under Reagan, around 1982. Those of us on this forum who've actually worked with these patients know perfectly well that it IS nonsense, too--unlike the theoreticians, who want everything kept, 'alive,' but who damn sure haven't been there, and won't be there, to do the dirty work. 

It's a radical change from custom, and from past law--a change being passed off as a "defense," of traditional values, which is nonsense. 

"Sanctity of life," my left foot. The people pushing this are exactly the ones trying to cut programs for health care, for Social Security, for Head Start, for women's clinics, for all the things that would help cut such tragedies.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 23, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> I heard an interview with that nurse... there was ONE syringe, in the trash...and a vile (is that the correct term??) of insulin. (Commonly used when one is keeping a body alive by machines) She couldn't account for where the vile had come from and found that Terry's blood sugars were "OFF". She said that she thinks that the husband was trying to kill her.
> That's all. No "syringes of DEATH" all over her body. One, in the trash. The 'media' hasn't done SQUAT to 'hide' this nurses identity. I heard her in her own voice today.Your Brother
> John


BTW: That nurses name is known.
AND, by law if she believed that Terry's husband had done ANY of the following:
1. Administered a drug in hospital without doctors authorization.
2. Administered a drug and not been a hospital emplyee with authorization to administer.
3. Administered a drug with the intent to HARM a patient in the care of that hospital.
IF..........................IF she really believed that any one of these things were true, then she was bound by a legal and moral obligation to file a report, a very serious report, with that hospital...and in the case of #3... to contact the police to make a report. 

THERE IS NO SUCH REPORT anywhere in the records of the hospital and no report that year by that nurse or regarding Terry or her husband... at all. 

hmmm, strange....

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Mar 23, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Pulling a feeding tube, to me, is different then pulling other methods of life support.
> But, is the brain truly liquified? Is she truly an empty cadaver waiting to finally be put to rest? Is she truely unable to feel the pain of starvation because her liquified brain just cannot recieve the pain message anymore? I assume the answer to this is yes, or the courts wouldn't have voted in favor of the husband. So, I could buy it in this case.
> 
> I think these are reasonable concerns.


Yes, reasonable concerns!
The answer to those questions is, and has been during the course of several different doctors and 21 different court hearings, YES.

Therefore, removing the tube IS humane. There's no-one there anymore. I don't see it being very different than removal of a ventilator.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Kane (Mar 23, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> WOW...I think you are misrepresenting the report. I head this one on the news today, I heard an interview with that nurse... there was ONE syringe, in the trash...and a vile (is that the correct term??) of insulin. (Commonly used when one is keeping a body alive by machines) She couldn't account for where the vile had come from and found that Terry's blood sugars were "OFF". She said that she thinks that the husband was trying to kill her.
> That's all. No "syringes of DEATH" all over her body. One, in the trash. The 'media' hasn't done SQUAT to 'hide' this nurses identity. I heard her in her own voice today.
> As to the hospital staff saying that they heard him say "when is this B$#%h going to die?" ...doubt it. Can you imagine?? You've gone through the education and training to be a nurse, a hospice nurse. This is a place where the workers hold onto hope with both hands and wring it for all it's worth! GOD BLESS'M!!!! You've dedicated your life to saving lives when you can. You work with and care for one lady for some time. Then this HUGE media hooplah about "HE WANTS TO KILL HER!!!!" crap comes on and doesn't go away. It's in your face. You recall all the times you dealt with and cared for her. The anger at this husband grows in you. I'd bet a good deal that this "memory" of him saying that isn't true.
> 
> ...


 Sorry, I misquoted it. One syringe, but various liquids were found in many places of her body including the arms, legs, and genitals. The point is that it seems that this man wants and wanted her dead for a long time before. The nurse's story is very much believable IMO.

  ---------

 No matter what the case is, SHE IS NOT DEAD. She is not braindead, she is brain damaged. I have seen people in wheelchairs that can't even respond at all, should we kill them too? Mentally Handicapped people are mentally damaged, should we know kill everyone with Down Syndrome or any other mental disease? Should we kill those in a comma for over 20 years just because "they have no chance"? HELL NO!!! She is active enough for her to live, and as the medical field advances we might be able to save her one day. I cannot believe some people here want to kill a defenseless woman in the bed that cannot defend her. She has done nothing wrong. Yet these same people who want Terry to die, are against the death penalty of people who have killed dozens of people. Kill and innocent defenseless woman lying on a bed, but don't kill a cold-blooded killer . What is this world turning into? I can't believe some of you call yourselves liberals. A true liberal would support the life of Terry Shiavo.

 What is the most horrific thing about this all is that Terry Shiavo is being starved to death. This isn't even lethal injection her, which I am oppose to, she is being starved. It is horrible she has to suffer like this. Until a conclusion is reached they need to give her food and water. Heck the doctors have even concluded that she can swallow food now, they should give her some food at least in her mouth. I don't know how anybody in that hospital can just walk around and work in that building while a defenseless woman is starving to death.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 23, 2005)

> We HAVE a set of legal procedures and precedents for this. a) the tradition is that the spouse decides, barring some over-riding evidence that they shouldn't; b) the doctors review the case and make the best call they can; c) the courts review things if there are problems.



That is my concern...that there is a procedure in place to protect human life.

I would assume that when deciding to pull a feeding tube, the doctors would have to assess that the patient is truly an empty cadaver that is basically brain dead, and that the patient will not suffer if the feeding tube is pulled.

If my assumption is correct, then I can say officially that I am O.K. with a decision to pull a feeding tube. If my assumption is off, then I believe we have a problem...

Paul


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 23, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> That is my concern...that there is a procedure in place to protect human life.
> 
> I would assume that when deciding to pull a feeding tube, the doctors would have to assess that the patient is truly an empty cadaver that is basically brain dead, and that the patient will not suffer if the feeding tube is pulled.
> 
> ...


 There are "checks and balances" within the medical field. Yes, doctors have to assess, and have other medical professionals verify, the viability of the patients and what other options/treatments/research are available. Once the doctors make their findings, the legal guardian(s) then has/have to make a decision on what to do.

   - Ceicei


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 23, 2005)

> SHE IS NOT DEAD. She is not braindead, she is brain damaged.



Kane...not sure where your getting your info, but the accounts that I had heard was that the brain had basically liquified, and that all that was left was stem and reflexes, making her unable to function beyond basic life support, and unable to feel pain.

So, basically, she was a cadaver with minimal body function.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 23, 2005)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> There are "checks and balances" within the medical field. Yes, doctors have to assess, and have other medical professionals verify, the viability of the patients and what other options/treatments/research are available. Once the doctors make their findings, the legal guardian(s) then has/have to make a decision on what to do.
> 
> - Ceicei



Sure...and as long as those checks and balances involve assuring that the patient has no brain function beyond life support before pulling a feeding tube, then I am O.K. with it.


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 23, 2005)

Paul,

 I found an article related to your concerns regarding starvation.  Check it out and let me know what you think.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7977483

 - Ceicei


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 23, 2005)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Paul,
> 
> I found an article related to your concerns regarding starvation.  Check it out and let me know what you think.
> 
> ...



Cool...that's the info I was looking for. 

For the record, I jumped on this thread to learn more about the issue, not just throw uninformed opinions around.

From reading this thread and reading outside sources linked and not linked here, I definatily have a more informed opinion.

It would seem that pulling a feeding tube is not as bad as it sounds. So, as long as the proper checks and balances are in place, and that the patient has no chance of regaining consiousness or brain function, then I could see how this could be the human way to go.

Side note: I totally agree that pulling life support is a decision between families and their doctors, and that politicians shouldn't meddle with it. However, that doesn't mean that checks and balances don't need to be in place. In a similar sense, I am not going to say, "Yea, he was beating his wife, but that is between them and the cops shouldn't get involved." So, I agree that it is a family decision to pull the plug, but there still needs to be the checks in balances to ensure that pulling the plug is not murder. It would appear that we do have those. 

Paul


----------



## Brother John (Mar 23, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Sorry, I misquoted it. One syringe, but various liquids were found in many places of her body including the arms, legs, and genitals. The point is that it seems that this man wants and wanted her dead for a long time before. The nurse's story is very much believable IMO.
> 
> ---------
> 
> ...


First off I'd like to say these things that you and I have in common here: 
(In these debates it's all too easy to harp on our differences)
I too respect and uphold the NEED to protect the sanctity of Life. I respect the reason behind your stance on this!
I, like my brother Tulisan, was very concerned that they should check, double check and tripple check all available avenues to support her chances for life.

Having said these things I'll say this:  
I believe that Terry is, for all intents and purposes, *Not 'alive'*. Her very Brain isn't there anymore. ((Liquified)) The neural synapses that are given us that make us aware of life, that help us process our sensory input... aren't there anymore. She is not self aware, she is not aware of her environment, she doesn't know pain, pleasure, hope or fear. NOR will she ever have these things again. She has no capacity for "will" nor the means to express or ennact it, and again... she never will again. She does not 'recall' the past, nor can she consider her present or project/'think' about her future...ever again. Her existance is vegatative. MANY MANY doctors, the very people who should and do know the Most about this subject, agree that there is ZERO chance of her ever getting any better at all. She isn't technically 'brain-dead'...but that's nomenclature thats stating that her autonomous nervous system is intact. But that's all that is. The brain stem is still firing, and that's it. 
22 different judges have looked into this. You'd have to think that ALL 22 are sadistic killers to believe that they'd not give a 'living' person a chance at life.
NOW: to the points where you and I differ quite drastically:


> I have seen people in wheelchairs that can't even respond at all, should we kill them too?


That's a silly proposition. Their brains are still there. They can sense and interpret those senses, they are self aware, they have brain activity from the optic nerves all the way to the frontal lobe and top to bottom. You are comparing apples and oranges here.


> Mentally Handicapped people are mentally damaged, should we know kill everyone with Down Syndrome or any other mental disease?


Oh come on man! NO... again, you are comparing bowling balls to apples now. Not even the same ball park.


> She is active enough for her to live, and as the medical field advances we might be able to save her one day.


Active? What overt behaviors do you see? NONE that can't be said to be the automatic reactions of the brain-stem. Those supposed words that the mother and a couple of nurses say they've heard? They've never been logged in any of Terry's medical records. They've never been witnessed by the doctors that worked with her every day for YEARS. Those doctors, the ones that've *'seen'* (through modern medical technology, which is increadible) what remains inside Terry's skull have described it as "Liquified". I'm sorry, I'm a sci-fi buff too, but medical science will NEVER be able to reconstruct a "Liquified" brain and return a body to a sentient life. Never. EVEN if you took the farther reaches of faith in the progress and reach of modern medical science... I'd think that the Sun would super-nova before we discovered how to reconstruct the human brain to anything even resembling the original one.


> I cannot believe some people here want to kill a defenseless woman in the bed that cannot defend her.


I understand your sentiment, but really.... out of respect for the woman she was, out of respect for the life she DID have... it's time to let her shell go! I don't believe in killing either, but death is one of the most natural aspects of life. She's dead, letting her outter organism pass isn't murder. The nature of death is an end (and depending on your religious/spiritual beliefs...a beginning), the nature of LIFE is to move on. Regardless of wether we keep her cadaver functioning or not... Terry will never again "move on" in this world. The natural response of life toward death is to LET IT GO. This is difficult, but it's full of meaning too. 


> She has done nothing wrong.


_*RIGHT!!!*_ Then why *punish* her by not abiding by her own wishes? She told her devoted husband (whom many, including you now) have tried to Demonize just for wanting to follow his wife's expressed wishes And to move on with his life. She also told her best friend (of many years) who loved her and now states emphatically that "Terry didn't want to go on like this, she told me so."


> Yet these same people who want Terry to die, are against the death penalty of people who have killed dozens of people. Kill and innocent defenseless woman lying on a bed, but don't kill a cold-blooded killer . What is this world turning into?


NOT even remotely a related subject. Apples to Tire-irons. One is a humane way to let a body expire... the other is a punishment for inhumane rapists/killers. Not related.



> The nurse's story is very much believable IMO


Then were's her official report?? 
She would be under a moral and legal *obligation* to fully and immediately report such a find, or even a suspicion.
*And....there wasn't any report even hinting at these things.*
OF course it's believable in your opinion... it's supports your original opinion in the first place.


> I can't believe some of you call yourselves liberals. A true liberal would support the life of Terry Shiavo.


ah..come on. So would a 'true' conservative, IF LIFE IS WHAT SHE HAS, but she doesn't. I am a conservative, republican christian. Just ask some right here on this forum who've put up with me asserting my thoughts on different political and religious subjects. Terry has moved on, her physical shell hasn't. It's like a stage-coach... the coach is Empty, but the horses are still plodding along. It's time to stop the coach and unhitch the team of horses, out of Respect for the one time passenger. ((GEE.... can you tell I grew up in rural Kansas??))

I hope you understand, I respect the sentiments behind your feelings on this. *I really do. * They were MY original thoughts/feelings as well. 
But then I got more information.

Your Brother
John


----------



## ghostdog2 (Mar 23, 2005)

You guys just don't go far enough. Why stop with Terry? Let's finish off everybody and anybody who has a life we wouldn't want. Come on, let's get logical. If Terry's "husband" can make this decision for her, let's get started on everybody/anybody with diminished capacity who bothers "us" like Terry seems to bother him.. Hell, I've seen handicapped visitors at Disney World who were in worse shape than she is, let's get them next. They slow up the ride lines and take the good parking spaces. Oh yeah, and Downs Syndrome, let's eliminate that by eliminating the DS children. Where to next? OK, how about Alzheimers patients? They've got no quality of life I'd want. They could be next.
I could make quite a list, but I'll leave it up to you.
But seriously folks, don't pretend you've given this thought and concern. That woman hurts no one. Her family desperately wants her to live. Why are some on this forum so eager to kill her? Her death enriches no one and yet impoverishes a family that wants to keep her presence here. Why do you bums care? Why so eager to hurt her family and take their child/sister/brother?
Please don't talk about the "husband". He has long since gone on with his ife and so clearly doesn't give a damn. Not for on minute do I believe he cares about what is best for Terry. He has another family and another life, yet wants to take Terry away from her family:a woman he is no longer involved with or connected to...alive or dead.
The talk about politics is sickening. Cynicism, hypocrisy and agenda promotion dominate every shallow posting. Last week, as this story heated up, a rapist killed four people as he made his escape. A child sex offender with 24 prior arrests kidnapped and murdered a nine year old child. Believe me, a cottage industry sprang into action to keep these scum balls alive and millions in time, money and resources will be wasted to protect these precious lives. And Terry Schiavo? No time for her. 
Liberal society is all for death. Unless, of course, you've done something to deserve it. Then every life is sacred.
Tough luck Terry. 
Next?


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. I'll tell you what's obscene about this. It's the violation of privacy; the publicization of what should be intensely private. And why? because a group of fanatics, and right-wing politicians, have latched on to a husband and wife's misery.
> 
> .


Unfortunately the family made it public when they took it to court.  It isn't just the 'evil politicians' that are stirring this.  No one walked into this families misery and said "Hey, let's take this to court."  The family is choosing to ignore a living will that said that she didn't want things like this feeding tube.

Here's the question, and I know there was a registered nurse that posted early on:  Is she 'there' (brainwaves, heart beat) sufficiently for people to say that she is really 'her' and not just a living corpse?  

I don't mean to be cruel about it, but if all the feeding tube is doing is prolonging the family's misery and her biological life ('brain dead' but with a pulse) but not reasonably adding to the chance of recovery/medical treatment I don't think that she will be conscious of suffering.

As for the outcry about the public exposure about such a personal situation.....what are we doing right now?


----------



## Kane (Mar 23, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> I hope you understand, I respect the sentiments behind your feelings on this. *I really do. * They were MY original thoughts/feelings as well.
> But then I got more information.


 Are you really going to be absolute on this issue from reading a few articles? Her family by the way seems like she isn't even dead. They believe that they can partially comunicate with her. With that kind of doubt on whether she is trully braindead, should really let her die.


----------



## Kane (Mar 23, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> You guys just don't go far enough. Why stop with Terry? Let's finish off everybody and anybody who has a life we wouldn't want. Come on, let's get logical. If Terry's "husband" can make this decision for her, let's get started on everybody/anybody with diminished capacity who bothers "us" like Terry seems to bother him.. Hell, I've seen handicapped visitors at Disney World who were in worse shape than she is, let's get them next. They slow up the ride lines and take the good parking spaces. Oh yeah, and Downs Syndrome, let's eliminate that by eliminating the DS children. Where to next? OK, how about Alzheimers patients? They've got no quality of life I'd want. They could be next.
> I could make quite a list, but I'll leave it up to you.
> But seriously folks, don't pretend you've given this thought and concern. That woman hurts no one. Her family desperately wants her to live. Why are some on this forum so eager to kill her? Her death enriches no one and yet impoverishes a family that wants to keep her presence here. Why do you bums care? Why so eager to hurt her family and take their child/sister/brother?
> Please don't talk about the "husband". He has long since gone on with his ife and so clearly doesn't give a damn. Not for on minute do I believe he cares about what is best for Terry. He has another family and another life, yet wants to take Terry away from her family:a woman he is no longer involved with or connected to...alive or dead.
> ...


 Agreed, couldn't have said it better.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 23, 2005)

1. I don't believe anybody in the family, or in the courts, asked for groups of wackos to show up and pray incessantly; I don't believe any of these folks asked for guys like "Bo" Gritz and Michael Savage to posture and to bluster on their behalf.

2. The point that doesn't seem to get through is that the case HAS been reviewed. By various teams of doctors; by the courts. Over and over and over. For fifteen years. Who is it, exactly, that's arrogant enough to believe they know better than the husband, doctors, and judges who have been right there, actually examining this woman and her legal situation, for fiftten years?

3. I see that, AGAIN, "Kane," refuses to explain where he's getting his, "facts," from. No names, no sources, no exact quotes, no medical or legal evidence, no nothing. Just pure speculation, driven by the conviction of moral--and, no doubt--religious--superiority. Must be nice. me, i have to rely on actual information.

4. Hey, let's all sit back and count the court decisions, shall we? We're now up to TWENTY-THREE, all of which are in agreement; the Circuit Court three-judge panel refused to hear the case, backing up what the two previous judges did in the last four days. It'll be TWENTY-FOUR soon; it's been appealed to the full court, and the parents and their supporters are vowing to take it back to the Supreme Court--where the case has already been. 

5. Oh, goody--meanwhile, the Bush government works to take Social Security away, Ah-nuld out here in California has reneged on the deal he made with public schools to ccut their budget a billion last year, but return the money this year and oh by the way, he's trying to trash the State Teachers' Retirement System, and the stupid war in Iraq just keeps on rolling. Ah oh yes--Bush is cutting veterans services again.

6. So this is really all about the sanctity of life. Sure it is.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 23, 2005)

Terry's husband is making the decision because she can't make her wishes known.  

I find the comparison of someone who only has brainstem function left (do you guys understand what that means, btw?) to someone who has a developmental disorder appalling, quite frankly.

I think the attitude of life at all costs - even against her and her husband's wishes - to be bizarre.

I hate to reiterate this, but - people die.  It is sad.  We don't like it happening, esp. to those we love.  It is very sad.  

I seriously doubt Terry's family can actually communicate with her, however.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 23, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> As for the outcry about the public exposure about such a personal situation.....what are we doing right now?



It is not the same.  Nobody here is connected with the case.  We are just a bunch of e-bodies discussion an issue.  The community is pretty limited.  

What is happening, though, is that we are taking a look at the way this issue has been politicized by people who have based their careers off of making hypocritical stands such as these and we are exposing it for what it is.  

This is disgusting and its tantamount to lying.  The senate memo alluded to before, clarifies this issue as nothing but political showmanship.  The politicians involved are sensationalizing the families grief for the sake of a few votes so they can continue to push an agenda that is BLATENTLY ANTI - SANCTITY OF LIFE.

It's classic bait and switch.

For nearly 14 years, this case rolled along with hardly a peep.  What changed?


----------



## Ray (Mar 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The point that doesn't seem to get through is that the case HAS been reviewed. By various teams of doctors; by the courts. Over and over and over. For fifteen years.


Maybe the issue is that there should be a reasonable limit on the number of legal challenges to some issues?  I know that you've reasoned the particular Shiavo case fairly well in your posts.  I'm guessing that you wouldn't be opposed to "some number" of court reviews for similar cases?  What's a reasonable number in your mind?


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> meanwhile, the Bush government works to take Social Security away, Ah-nuld out here in California has reneged on the deal he made...Bush is cutting veterans services again.


Those are different issues and have nothing to do with the subject at hand


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 23, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> You guys just don't go far enough. Why stop with Terry? Let's finish off everybody and anybody who has a life we wouldn't want. Come on, let's get logical. If Terry's "husband" can make this decision for her, let's get started on everybody/anybody with diminished capacity who bothers "us" like Terry seems to bother him.. Hell, I've seen handicapped visitors at Disney World who were in worse shape than she is, let's get them next. They slow up the ride lines and take the good parking spaces. Oh yeah, and Downs Syndrome, let's eliminate that by eliminating the DS children. Where to next? OK, how about Alzheimers patients? They've got no quality of life I'd want. They could be next.
> I could make quite a list, but I'll leave it up to you.
> But seriously folks, don't pretend you've given this thought and concern. That woman hurts no one. Her family desperately wants her to live. Why are some on this forum so eager to kill her? Her death enriches no one and yet impoverishes a family that wants to keep her presence here. Why do you bums care? Why so eager to hurt her family and take their child/sister/brother?
> Please don't talk about the "husband". He has long since gone on with his ife and so clearly doesn't give a damn. Not for on minute do I believe he cares about what is best for Terry. He has another family and another life, yet wants to take Terry away from her family:a woman he is no longer involved with or connected to...alive or dead.
> ...



Hmmm, I think you missed something...

W signs law in Texas that states that if a family can't pay and there is no hope of recovery, they will pull the plug...and guess what, they pull the plug on babies with mother's crying at the bedside now.

Now, W signs a law that protects a woman who has no chance of recovery and a husband who can't afford the treatment.


----------



## Kane (Mar 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. I see that, AGAIN, "Kane," refuses to explain where he's getting his, "facts," from. No names, no sources, no exact quotes, no medical or legal evidence, no nothing. Just pure speculation, driven by the conviction of moral--and, no doubt--religious--superiority. Must be nice. me, i have to rely on actual information.


 Do you even read my posts? I usual you assume everyone that disagrees with you is religous. If you read any of my posts you would know I am NOT religous. Being moral doesn't mean you have to be religous.

 I apologize for not posting any link sources. I assumed that everyone in this thread already knows the cases in which I speak about, havn't you read any articles, listened, or watched any news about the case? Or are you going to rely on what everyone in this thread has said to draw up your own conclusions.

 Exactly what terms have I said you want evidense on. It would be much simpler to go to google and read for yourself, but go ahead ask what sources you want?

 Oh and "rmcrobertson", why do you always put Quotaton marks around my name like this----"Kane". What are you implying?


----------



## Kane (Mar 23, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> a husband who can't afford the treatment.


 You know it is really simple solution for the husband if he doesn't want to pay for his wife. Terry's family has explained that they will take care of the expenses so why doesn't the husband just get a divorce instead of kill her? He can't afford the treatment, give me a break. He has alternatives.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 23, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Hmmm, I think you missed something...
> 
> W signs law in Texas that states that if a family can't pay and there is no hope of recovery, they will pull the plug...and guess what, they pull the plug on babies with mother's crying at the bedside now.
> 
> Now, W signs a law that protects a woman who has no chance of recovery and a husband who can't afford the treatment.


Now that is an interesting point....


----------



## oldnewbie (Mar 23, 2005)

It's not about the money...it's about following Terry's desire not to "live" this way, unfortunely, it's not in writing.


----------



## modarnis (Mar 23, 2005)

>>  Originally Posted by Tulisan:   However, none of you who are as healthy as can be will survive without food and hydration. If you deprive a healthy person of this, they will die regardless. So by starving someone to death, you are effectively killing them rather then letting them die as a natural course of action. And that is the difference. Not to mention that if the person can feel it, this is an agonizing way to go. Cutting the comotose persons head off would probably be more humane then starving them to death, if they do feel the pain and agony somewhere inside them.>>

Bioethicists have debated for decades about the difference between active and passive euthanasia, essentially the hair splitting between killing and letting a person die.  The no food/hydration falls into the letting die category.  The more active forms of euthanasia (like we use for sick pets) seem more humane.

All of this debate should cause many people to appoint heal care agents (not their parents or spouses) to carry out their wishes in situations like these


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 23, 2005)

1. Hey, TWENTY-FOUR--that's twenty-four legal reviews, all in agreement, since the full Circuit Court in Atlanta refused to hear the case this afternoon. Workin' on TWENTY-FIVE; the parents will be appealing.

2. I use quotes, "Kane," when people don't use their real names. And in my opinion, if you repeat the unsubstantiated claims and arrogant arguments of a pack of right-wing, Protestant fundamentalists, you have adopted their viewpoint. 

3. ALL of the claims about Michael Schiavo are, to my knowledge, completely unsubstantiated. Just as a suggestion--what do you think would happen if any of the TWENTY-FOUR--yes, that's 24--courts who have heard this case over the last 15 (FIFTEEN) years had the slightest reason to think otherwise?

4. Gee, I dunno. Maybe this crazy guy--whatever his flaws as a human being--believes that his wife wouldn't want to, "live," this way, and he takes his wedding vows seriously, and he thinks it's his reponsibility to stand up to the pack of jackals.

5. Of course it's relevant if the very people who insist that this is a, "sanctity of life," issue are hypocrites, as they show every day in their wars, their cuts in veterans' programs, their attacks on children's educations and on teachers.  

6. TWENTY FOUR different judicial reviews. Hey, what's YOUR top number?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 23, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Terry's husband is making the decision because she can't make her wishes known.
> 
> I find the comparison of someone who only has brainstem function left (do you guys understand what that means, btw?) to someone who has a developmental disorder appalling, quite frankly.
> 
> ...



I would like to repeat this question and statment:

I find the comparison of someone who only has brainstem function left (do you guys understand what that means, btw?) to someone who has a developmental disorder appalling, quite frankly.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 23, 2005)

Just to interject another viewpoint here:

I was listening to my usual morning radio station on the way to work. The Terry Schiavo case has been the topic of conversation the past two mornings. Someone called in this morning with the following -- 

"If it's quality of life that's in question, then Terry Schiavo has great quality of life (sic). She has all these people taking care of her and loving her."

What do you all think of this person's statement? I thought about it, and it's another way of looking at it, but I disagree.

It _is_ appalling to equate Terry Schaivo's condition to that of mentally disabled persons.

More to think about:

As to the insulin vial found in the trash, is Terry Schiavo diabetic? Did someone try to lower her blood sugar to induce a hypoglycemic coma and thus death? One of my younger son's friends, a lifelong diabetic, committed suicide in just that manner, except he went the other way and didn't do his shot when he was supposed to. His blood sugar went through the roof, so to speak, and induced the coma. BUT! How can *one* prove it was the husband who tried that?

(Robert, sometimes you crack me up.)


----------



## Tgace (Mar 23, 2005)

Some nurse on the news early this morning made the accusation (about the vial) against the husband, she states she reported it to the hospital and the police took a report. She says she was fired shortly thereafter.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 23, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> You know it is really simple solution for the husband if he doesn't want to pay for his wife. Terry's family has explained that they will take care of the expenses so why doesn't the husband just get a divorce instead of kill her? He can't afford the treatment, give me a break. He has alternatives.




Some states have laws that allow one to divorce their spouse, but if the spouse is unable to take care of themselves, and would become a ward of the state, that the healthy spouse still is finanicially responsible, and the divorce only allows for the person to remarry, not give up their obligations to the previous spouse/person who is unable to take care of themsleves.

As to comments about taking everyone out, that is really out there. For you see, then the big guy with the biggest weapon would win, and our civilization has moved forward from that some. (* Even though some could argue the guy with the biggest bank account gets what they want *).

I respect that you believe life is sacred. Please respect that others have a different belief or value system then yours. This world is made up individuals, and while I agree that we have some things in common with each to state that we all agree would not be true. In the USA, where the rights and priviledges and responsibilities of a citizen are admired and desired by many, it should be allowed for them to make their own decisions about life and death.

As to Tgace's comment about suicide, I would have to say I agree with the assisted suicide for medical reasons. As to just pulling the trigger yourself, becuase you had a bad day well, that I do not agree with.

Let me ask some questions.

If the parents have the right to keep her alive, do they have the right to ask for he death?

If the parents have the right to keep her alive, do they have the right to determine she is a bad parent and take her children away?

Or force their daughter not to have an abortion? (* Not to make this an abortion issue, but an issue of where do you draw the line of someone else having control over your body *)

If the parents now have the right to take custody of their child, what rights do any of the spouses have or are allowed?

If the parents now have the right to take custody of grandchildren, then what right does a biological father have?

Could a biological father, demand that all grandparents step up and help their daughters take care of children and gradchildren, when the father wants to leave the scene.

Now I know to some this might seem absurd and out there, and it is, but if the spouse has no legal rights, and is unable to do anything but be financially responsible then there is no need for marriage at all other than if you are religous. One might ask what about children, there a re laws in place to get the father to pay child support today. (* Not a discussion about the effectiveness of said laws only that they exist. *) You do not need marriage to file taxes or set someone up as your benefactor for wills or insurance. 


Yes, if you take an arguement to the absurd you make a point, but is it a valid point for what will happen?

Not sure.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 23, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Now that is an interesting point....



This law was worked over and worked over until it only applied to this single instance.  I think the insurance companies would have gone nuts if this sort of protection was applied universally.

  :flame: lobbyists  :mp5:


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 23, 2005)

What about what she wants?  Is that important?


----------



## Kane (Mar 23, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> What about what she wants?  Is that important?


 There is no hard evidense that she wanted to die if she was in this situation. A comment durring a movie doesn't really count, because people tend to comment sometimes on what is opposite to their beliefs. Therefore it is unknown, and in this uncertianty until is there is real proof on whether Terry really wanted to die, she should live.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 23, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Therefore it is unknown, and in this uncertianty until is there is real proof on whether Terry really wanted to die, she should live.


 Terry's legal guardian is convinced that she really wanted to die, as has been repeatedly backed up by legal decision after legal decision.  

 Moreover, Terry is dead.  D-e-a-d.  Nerve reflex smiles don't make you likely to recover.  When over twenty neurologists and neurosurgeons say that you are dead, removing the feeding tube only serves to end your macabre psuedo-existence, and end the opporunity for politicians to grand-stand on your eerily smiling cadaver.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 23, 2005)

In an unexpected development, we're now at TWENTY-FIVE court decisions, yes folks, that's 25. A Florida judge rejected a request for a decree to reinsert the feeding tube, brought on the grounds that Mr. Schiavo had abused his wife--and he rejected the request on the grounds that there was no evidence for it.

YAY! USA all the WAY!!!

Way to go, Florida! We're now working on 26 court cases, yes, 26.

Among other things, what's revolting here is the utter lack of reason and evidence...amazing we haven't declared war on the hospice where Mrs. Schiavo is, on account of their possession of WMDs.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Among other things, what's revolting here is the utter lack of reason and evidence...amazing we haven't declared war on the hospice where Mrs. Schiavo is, on account of their possession of WMDs.


 You probably thought you were kidding.

 However, officials in Florida aren't.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/news/feeds/0323schiavo.html

 "State officials say they are considering removing Terri Schiavo from the hospice, *by force if necessary*, despite numerous court orders upholding the removal of the artificial nutrition tube that has kept her alive for 15 years."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 24, 2005)

It's always worse than I think it is.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Mar 24, 2005)

Wonder if it'll be the same team that extracted Elian Gonzalez.  They might have to bring out the big guns on this one, though...all those elderly and handicapped people can put up a fight with their walkers.

But no, the INS are a federal branch of government, so this'd be out of their jurisdiction.  Oh wait, nevermind.....


----------



## Melissa426 (Mar 24, 2005)

Another 2 cents:

"In Washington, you can do anything, if you're popular." -- from the movie G.I. Jane.

I believe that the politicans who are pushing this issue, for the purpose of gaining popularity points from the extreme religious right, will experience a serious backlash, especially when they realize that the vast majority of Americans feel the politicans should have not meddled.

I was talking to a nurse friend of mine yesterday, who is devoted to Catholicism, (even though she uses 3 different types of birth control not including rhythm).  I expected her to weigh in with the parents; she actually expressed anger at them for their cruel treatment of their daughter. Her quote "nobody better ever release a video tape of me to the public if I am in that state looking like that, I don't care what their intentions."  She's on a living will crusade, now.  


Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 24, 2005)

Really, how popular does the American administration need to be with the "religious right"?  Aren't they already pretty popular?  

Regarding potential backlash, interesting insight, Melissa.  Unfortunately, this is coming up so early in the term that by the time the next election comes around, everyone who's upset with this now will have forgotten about it.  Except, of course, the good people here.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 24, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Another 2 cents:
> 
> "In Washington, you can do anything, if you're popular." -- from the movie G.I. Jane.
> 
> ...


Interesting insight on the perspective of someone who is practicing a faith AND a trained medical professional. THe issue of the 'sanctity of life' does not have to be interpreted as "Never pull the plug" when the person is no longer really 'living' because they are braindead. I still have not read/heard any explanation from 'lifers' or 'choicers' about what her current condition (mentally) is.

I heard a Priest of all people defend the 'anti-capital punishment' stance NOT from the position of life/sanctity but from the Punitive/living with the consequences stance.....if this is the condition of her life, isn't it more cruel than letting her slip away, by any means.

"Sanctity of Life" in every case should be weighed against the issues of quality of life and reasonability of recovery...just as if you had to weigh the reasonability of the threat you face when you use deadly force.

Not an easy situation all around.

My Mother in Law is a retired/former nurse (RN) and a MILITANT/political activist (Libertarianish in stance) and even she is saying, given the situation, pulling the plug/feeding tube is the truly 'humane' thing in the long run for all involved.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 24, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> You know it is really simple solution for the husband if he doesn't want to pay for his wife. Terry's family has explained that they will take care of the expenses so why doesn't the husband just get a divorce instead of kill her? He can't afford the treatment, give me a break. He has alternatives.


Not being able to afford the expensive and extensive efforts to keep Terry's shell (which she's vacated) breathing is the LEAST of the considerations, and really....it's not one that the husband has brought up, but it's been brought up elsewhere by those who are trying to claim that his following through with his late wife's expressed will is actually merely motivated by money. Seems he (Robert) brought it up to make a point about the case in Texas that Pres. Bush treated differently when he was Gov. Bush. 

Like I said before, the husband DID have over $700,000 from the court case concerning the medication that lead to Terry's initial heart attack. He's spent ALL of it and a LOT more on Terry's care. Doesn't sound like he's squeemish about paying at all. 

YOU aren't in this situation. When caring long term for a person in a vegetative state....YOU must go on with the rest of your life. You still have to pay your rent/mortgage. You still have to pay the dentist, eat, pay for your car. Life doesn't cut you slack (generally) just becuase you have this ENORMOUS, but needed, expense. The cost just to have someone in a hospital bed for a week would set MOST middle income people back in their family budget for some time!!! I can't imagine a decade and a half!!!
Like it or not, it IS a consideration. Not the primary one. Maybe not even in the top ten, but it is in there.

BUT: In the end, it's not even the point.
She said she didn't want to be kept alive in such a case.
Told her husband, who by all legal presedence SHOULD have the say so in this case. The parents shouldn't even have a claim, legally. A voice? SURE!! Say so? No. 
But now, this way things have always been has been violated, the whole ordeal turned into a national, or greater, scandal and debate by people who only have a partial view and a Huge emotional reaction. 
IT IS A SHAME, ALL of it!

BTW: This talk of "Why not take out other people"...like mere invalids or mentally handicapt or others...is irrelevent and _SICK_!!!!

Your Brother
John
PS: Kane, I've not just looked into a few articles. I've really researched it because I was/am really concerned about the principles at play and the presedents being set. Still am. I have researched it and continue to research it.
What have you done? You say you've done the same. NEITHER of us are THERE, neither are IN this horrid situation. We are observers and we bring to it our own preconcieved notions. We must challenge these biases and notions in light of FACT, not emotional sentiment. 
If your view never changes, check your lens.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 24, 2005)

> "Flatlander" asked: Really, how popular does the American administration need to be with the "religious right"?  Aren't they already pretty popular?



Though I realize I'm aslo speaking of myself, these "Religious Right politicians" played a Role in order to gain the popular election of the "religious right" voters...
now they are having to play the part out.

Makes me sad.

Your Brother
John


----------



## ginshun (Mar 24, 2005)

I can't even listen to talk radio anymore, because this is ALL they talk about.  Personally I don't feel strong enough about it either way to make a big stink, but as I said before, I think that they should let her die. 

 One thing that I do know, is that if she dies tomorrow (Good Friday), people are going to go nut balls.  The religous implications could be tremendous.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 24, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Not being able to afford the expensive and extensive efforts to keep Terry's shell (which she's vacated) breathing is the LEAST of the considerations, and really....it's not one that the husband has brought up, but it's been brought up elsewhere by those who are trying to claim that his following through with his late wife's expressed will is actually merely motivated by money. Seems he (Robert) brought it up to make a point about the case in Texas that Pres. Bush treated differently when he was Gov. Bush.
> 
> Like I said before, the husband DID have over $700,000 from the court case concerning the medication that lead to Terry's initial heart attack. He's spent ALL of it and a LOT more on Terry's care. Doesn't sound like he's squeemish about paying at all.
> 
> ...


Well said Bro J.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 24, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Yes, Upnorth. You and Tgace will hopefully _never_ be faced with having your child in a life and death situation. It's not one I wish on anyone else. Until you've been there, you simply cannot understand.
> 
> And, once again, I agree with Robert (restating my position to the point of _ad nauseam_.) In this particular case, the parents _are not_ in charge any longer.
> 
> .


I think the way to avoid feeding the political circus that has surrounded this case is to target comments where and to whom they will do the most good and not give them fuel in coffee house chats like this.

I think the court intervention is ridiculous. The presedence is set: She is an adult, in the case of her inability to make decisions it falls to her husband. She is no longer the ward of her parents and they don't have any legal authority over her.

I truly sympathize with them (though can't empathize) but that doesn't give them the legal right. Just as the day she became a legal adult, the day she married her husband....they had to 'let her go' and this is a moment when that is painfully clear to a parent - you can't protect them anymore....

She is going to be 'dead' in any case. My condolences to them all.

Lobby, protest letters, write your congressman....but feeding the media/political circus isn't really helping. I think we can all agree that it has turned into a fiasco in that department.

Leading by example, living by ideals is all anyone can really do.

Does anyone know if there is a way to contact either side of this issue to demonstrate your active support?  I think that would be more productive than spitting at each other like this.


----------



## rutherford (Mar 24, 2005)

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal without comment.

www.reuters.com


----------



## ginshun (Mar 24, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> The Supreme Court rejected the appeal without comment.
> 
> www.reuters.com


 As expected.

 So is that it?  Is it over?  You would think that pretty much ends the appeals wouldn't you?


----------



## oldnewbie (Mar 24, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> As expected.
> 
> So is that it?  Is it over?  You would think that pretty much ends the appeals wouldn't you?


 I _think_ so, as I had heard on the news that this was the "final attempt". But I guess they could make another try.....

 All emotion aside, it's refreshing to see the overstepping of power stop.
 We have seen some real stretching of the law over the last few weeks...

 Now we will see the emotional response.
 Yesterday, several were arrested for attempting to "sneak-in" water. Even a child was arrested.

 If the reports that she cannot swallow, are true.. wouldn't the people with the water, actually drown her??  Sorry... my mind was just wandering.....


----------



## rutherford (Mar 24, 2005)

There's still legal action taking place in Florida.  The Florida Department of Children and Families filed a suit based on Dr. William Cheshire's statements that she might not be brain dead and that "I could not withhold life-sustaining nutrition from this beautiful lady whose face brightens in the presence of others." 

He's never actually examined her, however.

The same judge who ordered her feeding tube removed is ruling on the case by 12 today.


. . . it's not going to end until she's dead, and then we'll still hear about it until something else comes along and captures the public's attention.

MEANWHILE, nobody is paying a lot of attention to other interesting news stories . . . like removing the Senate's right to filibuster.   :idunno:


----------



## Ping898 (Mar 24, 2005)

It isn't over cause they still have another appeal going in the Florida court and Jeb B keeps threatening to have DCF take custody of her.  Honestly, won't be truly over until she dies.  Just they aren't going to get a injunction to get the tube back in immediately.  
I do love the irony of all the senators pandering to this group of people, making this law to move the case to federal courts and all the courts rejecting the appeals brought up.
I have to wonder all these people who say it is terrible to starve her to death, how bad is it to keep "tricking" her, pull the tube out, put it back in, pull is out, in...have to think that it could be worse than just pulling it out and letting what will happen, happen.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 24, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> MEANWHILE, nobody is paying a lot of attention to other interesting news stories . . . like removing the Senate's right to filibuster.


 Well put.  This is another excellent distraction from the continual degradation of our republic.  Everyone focus on the objectification of this corpse while we strip any hope you have of maintaining any democracy in the face of corporate and moneyed interests!


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 24, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> It isn't over cause they still have another appeal going in the Florida court and Jeb B keeps threatening to have DCF take custody of her. Honestly, won't be truly over until she dies. Just they aren't going to get a injunction to get the tube back in immediately.
> I do love the irony of all the senators pandering to this group of people, making this law to move the case to federal courts and all the courts rejecting the appeals brought up.
> I have to wonder all these people who say it is terrible to starve her to death, how bad is it to keep "tricking" her, pull the tube out, put it back in, pull is out, in...have to think that it could be worse than just pulling it out and letting what will happen, happen.


Word was, according to the news this morning, that the Gov himself was threatening to make her a ward of the state and put the tube back in...the news also said that the Attorney General said that the Gov would be over stepping his role and that every sheriff in the state would be required to block any such action if people attempted to act on it.... very heated at this point.

It seems that medically as well as politically, she will only be at peace when she is clinically dead.  The family will have to live with the aftermath - I hope that they can reconcile in time.


----------



## rutherford (Mar 24, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> This is another excellent distraction from the continual degradation of our republic.  Everyone focus on the objectification of this corpse while we strip any hope you have of maintaining any democracy in the face of corporate and moneyed interests!



To be clear, I merely meant that it's a distraction because many people feel strongly about this issue and the news media is covering it 24/7.  

Whether or not the possible upcoming rules changes in the Senate would benefit from a public dialog is debatable, but not in this thread.

As for the health of the Republic and the hope of Democracy . . . I'm a bit more optomistic.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 24, 2005)

I have to admire the family and the husband especially for sticking it out - I imagine there are people who would just scoop Terry up and spirit her away to either keep her alive or allow her her liberation to face criminal charges later.

 Dignity ... honor ... respect.  Where is it?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 24, 2005)

We made TWENTY-SIX!! Workin' on twenty-seven.

Just FYI for the ignernt, there have now been: three separate guardians ad litem (her husband has NOT always had control), FOUR Supreme Court Decisions, several INDEPENDANT teams of court-appointed doctors, and two new Florida legislature decisions. They all agree, basically.

But let's keep on going, because at some point the dead may come to life.

By the way, a Deist is--by definition--someone who believes in God. As the, "Deus," root should have suggested.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> By the way, a Deist is--by definition--someone who believes in God. As the, "Deus," root should have suggested.


I know it's somewhat of a third rail in this discussion, but Robert...
isn't a Deist someone that believes in God, believes that God is transcendent but not immanent?
...examples being George Washington, Ben Franklin and many other of our founding fathers.
Thanks

Your Brother
John


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 24, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> I know it's somewhat of a third rail in this discussion, but Robert...
> isn't a Deist someone that believes in God, believes that God is transcendent but not immanent?
> ...examples being George Washington, Ben Franklin and many other of our founding fathers.



Not necessarily, no.

A deist, very simply, is simply a theist that rejects the notion of supernaturalism and "divine intervention". In other words, they think there is a Spirit or Divine of some kind that made the universe and gives it meaning --- but they don't think this Spirit is muddling in its affairs with His big stinky middle finger.

Associated beliefs with deism is also the belief in the "God of Reason", "Divine Architect", "God of Nature" or "Nature's God", the idea that science and reason and human rights and democracy are God-given gifts to human beings that we're _supposed_ to use and exercise, and really strong belief in free will and rejection of fatalism. They also believe the markings of this "God" are revealed in the laws of nature.

The vast majority of believing and practicing theists don't really believe "God" is "immanent", either. Lip service is often played, to be sure, but actually philosophically accepting this viewpoint would also mean acknowledging that your religion really ain't that different from the likes of Hindu Vedanta or Madhyamika Buddhism.

Because, if "God" is truly and fundamentally "immanent", then there's no "heaven" or "hell". Or any "evil" at all, for that matter. The traditional delineation between "saved" and "unsaved" also becomes meaningless.

This is not a position that vast majority of practicing theists are willing to accept.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 24, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Not necessarily, no.
> 
> A deist, very simply, is simply a theist that rejects the notion of supernaturalism and "divine intervention". In other words, they think there is a Spirit or Divine of some kind that made the universe and gives it meaning --- but they don't think this Spirit is muddling in its affairs with His big stinky middle finger.
> 
> ...


God 'helps' those who help themselves (in other words, those who make a difference are using what God gave them).  Instead of God as an active interventionist that 'makes' things happen?


----------



## Brother John (Mar 24, 2005)

Agree & Disagree on that, Heretic...
but oh well.
Hey, for those interested, here's a decent link that defines "Deism" pretty well and gives further background.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Deism

Your Brother
John


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 24, 2005)

This is a sad thing. It's too bad that she can't speak for herself and have to have others presume to speak for her as far as her wants and needs. 

All I know is that if it were me or if I'm ever vegged out to where I can't function on my own... for gods sake pull the damn plug. I believe there is a better life for me out beyond this one, if I canna function to keep learning like I'm supposed to as I go through this life then there's no need for me to be here. 
I gotta remember to put that in a will or something to ensure I don't end up being some stupid drawn out painful supreme court case. 
The family is suffering enough and I'm sure Terry is suffering enough as well. 

Let it end I say. There's a better life beyond this one. All it takes is faith.


----------



## oldnewbie (Mar 24, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> I gotta remember to put that in a will or something to ensure I don't end up being some stupid drawn out painful supreme court case.
> ..........


 I agree. This has really got me thinking about doing some serious paperwork....


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 24, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> God 'helps' those who help themselves (in other words, those who make a difference are using what God gave them).  Instead of God as an active interventionist that 'makes' things happen?



Well.... no offense, that sounds more like a closet Deist trying to rationalize their adherence to a Theist belief system. My wager is that a fair majority of practicing Christians in the West fall into this category.


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 24, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Agree & Disagree on that, Heretic...
> but oh well.
> Hey, for those interested, here's a decent link that defines "Deism" pretty well and gives further background.
> http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Deism
> ...



If you'll note, the description I gave is pretty much in agreement with laborlawtalk.com's definition. 

The underlying idea behind Deism is one believes in the "God of Reason" --- as opposed to what has been called the "God of the Church" or the "God of Faith". The idea is referred to as "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence, because it was believed one came to know of this "God" by observing the workings of nature.

Most modern-day Christians in the West are what you could call quasi-Deists.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 24, 2005)

I actually had something kinda dumb in mind--if you say you're a Deist, then you're a follower of a God, and there's no way around it.

Hey, what court case number are we working on?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2005)

Hey! Who cares? The tube is out. The court cases go on. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts ruling so Terry can die now. The Parents didnt want her to die and they used the system to attempt to prevent it. Whats the problem with that? Maybe we should stop all appeals on death penalty cases while we are at it? Besides the political move of congress getting involved, everything else has gone through the proper legal channels.


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I actually had something kinda dumb in mind--if you say you're a Deist, then you're a follower of a God, and there's no way around it.



Depends on the individual, I suppose.

Strict "Deists" typically adhere to a belief in "God", but would most likely be reluctant to identify themselves with any "tradition" or "following".


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 24, 2005)

1. They had no standing in law to bring these repeated cases, which is a fundamental reason they keep getting thrown out.

2. They had no evidence whatsoever for their claims, because all the physicians who actually examined this woman over a 15-year period agreed. As did the three separate guardians. And how many courts?

3. They, and their supporters, repeatedly made completely-unsubstantiated allegations about the husband.

4. The Congress butted in only for the most cyncial of reasons, as far as I can see.

5. This has been repeatedly used now to keep blatting the dangerous blat that the courts are crazy, and only fundamentalist Christians have any morals. 

6. There have been far too many irrational claims and groundless claims around this case, when we've got far too many irrationalists running around already.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2005)

Apparently they did have enough "legal standing" as each of these appeals (up to this last one) were entertained by the courts.....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 24, 2005)

Uh...the last four were rejected without further hearing, on the grounds that there wasn't anything new to hear. Nor has there been, it seems. Pretty much since about 1995.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2005)

Then whats the problem? They attempted legal intervention, as was their right, were turned down but kept on trying. Either way she's going to die...you should be content.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 24, 2005)

Most likely, "my problem," lies in a) actually knowing something about the subject, and what it's like for these patients; b) my suspicion that the endless court battles, all of which turn out to have been basically frivolous, and c) trying to respond politely to comments such as, "she's going to die....you should be content."


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 24, 2005)

Work in a hospice for a spell, then come back and talk about the sanctity of life, and the necessity to keep people alive just because we can. For many, the onset of death is a gift long-overdue.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2005)

Im sure. I just take issue with painting the parents as "selfish" and implying that they are somehow other than "justified" in their persuit of the case. I wont judge them or their motives. They were doing what they thought was right and are working within the legal system. "We" arent doing anything but casting our view on the subject on people in pain.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 25, 2005)

I haven't reviewed enough of the thread to see if negative altercasting has been leveled at the parents. I would not choose that approach; everyone is just where they are. Who am I to judge. I suspect if I had the same motivations and information as they, I might also be tempted to take their route. But I do not.

No right. No wrong. Just difference.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 25, 2005)

I find the whole affair quite ironic.

Wasn't it the Republican Party that railed against 'frivolous lawsuits'? Yet, who pushed for, passed, and signed a law opening the jurisdiction to the federal courts?

Wasn't it the Republican Party that decried the decline of western civilization because marriage has always been between one man and one woman? Now who is dis-honoring the 'sancity of marriage' by refusing to honor the wishes of a wife, as told to her husband?

Again, this is bread and circuses. While this show is taking up so much time, on radio, television and newspapers, real events that are changing our world are taking place. Perhaps it is best if we are distracted by this silly little affair.

Just as long as President Bush can fly back to Washington (because Pens don't seem to work in Crawford Texas) to throw a bone to the Christian Right... see, he really is one of them ... isn't it good they voted against all those gay marriage laws.

Bread and Circuses


----------



## Brother John (Mar 25, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im sure. I just take issue with painting the parents as "selfish" and implying that they are somehow other than "justified" in their persuit of the case. I wont judge them or their motives. They were doing what they thought was right and are working within the legal system. "We" arent doing anything but casting our view on the subject on people in pain.


true. I don't think that the parents were selfish or out of line in any way. I can't imagine being in their imposible possition. I can't say I wouldn't have tried to do the same thing. Those of us looking in from the outside can say what we want, but our perspective is Entirely different... I mean....that's their baby-girl.  God help'm.... this has got to be the toughest way to say goodbye, but say it they must.
That's kinda the way 'death' is I guess, only for most of us it's not a 15 year process and most don't have to do it under such a heavy public eye.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 25, 2005)

Still, I can't help but wonder...with an aging baby-boomer population nearing ages where they start slipping off the perch, how many are looking at Teri and saying, "Is that my fate? Do I want government telling me I can or cannot slip away with some dignitiy nitact? Will I be kept alive beyond the reaches of my vitality?"

That's one of the big parts that bug me about this 3-branches duel, driven by interests. Events are unfolding that may challenge the relative authority of the checks and balances, and the resultant changes, if any, may influence our future rights to self-determination.

D.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 25, 2005)

"A git long overdue"

Nicely put -- and what parent would deny their child the best for them?

As to dragging this through the courts, very much in the public eye, I wonder whether it was done as a last resort by the parents, desperate for attention to their daughter's plight, or for another reason.

Don't know about you all, but I wouldn't want to be *drug* past the world as an *example* of the power of a vocally aggressive group...

Indeed -- what about respect and dignity?

Robert, I believe it's up to twenty-seven as of now.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 25, 2005)

At this point, about the only interesting question is this: considering that all the medical guidelines were followed, the law was followed, and the case was reviewed and reviewed and reviewed by any number of independent doctors and judges, why in the world is it that anybody thinks they have the right to butt in?

I say again: a bunch of the comments on this thread have boiled down to, "I just want independent doctors to check," or, "I just want the whole thing to be looked at by the courts." OK--all that's been done. Again and again. Over and over. For fifteen years. It's been done. Check the timeline posted a few pages above. And now, the whole thing's been to the Supreme Court what--five times? Even the Florida legislature's dropped the whole thing. Twice.

And of course, in a magnificent display of backbone of the sort we've all grown accustomed to, Hizzoner and Congress and Tom deLay have all now said that it's out of their hands. I feel confident that this in NO WAY had anything to do with the polls.

So--since all the safeguards and guidelines were observed, since there's a total lack of any EVIDENCE whatsoever to ground believing that this was anything other than a sad case of a husband trying to do the best he could for his wife, WHY EXACTLY IS IT that anybody thinks they have the right to pass all the judgments, to butt in? 

Really. Why?

Myself, I think it's got something to do with medical paranoia and thanatophobia, coupled with the fact that most of the people doing the yelling have never been around such  patients. You know--it's like folks who like hamburger, but think meat comes from the store.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 25, 2005)

On the bright side ... Bush's approval rating has never been lower.

Ms. Shiavo is doing something good for the country.


----------



## Melissa426 (Mar 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And of course, in a magnificent display of backbone of the sort we've all grown accustomed to, Hizzoner and Congress and Tom deLay have all now said that it's out of their hands. I feel confident that this in NO WAY had anything to do with the polls.


You are being sarcastic, where I highlighted, yes? 

It also befuddles me why so many people are so certain there will be this huge rash of maltreatment towards disabled people. There were two disabled women on Larry King last night who implied this will lead to an epidemic of tube and plug  pulling on people who have had brain damage. That's ridiculous, IMO.
This should be a families' private decision, on a case by case, made with respect to the individual's wishes. 
And yes, I have worked in long term care facilities, with patients who are in a similiar situation as Mrs. Schiavo, when patients were kept alive by feeding tubes for years and years because the family believed that is what the patient would want.

Peace for Terri.

Melissa


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 25, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> On the bright side ...
> Ms. Shiavo is doing something good for the country.


 Indeed. More people are discussing what to do for their family members should terminal illness and/or very debilitating injury strike. They are now making their Estate Wills, Living Wills, and Advance Directives. That's a good thing....

   - Ceicei


----------



## OUMoose (Mar 25, 2005)

Not sure if this has already been posted or not, and if it has, my apologies.  It draws an interesting analogy though, IMO.

The Schiavo Case and the Islamization of the Republican Party


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 25, 2005)

That is entirely too scary to even contemplate.  If you take it a step further, then  jihad can be declared on those who disagree with anything the legislators choose because they can be perceived to be "infidels".

What a world we live in.


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 25, 2005)

This is an interesting commentary on "Why Schiavo's Parents Didn't Have a Case":

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-cohen25mar25,0,5784761.story

 - Ceicei


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> true. I don't think that the parents were selfish or out of line in any way. I can't imagine being in their imposible possition. I can't say I wouldn't have tried to do the same thing. Those of us looking in from the outside can say what we want, but our perspective is Entirely different... I mean....that's their baby-girl. God help'm.... this has got to be the toughest way to say goodbye, but say it they must.
> That's kinda the way 'death' is I guess, only for most of us it's not a 15 year process and most don't have to do it under such a heavy public eye.
> 
> Your Brother
> John


Exactly..and most of us dont have to sit by her for 1-2 weeks and watch it happen slowly.
:asian:


----------



## Melissa426 (Mar 25, 2005)

Threats from Randall Terry, anti-abortionist crusader and founder of Operation Rescue.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/25/schneider/index.html

Does this not make it seem that the Schindlers, who are undoubtedly loving parents who care about their daughter,  are nonetheless being used as political pawns?

Peace, 
Melissa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 25, 2005)

Listen up, Sparky: I HAVE. And so have a number of other people on this thread. And ya know what? This is ********. This is politically-driven, ideologically charged ********, enforced by a group of self-appointed moral watchmen (and it is men, you know, behind it all...just one more episode of Let's All Praise Men's Control Of Women's Bodies, and yes, I am aware of the fact that this damns all, "sides" here) who don't want anything to do with actually wiping asses and trying to unkink twisted limbs.

Lemme tell ya about a child I met when I worked at a Children's Hospital--let's just say in the Midwest, around, oh, 1980. We'll call him....Butch.

Well, Butch was born to an underage, junkie mom, about, oh, three months pre-term, about three months before I started checking ventilators in the NICU (newborn intensive care unit...a level IV nursery for the several-state area; they flew kids in)  RDS (respiratory distress syndrome...no surfactant in the alveoli); several Grade III-IV brain bleeds (scale starts at I, goes to IV), soon had RLF (retro-lental fibroplasia....retinas die since over-oxygenated, but if you don't oxygenate...), repeated horrible convulsions...I seem to recall resuscitating this "kid," twice a shift.

Hey, we saved him. Oh good. Ed Meese's new guidelines had kicked in (ironic what happened to his boss...no, better not go there, and that year we had at leat two anencephalic newborns (born without real brains, kids) kept on BabyBirds because the Feds insisted.

After the first year, the parents stopped coming to visit their blind, deaf, profoundly brain-damaged, convulsing, tracheotomized, parenterally-fed offspring--got divorced, their "family" collapsed. They were poor, and couldn't deal. They stuck him in a side room of the NICU...we kept treating him, the whole year I was there. For me, that meant IPPB q2, postural draininge, suction. 

Which is where he remained. Eventually, he got off the ventilator...I started college, came back to work next summer...he was on CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) and permanenently tracheotomized--and endless meds---blind, deaf, dumb, no purposeful movement to speak of, no social interaction except what he got from people like me and the great nurses who'd try and cuddle him when they weren't too busy. No walking, no play, no nothing.

I came back the next summer to work a couple shifts--needed the money. "Hey, what happened to...." Well, kids, he died. Thank God, and us agnostics don't say that lightly.

So tell us, O self-appointed Guardians of America's Morality--that sound good to you? That sound like anything Jesus had in mind? How 'bout Jefferson--he'd have said, well, now, here's the sort of thing that makes me proud?

Hey, go volunteer for a year. Hospitals, rehab centers, hospices always need people. Then get back to us.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2005)

Who the heck are you talking to??


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 25, 2005)

"most of us dont have to sit by her for 1-2 weeks and watch it happen slowly."

Been there, done that, skipped the t-shirt. Have you?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2005)

Where have I said I believe she should be kept alive? I just think we treat dogs better when we "put them down". Maybe when mine takes sick ill just stop feeding him....

What makes you think Im even religious?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Hey, go volunteer for a year. Hospitals, rehab centers, hospices always need people. Then get back to us.


How come when I or another LEO makes a similar statement about crime, drug abuse or anything else about our experiences, we get pooh-poohed by folks like you??


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 25, 2005)

I don't. Just thought you'd like to have the same claim thrown back in your face, for once.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2005)

What claim might that be o confrontational one?


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 25, 2005)

**shaking head**

  Come on, you guys....  It's entertaining, but doesn't add to the thread...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 25, 2005)

Gee, O non-confrontational one, maybe the comment you made about my being happy, since Terry Schiavo was going to die...

So tell us: when have you been around somebody in her condition, exactly?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "most of us dont have to sit by her for 1-2 weeks and watch it happen slowly."
> 
> Been there, done that, skipped the t-shirt. Have you?



Yes I have, and I would love a t-shirt for memories. But not everyone deals or handles it the same.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2005)

Well, my Grandmother took a good long time dying of cancer that spread from her lings to her brain and went from her writhing around yelling out bizzare and disturbing things to lying unconscious in a hospital bed with various lines running out of her, but I didnt realize you have to have had a personal experience to have a valid opinion on this topic. Ill remember that next time you want to voice an opinion on Oh say a military or LEO issue...

On that note I agree with Ceicei. Im bowing out of this love fest.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 25, 2005)

=================================================
*Moderator Note. 
*Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
=================================================


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 25, 2005)

Mod. Note: Thread split.

 Posts related to Deitism and not related to topic moved to this thread.

 Georgia Ketchmark
 MartialTalk
 Sr. Moderator


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Mar 25, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Exactly..and most of us dont have to sit by her for 1-2 weeks and watch it happen slowly.
> :asian:


Nor have most of us had to sit and take care of Terri's biologically functioning corpse for 15 years, which is ultimately the main point.  So far, the closest I've read anyone claim to relating to anyone involved is robertson's work in hospitals, and even then it was for brief time periods and was caring for hospital patients, not 15 years of watching over his wife's carcass.  

Point is, none of us know what this is like for the parents, or for Michael Schiavo, and none of us have any real interest in the case other than Schiavo, Terri's parents, the doctors, the Schiavos' kids, and Schiavo's current wife (he remarried, correct?).  If that's the case, there's no reason for the late-night presidential enactment, or Terri's law, or the involvement of any religious activists who really aren't involved and shouldnt have any say in the matter.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 25, 2005)

There ya go. So I ask again--what, exactly, justifies the prurient interest in this sad case?


----------



## Kane (Mar 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson, I am not going to try to change your views on this issue or anything, but you honestly got to stop criticizing this issue and blame everything on Christians and other religions. Reading your posts I notice one big pattern. You state your opinion, then you say all those who don't support youre so called "correct opinion" whether it is the correct view or not, are religious fundamentalists, Bible Belt Members, protestant activities, ect. ect. You blame all the countrys or world's problems and conservatives or Christians. That is a clear sign of a fundamentalist, which you are appearing to be a liberal fundamentalist. Being conservative doesn't mean you are evil, neither does being liberal. Both philosophies are theories on how to live. There is no right way.

 You really need to stop putting people who disagree on your views in a box, more specifically a religious conservative fundamentalist box. You generalize way too much.

 Oh and guess what, I am pro-choice for the most part, for the legalization of marijuana, for stem cell research, from embryonic research, ect. ect. I am sure all this time you thought of me as the opposite, and put me in your little box where you put Protestants and other conservative religious fundamentalists. Just because I am for the life of Terry Shiavo, you think I am some poser for the conseravtive Christians Group. I support Terry to live not because of religion, I am for her life because I am for the side of life, and strongly against suicide, euthanasia, and murder.     

 I would have rather PM this to you, but you don't have a PM funtion in your profile. Have a nice day.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 25, 2005)

Kane,

To think that this issue is not about 'Fundamental Christianity' is naive in the extreme. 

Karl Rove turned out 5 million Evangelical Christians to get C-Plus Augustus re-elected in November, and it is payback time. They expect President George W. Bush to honor their Fundamentalist wishe, Period. 

As I mentioned earlier, the President could very easily have signed the Congressional Bill from Crawford, Texas. Instead, he cut short his scheduled vacation (now that really is a miracle), flew back to Washington, had his people wake him up in the middle of the night (it truly must be the End Times)to sign the bill. 

Whether you are mostly pro-choice or not (again, I don't believe it for a minute) is irrelevant. This fight is not being fought based on any one persons beliefs. It is being fought for the tenet of Conservative Christianity, because they turned out the vote. As they say, "you got to dance with the one that brung ya".


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 25, 2005)

Nonsense. 

In the first place, I'm not blaming "Christians," for anything. Nor can you show me a quote in which I've said that, or even remotely hinted at it.

What I've said is that in this case, a small subset of Christians--Protestant fundamentalists, and of course not even all of those (note that Jimmy Carter, being a civilzed and decent man, hasn't said a word about all this), have pushed and pushed and pushed this issue.

And, as mentioned above, they've very clearly said that Bush is the guy they elected, and he needs to do something. Check the 700 Club; check the Christian Coalition; check any of these guys, and they'll tell you exactly that. And they'll tell you unequivocally. Look it up for once.

The problem is that you don't know jack about religions--see the stuff where you claimed to be a deist, but not to believe in a Deity!--and you don't seem to want to find out. here, you appear to think that, "Christian," and, "right-wing Protestant fundamentalist," are synonyms.(Hint--argue the official Catholic position. It's more logical, better supported, and WAY better mannered.) Absolutely your prerogative--but if you're going to argue and discuss things like this, you need a lot better ammo than what you're bringing.

As long as you're insistently bringing up the notion--and it is just a notion--that I'm sticking everybody in boxes, try this: of course I'm not against this sad woman's life, however much you might try to establish a binary opposition in which you life, me death. 

It's just that I think her life ended about fifteen years ago, Elmer Gantry.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 25, 2005)

The TWENTY-SEVENTH court just denied the latest appeal.


----------



## Kane (Mar 26, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The problem is that you don't know jack about religions--see the stuff where you claimed to be a deist, but not to believe in a Deity!--and you don't seem to want to find out. here, you appear to think that, "Christian," and, "right-wing Protestant fundamentalist," are synonyms.(Hint--argue the official Catholic position. It's more logical, better supported, and WAY better mannered.) Absolutely your prerogative--but if you're going to argue and discuss things like this, you need a lot better ammo than what you're bringing.


 Who said I did not believe in a deity? I certianly did not say that. I said my deity may or may not be the same deity as what other religions may claim as a diety. Quote where I said I did not believe in a deity? I'm not absolute on who the deity is, as a deist it is okay to not be absolute.

 Oh and I am not trying to branch "Christian" and "Right Wing" in the same branch. I am saying that it seems that you do it a lot. You anyways always put me into the category so I am assuming having some conservative philosophies to you is considered on the Christian side, the same side in which you relate the two imo.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Kane,
> 
> To think that this issue is not about 'Fundamental Christianity' is naive in the extreme.
> 
> ...


   Yes, of course there are many Christians that are trying to use Terry Shiavo as a tool to spread their teachings. Yes, Bush probably interfered with the case because of religious reasons (no hard evidence for it but it is a possibility). That however is not my point. My point is that you don't have to be Christian or religious to care about life. You can be agnostic, deist, Buddhist, pantheist, or even atheist to respect life that exists in our world, and not to kill off people who we think has "no hope". They did that in Nazi Germany by the way. They killed people in hospitals who the doctors thought was too late to save. It seems like we are going on that path. Many people in America including myself, whether Christian or not, are against Euthanasia or self assisted suicides. Killing people who are too "sick" or "depressed" is not the way to go. You don't have to be religious to be against suicide or euthanasia. To me this goes beyond religion. This goes to the realms or morality to me.

 Oh and I don't understand why you don't believe that I am pro-choice for a minuet after telling you. Is it really so hard to mix both conservative and liberal philosophies into an ideology? You know people like this do exist; they are call centrists or moderates. That is what I am. It may not seem like it, it is mainly because majority of this board does seem liberal (which is not bad, and you cannot deny it) so I seem to be arguing more for conservatism sometimes. If I was to go to a more conservative forum, you would be surprised how liberal I could be. If someone was to examine both boards, it would be very obvious how moderate I am, for I am almost a pure centrist.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 26, 2005)

1. Not that it'll have the slightest effect, but you might consult your very own posts, in which you claimed to be a Deist but then huffily insisted that you did not believe in an deity.

2. What you are arguing for is keeping a husk alive by whatever means necessary. I doubt you'll actually look it up, but you should check and see what it takes to keep somebody "alive," who's completely bedridden and unresponsive.

3. Yes, it's quite true that folks who claim to be, "centrists," or, "moderates," work very hard to claim that theirs is the neutral, common-sense viewpoint, as opposed to all them wacky ideologues. Funnily enough, though, these, "centrists," never seem to have anything to complain about with the right side of the political spectrum. Mainly because they pretty much agree with 'em, I suspect.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 26, 2005)

Thank you Dr. McRobertson. I agree.

Kane, - I did not say that Leader Frist, Leader Delay or President Bush made this decision for religious reasons. They have taken their stances for *political* reasons. Their decisions have very little to do with 'caring about life'. They have an awful lot to do with 'caring about votes'. 

Poor Senator Frist. When he gets to New Hampshire, he may find new meaning in our state motto; "Life Free or Die". This vote, his remote diagnosis, and his participation in the passage of the midnight legislation probably will cost him the New Hampshire Primary, and thus, the nomination. Oops. You see, this state is a 'small government' Red state.

Please review the history of Nazi Germany. You may find the 'Final Solution' had nothing to do with killing off people with 'no hope', as you put it. Oh, yeah, and the analogy is repugnant and inaccurate.

Of course Americans are against Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. They may have noted that Dr. Kavorkian is now *inmate *Kavorkian. However, no one involved with Mrs. Shiavo is committing Euthanasia. They have removed the nutrient and hydration tube. Many on this thread have stated they have an ethical dilemma with allowing her to die of dehydration, but most are also against an overdose of morphine. 

To deny a difference between Euthanasia and dehydration is similar to claiming, well, Nazi Germany's Final Solution was because millions of European minorities had 'no hope'.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 26, 2005)

Did anybody post this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1445522,00.html?gusrc=rss


If so, I apologize.  



Regards,



Steve


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 26, 2005)

Final commentary from a legal point of view on the Schiavo issue:

http://abstractappeal.com/

 - Ceicei


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 28, 2005)

Turns out Tom DeLay joined his family in turning off his own father's life support in 1988.  He's been rather outspoken in this case:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ELAY?SITE=APWEB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 28, 2005)

Here is an article regarding how other countries handle their own life & death issues:

http://www.harktheherald.com/module...article&sid=51251&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

 - Ceicei


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 29, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Nonsense.
> 
> In the first place, I'm not blaming "Christians," for anything. Nor can you show me a quote in which I've said that, or even remotely hinted at it.
> 
> ...


Local Catholics have commented on the news during Easter about her 'life' so it isn't just the Fundamentalists that are talking about this.

I think the 'blame' (if you want to call it that) over the media hoopla is with the parents that filed in court, have let other parties (interest groups) get involved in some way (I doubt that the legal/court fees are totally on their shoulders at this point) and have let their daughter become a waving banner in order to push an agenda.

They filed the court case, made it public access and here we go with the rest.  Heck even Shiavo's brother was on the news talking down protestors that were attempting to walk through police in order to 'feed' Terry.  "Let the courts deal with it" was what he said in the report.

Sad all around.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 29, 2005)

Local Catholics are not the ones screaming their heads off about how this case proves the moral decline of America, or the arrogance of judges and the untrustworthiness of the courts, or the way this shows that Michael Schiavo's a murderer, and on and on. 

They simply have a very different point of view, which they seem to be standing up for in a decent and temperate fashion.


----------



## Sapper6 (Mar 29, 2005)

i won't even begin to trouble myself over reading the 15 pages of posts before this one.  it's all back and forth rhetoric. so i'll add my .02.  let her live? let her die?  it's not the parent's decision.  the spouse should have the final say.  but on the other hand, all the other side is doing is erring on the side of life.  who knows.  i wouldn't exactly call being supported by machines and having to be fed through the stomach living.  

i don't think the gov't intervened on it's own.  it was asked to rule over it.  somebody had to make that 1st call to a politicians office.  but playing devil's advocate here, what's so wrong with siding with life?  isn't that the main important reason we as martial artists study the arts; to protect life and safety?  don't we as martial artists cherish living so much that we spend countless hours in the studio or training hall, sweating, bleeding, and busting our asses to preserve this facet of existing?  but then again, is this lady really living...?  Kid Rock said it best, "Only God Knows Why" :idunno: .


----------



## Kane (Mar 29, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> i won't even begin to trouble myself over reading the 15 pages of posts before this one. it's all back and forth rhetoric. so i'll add my .02. let her live? let her die? it's not the parent's decision. the spouse should have the final say. but on the other hand, all the other side is doing is erring on the side of life. who knows. i wouldn't exactly call being supported by machines and having to be fed through the stomach living.
> 
> i don't think the gov't intervened on it's own. it was asked to rule over it. somebody had to make that 1st call to a politicians office. but playing devil's advocate here, what's so wrong with siding with life? isn't that the main important reason we as martial artists study the arts; to protect life and safety? don't we as martial artists cherish living so much that we spend countless hours in the studio or training hall, sweating, bleeding, and busting our asses to preserve this facet of existing? but then again, is this lady really living...? Kid Rock said it best, "Only God Knows Why" :idunno: .


  Good point Sapper6.:asian:


----------



## Sapper6 (Mar 29, 2005)

thanks Kane.  not that my opinion should matter but hey, that's what forums are for, eh?  thanks again.

...and to the anonymous coward who felt the urge to leave me negative rep for stating i "didn't read all 15 pages of posts", and that i shouldn't post a response unless i read every post that precedes mine.  is that a rule?  i had a good idea of what was contained therein so i didn't feel it necessary to drudge through every one of them.  was it really necessary to read the entire thread?  was there something there not contained in any news broadcast from the past month...?  i doubt it seriously.  besides, it was just my opinion on the whole matter, not any of which referred to any post before mine, so no, i shouldn't read every post before making a contribution.  grow up.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 29, 2005)

As far as you have any evidentiary basis for, Michael Schiavo DID, "side with life--" meaningful life, unless of course you think that as long as two cells are undergoing mitosis somewhere in the remains there's human life, going forward.

Which option would you like:

1) "Heal the wound and cure the illness, but let the dying spirit go."--Ursula K. Le Guin, "Earthsea trilogy;"

OR

2) "Every Sperm Is Sacred,"--Monty Python.


Or does it not trouble you that the Rev. Jesse Jackson showed up today to yak? What the hell happened to THAT guy? Was there ever a recent moral decline worse than his?

Oh wait--I forgot--that of Dennis Miller, Corporate Bush Shill.


But try this link; read carefully. And before you kvetch---Hitchens, a leftist, supports the war in Iraq. He's wrong, but at least he's intelligent.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2115860/


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 30, 2005)

The Schiavo family stands to make some money from all of this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/p...=f1312f1b5ae170ad&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

They sold her donor's list to a direct marketing firm.

Book deals to follow, I'm sure.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## ginshun (Mar 30, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The Schiavo family stands to make some money from all of this.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/politics/29donate.html?ex=1269752400&en=f1312f1b5ae170ad&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
> 
> ...


 I hearrd that on the readio last night.  That is pretty shady if you ask me.  The more I hear about this case, the more I think that it really has nothing to do with Teri.

 It is just a family fued over money between the Schindlers and the Shiavo's , and now the whole country has just jumped in.



 Also nice to see that Jesse Jackson jumped into the ring.  The entire media has been focused on this single issue for like the last two weeks.  Enter Jesse Jackson, imagine that.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 30, 2005)

Twenty-eight!! We're up to 28!!!

And all for a woman who would have decently been allowed to die a few decades ago. Now THERE'S progress.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Mar 30, 2005)

*FLASH: POPE BEING FED THROUGH FEEDING TUBE. (REUTERS MINUTES AGO).*
*"NOT FOR LONG" VOWS MICHAEL SCHIAVO AS COURT UPHOLDS HIS PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF THE FEEDING TUBE AND AN END TO ALL EFFORTS AT KEEPING THE AGING PONTIFF ALIVE.*

Farfetched? Gosh, I wonder.
It's all a continuum, isn't it? "Quality of life" or "extraordinary measures" are subjective and often deceiving.
Sleep well but not too deeply. Your ex-spouse could be watching.


----------



## bignick (Mar 30, 2005)

posted this in the thread about the Pope



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> ...to draw parrallel's between the two cases is a little shameful, at best...
> 
> I didn't ever really say anything on the other thread because the debate was a little too heated, too much coming from the politics and not the heart or head. Multitudes of doctors have declared Mrs. Schiavo will never recover and she has no sense of self-awareness. I agree with everybody that says that we shouldn't let someone die if that was not their wish, but she died 15 years ago. The pope is a frail old man that's been having some health problems so they gave him a feeding tube to make sure his caloric intake was at a healthy level. To say the cases are at all related except by the most superficial means is disingenuous.
> 
> A cousin of mine was working construction a few years ago when a very bad thunderstorm came up and basically tore the building he was in down... he was crushed under debris and was rescued and brought to the hospital. His body was still "alive", but the doctors said he would never ever wake up and his brain was basically pulverized from the accident. He didn't have a living will, and his immediate family decided it was best that they let him go. Where was Bush on that one? Why didn't Congress pass laws just to make sure he lived? It would be interesting to see how many people debating this topic have ever been close to a decision a like this...though I was not involved in this decision myself, it wasn't very hard to see how it affects the people around you. It is not an easy decision to make, but to keep someone you loved in such a state is selfish. I think that letting my cousin die was the last thing we could do for him. When people that have no hope of recovering a sense of self are kept alive, I feel it's done so you don't have to accept that their gone. Sure, I haven't talked to my child in 15 years, but I can see that body lying in a bed....that must mean they are still really there, even when they are not.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 30, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> *FLASH: POPE BEING FED THROUGH FEEDING TUBE. (REUTERS MINUTES AGO).*
> *"NOT FOR LONG" VOWS MICHAEL SCHIAVO AS COURT UPHOLDS HIS PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF THE FEEDING TUBE AND AN END TO ALL EFFORTS AT KEEPING THE AGING PONTIFF ALIVE.*
> 
> Farfetched? Gosh, I wonder.
> ...


 
 exactly the same right?  You bet, except for the fact that the Pope has a living will specifically stating not to remove a feeding tube.  Oh ya that and the fact that he is consious and can communicate.  

 Why would you even bother posting junk like this?


----------



## Ping898 (Mar 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Twenty-eight!! We're up to 28!!!
> 
> And all for a woman who would have decently been allowed to die a few decades ago. Now THERE'S progress.


The petition got shot down again.

"The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to consider an emergency bid by Bob and Mary Schindler for a new hearing in their case, raising a flicker of hope for the parents after a series of setbacks in the case. But the court rejected the bid 15 hours later  the fourth time since last week the court ruled against the Schindlers. 
"Any further action by our court or the district court would be improper," wrote Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., who was appointed by former President Bush. "While the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate discharge of duty." "


----------



## Ping898 (Mar 30, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> *FLASH: POPE BEING FED THROUGH FEEDING TUBE. (REUTERS MINUTES AGO).*
> *"NOT FOR LONG" VOWS MICHAEL SCHIAVO AS COURT UPHOLDS HIS PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF THE FEEDING TUBE AND AN END TO ALL EFFORTS AT KEEPING THE AGING PONTIFF ALIVE.*
> 
> Farfetched? Gosh, I wonder.
> ...


This isn't anywhere near the same either, Pope isn't brain dead, he's just sick and unlike Schiavo, he has a chance at recovery.


----------



## oldnewbie (Mar 31, 2005)

Well, according to the news reports, Terry passed away at approx. 9:30 a.m. today. 

 May she finally rest in peace.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 31, 2005)

.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 31, 2005)

.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 31, 2005)

.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 31, 2005)

Rest in peace (finally) Terri.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 31, 2005)

Rip


----------



## ghostdog2 (Mar 31, 2005)

Terry Schiavo succumbed to dehyration and starvation earlier today. Reportedly, her "husband" had the breakfast buffet at his hotel. The eggs were overcooked, he complained.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 31, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Terry Schiavo succumbed to dehyration and starvation earlier today. Reportedly, her "husband" had the breakfast buffet at his hotel. The eggs were overcooked, he complained.


I'm wondering if you are, in any way, embarrassed by such a callous statement. 

Nice of you to get right to the important point of the day.


----------



## Lisa (Mar 31, 2005)

.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 31, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Terry Schiavo succumbed to dehyration and starvation earlier today. Reportedly, her "husband" had the breakfast buffet at his hotel. The eggs were overcooked, he complained.


Yeah...real classy.  Sympathies to her survivors:  Parents, husband, other family and friends.  Hopefully the healing can start.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 31, 2005)

.

Now hopefully her loved ones - husband and parents - will be able to mourn, and move on in some way.


----------



## Kane (Mar 31, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Now hopefully her loved ones - husband and parents - will be able to mourn, and move on in some way.


I really doubt her husband will mourn at all. He finally got what he wanted, and that is the death of her so called "wife". 

While I know some of you maybe be happy, know this. No matter how much you think Terry wanted to die, there was no real proof at all that she wanted to die. In that kind of doubt we should have leaned toward life.


What is the worst about this whole case is that she couldn't even get a proper death. We really don't know whether she felt any pain, but let us say she didn't. Is it really justified starving someone to death no matter how much pain is felt? This wouldn't even happen to a dog according to what I have seen.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 31, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I really doubt her husband will mourn at all. He finally got what he wanted, and that is the death of her so called "wife".
> 
> While I know some of you maybe be happy, know this. No matter how much you think Terry wanted to die, there was no real proof at all that she wanted to die. In that kind of doubt we should have leaned toward life.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, he was such a bad husband to stick it out for .... how long has it been?

Until any of us are there, how can you righteously or rightfully judge.  If uncertainty over her condition should side for life in your eyes, how about siding with some sympathetic perspective for the husband's life as well.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 31, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I really doubt her husband will mourn at all. He finally got what he wanted, and that is the death of her so called "wife".
> 
> While I know some of you maybe be happy, know this. No matter how much you think Terry wanted to die, there was no real proof at all that she wanted to die. In that kind of doubt we should have leaned toward life.
> 
> ...



While I disagree with many of your points, Kane, I do agree that the way that Terri _had to die_ was totally inhumane.  The subject of euthenasia is inheritly wrapped up in this debate and I think that the only good thing I can see come from this woman's suffering (for 15 years in a vegetative state and by the way she died) is that now we can have a national dialogue on the matter.  

The _sanctity of life _ isn't always about life.  Sometimes, it's about death.  We all know we are going to die, the question on everyones' mind is when and why.  In our society, a living will can define the when and why of our own deaths.

Knowing this, my wife and I just had ours drawn up.  One needs to go to a lawyer to get this done, and its not cheap.  I imagine that millions of Americans would not be able to afford their only option to define the when and why of their own deaths.  

So, as of right now, I am writing my national representative, Dave Obey (D - WI) and both senators Russ Feingold (D - WI) and Herb Kohl (D - WI).  I would like them to take a look at the idea of expanding one of our government programs to include living wills.  I think that everyone should have access to these documents regardless of SEC and I think that getting this information out on a wide scale is an important step in preventing the tragedies we have just seen.

This doesn't really address the "Right to Die" question as much as I would like it, but it is a step in that direction.

upnorthkyosa

PS - Rest in Peace, Terri.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

Starving her to death was just "wrong" IMO. Her dying was a blessing, but this particular method just leaves a bad taste....


----------



## Ray (Mar 31, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Until any of us are there, how can you righteously or rightfully judge. If uncertainty over her condition should side for life in your eyes, how about siding with some sympathetic perspective for the husband's life as well.


I agree with you.  Our sympathy should go out to the husband, Terry and the parents.  Pray that we're never in that situation.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Starving her to death was just "wrong" IMO. Her dying was a blessing, but this particular method just leaves a bad taste....


I find it distasteful to think about too.  I don't know what 'active' measures would be legal in this state or under these circumstances though.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

I still believe that by limiting care to just food/water and nothing else besides maybe pain killers (meds to prevent pnuemonia, infection etc) would eventually have lead to her death. Not as certain, or as quick but more humane IMO.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Mar 31, 2005)

```
I'm wondering if you are, in any way, embarrassed by such a callous statement
```


```

```
 
The only embarrassing thing is how shallow and superficial this discussion has become as virtual condolences and bogus sympathies are offered to people none of us have met or know anything about.
Someone posted about the husband now being able to move on. Wise up. He moved on long ago. The family? They got screwed. By virtue of a legal fiction and half remembered conversations from 15 years ago, Hubbie got to finish off their daughter/sister.
Is he better off? Probably not.
Are they worse off? Most certainly.
"The law, sir, is an ***." Samuel Johnson


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 31, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> ```
> I'm wondering if you are, in any way, embarrassed by such a callous statement
> ```
> 
> ...


How very presumptuous of you to think that people here don't care, simply because they may disagree with you.

If Terri's husband had really "moved on", I assume he would have let Terri stay on a feeding tube indefinetly.  Some might interpret his actions as trying to carry out her wishes expressed when she was still alive.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 31, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> ```
> I'm wondering if you are, in any way, embarrassed by such a callous statement
> ```
> 
> ...


Just as 'shallow and superficial' as comments about the motive and character of people 'none of use have met or know anything about.' can be taken.

I don't know about the rest but my sympathy is far from bogus.  I did ask if anyone knew any contact info for either/both sides on this issue (Terri's husband and parents), as of yet I haven't read any info...

if we lack knowledge/contact, take charge and correct that problem if it is such an issue for you...or will you let it die by ignoring/starving it of attention.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 31, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I really doubt her husband will mourn at all. He finally got what he wanted, and that is the death of her so called "wife".
> 
> While I know some of *you maybe be happy*, know this. No matter how much you think Terry wanted to die, *there was no real proof *at all that she wanted to die. In that kind of doubt we should have leaned toward life.
> 
> ...


Yeah, in fact, I'm planning a Celebration that is going to last all weekend long.. It's going to be bigger and badder than any of the Spring Break parties you may have seen on E! entertainment television. (I'm hoping for my own series - Wild on People Dying)

And those damn Activist Judges ... one of those SOB's made a *finding of fact* that Mrs. Shiavo would not want to be kept alive by artificial mean. I suppose we can twist the logic around so a 'Finding of fact' and 'proof' are not synonyms. 


*Good Grief!* - Even if you are correct (and by the way, you are not) these statements are so careless toward the family, and selfish to your point of view (or agenda) as to demonstrate exactly the opposite of what you claim; concern for life because it has 'dignity'.

I think that Mr. Shiavo has been mourning for 15 years. And today, he has entered a new period of mourning. 

My wish for you is that you never need to experience a similar change in types of mourning.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 31, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yeah, in fact, I'm planning a Celebration that is going to last all weekend long.. It's going to be bigger and badder than any of the Spring Break parties you may have seen on E! entertainment television. (I'm hoping for my own series - Wild on People Dying)
> 
> And those damn Activist Judges ... one of those SOB's made a *finding of fact* that Mrs. Shiavo would not want to be kept alive by artificial mean. I suppose we can twist the logic around so a 'Finding of fact' and 'proof' are not synonyms.
> 
> ...


nods to you sir.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 31, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Yeah...real classy. Sympathies to her survivors: Parents, husband, other family and friends. Hopefully the healing can start.


Well, seems that someone doesn't appreciate a sensitive comment toward family with Rep responses/comments like this:  

'superficial nonsense for the weak minded'


I'd love to see how 'superficial' a comment this would be on behalf of a dead family member of the anonymous individual that was 'weak' enough in spine to say it but not take credit for it.

It is stuff like this that really reinforces my opinion that rep point systems in these forums are a waste of time.

Sorry for the rant, but this strikes me as about as classy as the comment the original post was my response to in the first place.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 31, 2005)

Still waiting on that little thing called EVIDENCE that Michael Schiavo had done anything wrong.

One of the things I despise about the scuzzy likes of Michael Savage is that they have made it legitimate for conservatives and right-wingers and white guys in general to adopt, without reservation, a claim that they are the persecuted minority--and that they can say anything they feel about anybody who disagrees with them, because they just KNOW that them lefties and libbies and lezzies are thinking the same things about them.

Still waiting on that little detail called EVIDENCE.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Mar 31, 2005)

Rest in peace.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 31, 2005)

> While I know some of you maybe be happy, know this. No matter how much you think Terry wanted to die, there was no real proof at all that she wanted to die.


 Except for the husbands word. Which obviously you don't believe him, but since he was the one leagally responsible, it doesn't really matter what you or anybody else believes now does it.




> Still waiting on that little thing called EVIDENCE that Michael Schiavo had done anything wrong.


 He shouldn't have to prove that he didn't do anything wrong. Someone else shoudl have to prove that he DID do something wrong. He doesn't have to prove anything.


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 31, 2005)

Rest in peace, Terri.  :asian: Your influence has been strongly felt. Although the controversy and rancor weren't necessary, all of this caused the world to consider the issues related to death and brought them out into the open for discussion. Terri, thank you.

    :asian:

    - Ceicei


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 31, 2005)

Now the autopsy will begin soon. Will that resolve the all final questions that remain about her condition or will there still be arguments about what could have/what should have been done? 

  Maybe it is a foolish hope that people will be able to accept the answers and move on for the better.

    - Ceicei


----------



## oldnewbie (Mar 31, 2005)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Now the autopsy will begin soon. Will that resolve the all final questions that remain about her condition or will there still be arguments about what could have/what should have been done?
> 
> Maybe it is a foolish hope that people will be able to accept the answers and move on for the better.
> 
> - Ceicei


 Except that after the autopsy, will follow the cremation. (I've heard from the news) So, what I predict will happen, is there will be controversy over the autospy report, wild claims that it wasn't done properly, or correctly, or was "bought" or some garbage, and the "media circus" can continue.

 Very sad.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 31, 2005)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/?GT1=6305

Taken from this article...



> The president, for one, said "millions of Americans are saddened" by Schiavo's death. *The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak, * he added. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in favor of life."
> 
> Boldface emphasis mine.



This is so glaringly hypocritical, I can hardly find words to describe it.  We, as a nation, need to start holding our politicians more accountable for the things they say.  That quotation is nothing but a political circus act and has very little to do with reality.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 31, 2005)

Hypocritical?  Yes.

 Expected?  Yes.


----------



## Ping898 (Mar 31, 2005)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Now the autopsy will begin soon. Will that resolve the all final questions that remain about her condition or will there still be arguments about what could have/what should have been done?
> 
> Maybe it is a foolish hope that people will be able to accept the answers and move on for the better.
> 
> - Ceicei


My understanding is that the autopsy won't end or answer all the questions.  It will show how extensive the brain damage is, but it won't end the questions cause there is no clear line that after point X the person is in a persistant vegitative state.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 1, 2005)

Maybe this topic was spoken about earlier in the post, if so, forgive my tardiness, but there is something that keeps sticking out in my mind. Feelings aside, someone was allowed to be starved and dehydrated to death, slowly, over two weeks. This from the same society that made a big deal over Iraqi prisoners being naked. We don't starve theses al queda pukes to death, or mass murderes, rapists etc.. and lord knows, when compared with Terri, they deserve that, not Terri.


----------



## Flatlander (Apr 1, 2005)

Yes, the issue has been raised a few times, regarding the method of starving to death.


----------



## OUMoose (Apr 1, 2005)

I don't really agree with the method used, as I'm sure some form of euthanasia would have been much more "humane".  

As had been said by others, and I'm sure will be said again, is that this is no business of anyone's but the immediate families.  I do feel bad for the husband and parents, as losing anyone close is painful, but this political grandstanding B.S. was (pardon my french) stupid.  Just let the poor woman have some peace.  I think she's suffered enough for 10 lifetimes...


----------



## Brother John (Apr 1, 2005)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Rest in peace, Terri.  :asian: Your influence has been strongly felt. Although the controversy and rancor weren't necessary, all of this caused the world to consider the issues related to death and brought them out into the open for discussion. Terri, thank you.
> :asian:
> - Ceicei


GOOD points!!!
Thanks for pointing them out to us.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 15, 2005)

An article about the autopsy.

http://us.rd.yahoo.com//mymod/ldpht...u=/ap/20050615/ap_on_re_us/schiavo_autopsy_22


----------



## arnisador (Jun 15, 2005)

Sounds like the injuries were as serious as claimed.


----------



## Floating Egg (Jun 15, 2005)

The parents are of course questioning the validity of the autopsy. It's all a conspiracy. I imagine it's only a matter of time before they present their own doctors that what to perform the autopsy again.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 15, 2005)

Sadly, you're probably right...it'll never end for those involved.


----------



## oldnewbie (Jun 16, 2005)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> The parents are of course questioning the validity of the autopsy. It's all a conspiracy. I imagine it's only a matter of time before they present their own doctors that what to perform the autopsy again.


 Not real sure how that will happen, as she was cremated after the autopsy.

 It's sad to see people continue to argue after what they believe to be true was proven false.


----------



## Floating Egg (Jun 16, 2005)

> Not real sure how that will happen, as she was cremated after the autopsy.
> 
> It's sad to see people continue to argue after what they believe to be true was proven false.


I didn't know that she was cremated. The parents have been foiled again!


----------



## Marginal (Jun 16, 2005)

oldnewbie said:
			
		

> Not real sure how that will happen, as she was cremated after the autopsy.



All they need is a bacta tank.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 18, 2005)

I never had an issue with letting this woman die.  I always felt a little uneasy about the mechanism of death.  If I were to put a dog "out of it's misery" by letting it starve to death, i'd be doing time in state prison.  Of course I don't really have any answers on this topic and I know that.


----------



## Ping898 (Jun 18, 2005)

If they couldn't stop him from pulling the feeding tube, now they will go after him any way they can.  There is going to be a probe into what caused Terri to colapse in the first place and why it took so long to call 911.


Probe Sought in Terri Schiavo 911 Call 

"Gov. Jeb Bush said Friday that a prosecutor has agreed to investigate why Terri Schiavo collapsed 15 years ago, citing an alleged time gap between when her husband found her and when he called 911. 
Bush said his request for the probe was not meant to suggest wrongdoing by Michael Schiavo. "It's a significant question that during this ordeal was never brought up," Bush told reporters.

In a statement issued by his lawyer, Schiavo called the development an outrage.

"I have consistently said over the years that I didn't wait but 'ran' to call 911 after Terri collapsed," Schiavo said in the release.

In a letter faxed to Pinellas-Pasco County State Attorney Bernie McCabe, the governor said Michael Schiavo testified in a 1992 medical malpractice trial that he found his wife collapsed at 5 a.m. on Feb. 25, 1990, and he said in a 2003 television interview that he found her about 4:30 a.m. He called 911 at 5:40 a.m.

"Between 40 and 70 minutes elapsed before the call was made, and I am aware of no explanation for the delay," Bush wrote. "In light of this new information, I urge you to take a fresh look at this case without any preconceptions as to the outcome."

McCabe was out of state Friday and couldn't immediately be reached for comment, but Bush said McCabe has agreed to his request."


----------



## arnisador (Jun 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I never had an issue with letting this woman die. I always felt a little uneasy about the mechanism of death.


 Yeah, death by dehydration seems cruel. Once the decision was made, a lethal dose of something would be appropriate--especially since the courts were already involved.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 18, 2005)

I think if anything positive ever came out of this, is to get a Will, it will run you about $150, and will give you peace of mind.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 18, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> Probe Sought in Terri Schiavo 911 Call


Ping, would you please cite the source for the article? Not that I disbelieve the authenticity, but the author and publisher deserve credit. Thank you. :asian:


----------



## Ping898 (Jun 18, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Ping, would you please cite the source for the article? Not that I disbelieve the authenticity, but the author and publisher deserve credit. Thank you. :asian:


Sorry, thought I had added it

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/17/schiavo.governor.ap/index.html


----------

