Terry Shiavo and the Sanctity of Life...

[loki09789]

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]

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]

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?

Agreed, couldn't have said it better.

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

>> 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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What about what she wants? Is that important?