Main > Everything Else
Schiavo rumblings
DrewKaree:
Dunno if you wish to, or can, do anything, but if you do, here's something that I believe would be done by either party, if they REALLY wanted to "achieve" something:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43362
I dunno quite where I stand on this case, myself, although I most certainly agree with her parents' wishes to take over the care of the woman, and having seen video footage of the woman long ago, I don't know if the current footage being shown all over is current, or more of the same old footage.
At the very least, at the end of that story I linked to, if you wish to make your feelings known, there's a phone number. A simple call to get in touch with your elected representative and alert them that you appreciate their time, and that you feel "_______" about this case, and you would appreciate their considering your points when deciding on this matter.
saint:
I think a lot of people are missing the point on this case. Whether or not her parents/family want to take care of her is irrelevant. I think it's a good thing that her family loves her and is willing to take that on, but it is really irrelevant in this case.
Nor is it relevant that she may or may not have some intellectual function remaining. It's horrific to picture being in her situation, with or without higher reasoning functionality, but again it's not relevant.
The only thing that's relevant, IMHO, is what her wishes were/are. Would she want to live in the state that she's in now.
If she had left a living will we would know. If she had the ability to communicate her thoughts now we would know. Unfortunately, neither is the case.
So we're (society in general) left with trying to make the best determination as to what she would have wanted in this situation. One on hand, you have her blood relatives who don't want to let her go. I haven't heard whether or not they have said they know what her wishes would have been in this situation. So far what I've heard is that they don't think she's totally gone, and that they love her and are willing to take care of her. Heart rendering, to be sure. On the other hand you have her husband, who says she made it plain she wouldn't want to live in this condition. However, apparently there's a sum of money involved (did he say once he'd waive the money?) and he waited several years before pulling the plug, so there's some question to his motivations.
You'd need the wisdom of Sol to judge this one I think. I would personally trust my wife to make a life/death decision for me before my parents. All of them love me, but I've spent most of my adult life with her, no one knows me better than her and she is the most qualified to know what I would want.
Mind you, I have a living will so as to not put my family through this situation. I didn't for the longest time, but having kids made me get myself in gear. It's too important not to do it. Do you have one? Feeling immortal?
RE: This case - frankly I just don't know what the right thing is to do. I don't trust that her blood relatives really know what she would have wanted, and I don't trust that her husband's motives are pure. Icky situation.
--- saint
DrewKaree:
well put and reasoned.
This case alone is the reason for people to work on getting a living will together.
Other than her supposedly saying while watching a movie similar to her situation that she wouldn't want to live like this, there seems to be NO compelling information that this would have been her wishes.
One thing I WOULD like to see the judge step in on and make an actual ruling on is that no matter what, an autopsy should be performed on her body (there are possible markers of abuse to her - about as possible as her "request to die", anyway). Michael's actions in that area just adds more suspicion to the whole case.
I wish there was more to this case, but evidently, unless it involves salacious events, it won't be reported. What's been reported thus far is BECAUSE he has two kids with another woman and is still legally married to Terri, IMO.
I believe Michael to be wrong in his actions, but I agree that no one can say for certain
mr.Curmudgeon:
The only conclusion I've been able to come to regarding this case is that the government has no damn business intervening in it AT ALL. This grand-standing on Capitol Hill is a disgusting spectacle and I'll be happy to see them move on, hopefully not to exploit the next victim of such a tragedy.
Other than that...I haven't walked in the family's shoes, so I won't pass judgment on anyone actually involved with Mrs. Schiavo. I'll save my venom for the politicians.
And as such, I find the following remarkably hypocritical given that it's Republicans leading the charge to politicize this issue:
"In 1999 then governor Bush signed a law which allowed hospitals to withdraw life support from patients, over the objections of the family, if they consider the treatment to be nonbeneficial and/or the patients are unable to pay."
Discuss.
mrC
DrewKaree:
I'll throw this into this thread where it belongs ::)
--- Quote from: JCL on March 20, 2005, 03:26:20 am ---
--- Quote from: DrewKaree on March 20, 2005, 01:19:36 am ---
--- Quote from: JCL on March 20, 2005, 12:21:53 am ---
Certainly not principles relating to the sanctity of marriage (Schiavo case).
--- End quote ---
I find it astonishing that you see that case as a sanctity of marriage issue. It might do you well to do some more reading into it. While it probably won't change your views, at least you'd understand the concept behind why the case is important, and it certainly isn't because of a sanctity of marriage point.
--- End quote ---
Of course it is about the sanctity of marriage. This kind of power and responsibility is a big part of marriage. And here comes the federal government stepping in, overuling the wishes of the spouse, the courts of Florida, the legislature of Florida, and even federal courts. I thought right wingers were afraid of the federal government controling medical care?
This woman is missing half her brain, literally. It isn't growing back. But the House of Representatives thinks this will make a good political show so they are going to step right in and do something. What part of the Constitution gives them that power? Is this a nation of laws or oligarchs?
It is funny that you think I need to get informed. Do you really think this woman is going to recover? What will it take? Another 15 years?
--- End quote ---
If this is a sanctity of marriage issue, a "power and responsibility of marriage" point, then please expound on Michael's apparent lack of understanding of said "sanctity" in shacking up with another woman and fathering two children by this woman while he holds on to some mythical "I know what's best for my wife". Surely they must have been swingers who played fast and loose with the "bonds of marriage" and his actions after recieving a malpractice judgement and a few million dollars aren't even part of the equation because you see his motives as so pure and holy and sweeter than a rainbow...lollipops and gumdrops and blah blah blah ::)
This isn't a sanctity of marriage issue, no matter HOW much you'd like to make it so. This man is using the legal system to kill his wife based on his rather suspect "recollection" of the words that he was the ONLY witness to. I've been working on setting up a living will because of these things. The "rights" being given to this man by the legal system are SO suspect due to the friggen hoops you have to jump through to acknowledge your wishes. If I want to refuse respiratory assistance required to keep me alive, should the matter ever come up, I need the witness of two OTHER people who ARE NOT family members, in addition to my wife's witnessing of my wishes. That's THREE people who have to visually acknowledge I made such a claim, and to sign that they did such a thing. This guy can simply say "yeah, she said it while we were watching a movie", and it doesn't even raise a shadow of a doubt about his motives to you? Well, thankfully, my wife was with me when we were watching Spiderman, and should I ever become incapacitated, she can always fall back on me saying while watching that movie "I think that'd be cool if we could do that stuff" when they ask her why she's giving consent to them trying to implant web shooters into my wrist ::)
Yes, I well and truly believe you are WOEFULLY misinformed when making a statement about this being a "sanctity of marriage" issue. There may be OTHER reasons you might view this as wrong, but your claims thus far don't jive with what's gone on.