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

Certainly not principles relating to the sanctity of marriage (Schiavo case).

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.

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?

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.

[Tailgunner]

While I'm politically conservative, I'll agree with both mrC and JCL that neither the Florida legislature nor Congress has any business being involved in this case.

As far as Terry, I'm inclined to believe she's been dead for 15 years. At least I'd like to think so, being cognizant and trapped in a useless body for that long isn't something I'd wish on my worst enemy. I can understand keeping her alive while holding out hope she'll wake up, but to drag it out this long strikes me as ghoulish and inhuman. Granted, starving her to death (a misnomer, she'll die of dehydration first) isn't a pleasant concept, but without any legal way to release her mercifully there isn't any alternative.

[SirPeale]

I dunno...

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43383

How true this is, I can't say, I wasn't there.  But if it is...

[DrewKaree]

It's not a matter of her waking up.  She's awake.




The website set up to explain whatever you wish, or contact your elected representative


From the FAQ:
If Terri hasn't recovered after all these years of therapy, why not let go?

Terri hasn't had meaningful therapy since 1991, but many credible physicians say she can benefit from it.

Why can't Terri just divorce?

Terri's husband/guardian speaks for her. She cannot divorce without his permission

Does Terri have an advanced directive or any wishes about her healthcare?

Terri never signed any directive or living will and there is no evidence that she foresaw her present situation.

Why do Terri's family fight to keep her alive? Shouldn't they let her husband decide?

Terri's husband has started another family and probably has gone on with his life. Terri's family want to provide her therapy and a safe home.

Is Terri receiving life support?

Not in the traditional sense. Terri only receives food and fluids via a simple tube.

Isn't removing her tube a natural and dignified way to die?

No. Dehydration and starvation cause horrific effects and are anything but peaceful. 

Most common misconceptions about Terri's situation

MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.


If the man truly felt a responsibility to his wife, he wouldn't have been fathering children with another woman while still married.  He also wouldn't have stopped any and all treatment of her two months after recieving a malpractice settlement.  Nothing he's done speaks to him actually feeling responsible for her.

If she had ever put her wishes in writing or if anyone other than her husband had heard of these "wishes", I'd probably agree, but this seems to be a case of some SERIOUSLY suspect motives by the husband, aided by a judge using the slightest of reasons to give him this power.  There's SO much to call into question his motives, which is why legislative action is being worked on.

If you haven't already, this case should have you considering getting started on a living will.

[fredster]

I don't know what his motives are.  I don't know if he has the money.  I don't know the ramifications if he gets a divorce for him.  I don't know a lot about this.

I do know that I am facing a similar situation in the future, maybe in 5 years. It's a situation that I hope nobody on this board ever has to face in any way shape or form.

If Terry indeed said those things back when she was healthy, then the court has every right to enforce her wishes.  Congress has the right to look into it.  Let them look. I'm personally glad that they are for once upholding the constitution's mandate and looking out for her life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  But if they find that she wouldn't want to live, then she has the right to pass on like she wanted.  But they should look, I'd want them to for me.

There is a lot vitriolic crap being spewed by both sides.  The ethical guildlines on this are thin.  My feeling is that this man would have walked away and handed the money and responsiblity over to the parents .  I know I would have.  I side a little on his camp.

MrC - Where in that article can you produce fact on your cheap Bush shot?  Discuss.

[tommy]

Seeing her the way she is there is no point in her being alive, except for her family to hold on to something , who wants to see you child die but it seems  they should let her rest in peace.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

MrC - Where in that article can you produce fact on your cheap Bush shot?  Discuss.

No matter how much you want to deny the facts, fredster, they are undeniable. It isn't a cheap shot...it's the truth. I wonder how you can even defend him given your situation. I see the darkness in the heart of your leader, I wish you could too. He doesn't care about the poor or unforunate, just the "haves and the have mores"......he calls them his "base."

Here's the freakin' law:
In 1999, then Gov. George W. Bush signed the Texas Futile Care Law.

More here....

What more do you want fredster? How long can you ignore these sorts of decisions? The man talks out of both sides of his mouth.

In my eyes, the whole Republican party is tainted with the stench of exploitation given their behavior in this case. If you really believe they are doing this because they care about the "sanctity of marriage" or a "culture of life"....then I've got a bridge to sell you. Cheap. First come, first serve. Where were thay for the past 15 years? Why jump in *now* at the last minute? Here's why:

"ABC News has obtained talking points circulated among Republican senators explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them: "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited..." and "This is a great political issue... this is a tough issue for Democrats." (via ABCnews)


Niiiiiiiiiice.

mrC

[fredster]

MrC, apparently you didn't read your link in detail.
"This chapter may not be construed to require the
provision of life-sustaining treatment that cannot be provided to a patient without denying the same treatment to another patient." 

The purpose of this law is to allow hospitals to deny care and move the patient, and otherwise relieve them of liablity of they cannot be compensated for the treatment. It doens't really cover this and goes further to state - If the patient does not have a legal guardian or an agent
under a medical power of attorney, the attending physician and one
person, if available, from one of the following categories, in the
following priority, may make a treatment decision that may include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment:
(1)  the patient's spouse;                                                   
(2)  the patient's reasonably available adult children;                       
(3)  the patient's parents;  or                                               
(4)  the patient's nearest living relative.                                   
(c)  A treatment decision made under Subsection (a) or (b)
must be based on knowledge of what the patient would desire, if
known.
This is the issue here.  What were Terry's wishes? If this law were applied, then Terry's parents could fight it like they are now and we are in the same mess. This bill doens't cover this. Duh. It says that a hospital doesn't have to foot the bill and the patient must seek other care if that is the case. That is about it.

It's consistent with the President's statements. The issue is whether She would want this or not.  That's the issue. Having feeding tubes removed happens just about every day all over the US.  Every day Mr.C.  I know, I've seen it done PERSONALLY.

As far as being an issue that worries Dems and Republicans are using it for political points, Welcome to politics! In politics the concept of Right and Wrong is replaced with what IS popular and what ISN'T Popular amoung your constiutents.  Duh. The dems circulate similar memos about the Republicans.  The whole loyal opposition concept.

If Bush says it's Blue, you will argue it's Green.  I think it's good we get this type issue in the limelight and see where it is. Let the chips fall where they may. There are a whole lot of people who don't think that life support should ever be removed for any reason.  There is another group of people who think there should be suicide machines on street corners.

"This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited..." Yes, it is.  Pro-life people have a vested interest in this don't they?  Is the wording that confuses you? 

I personally think that if she wanted to die, she should be able to die, and in other methods besides starvation and dehydration. However if she truly wanted to live, then she should be able to live by any means necessary and affordable.  The whole issue is her husband says one thing and the family says another.

[DrewKaree]

I do know that I am facing a similar situation in the future, maybe in 5 years. It's a situation that I hope nobody on this board ever has to face in any way shape or form.

I'm aware of your situation, bro.  Yours isn't similar.  You've said her relatives are in agreement with your view, and she isn't bedridden.  I also have FAR more faith that whatever you choose to do, it won't appear ANYTHING like this case.  Call me silly, but you already don't strike me as coming CLOSE to acting like Schiavo has, and I put a lot of stock in what you've already done for her as a damn good indicator of who you are as a person.  More folks could stand to have a little "fredster" in them, IMO.

[DrewKaree]

Where were thay for the past 15 years? Why jump in *now* at the last minute?

This hasn't been a "jump in at the last minute issue.  It's been something that's worked its way through the court system, and the politicians contacted and closely involved with this case have spoken with the family and TOLD them they need to let the legal system work it through, they saw it to be a fairly easy case, given the legal system's requirements if she had completed a living will.  The tenuous claims of one side vs the tenuous claims of the other side simply came down to the judge ruling in favor of one side over the other based on what is best described as hearsay.

Every talk radio show and politician jumping in on this is doing so because the case is FINALLY getting attention because she will be dead soon without them trying to intervene.

It's just like someone on death row wrongfully accused.  You don't hear of the one (or few) people speaking or working about it until everything comes to a head.  You provide "talking points memos" and ignore the use of this case and a vote to further an agenda by your side as well. 

BOTH sides haven't done their level best to do something about a situation like this, which affects the people most in need of the government's help on this. 

[JB]

Every talk radio show and politician jumping in on this is doing so because the case is FINALLY getting attention because she will be dead soon without them trying to intervene.

For a third time. It's not new, just sporadic.

They were all over it when the tube was removed in 2003. They lost interest shortly after the Florida court system smacked "Terri's law" down and the tube went back in.
It's only interesting when something besides talk is happening.


The media doesn't care which way it's swinging, as long as it's just not "So yeah, that whole Schiavo thingie is still in the courts, some lawyers said some stuff, and nothing actually happened."

They don't care if Schiavo dies, if her parents get guardianship and keep her on life support for as long as possible, if her or her husband is assassinated,  or really anything. As long as it looks like something's happening.
They may make a pretense of raising moral questions, do a 20/20 special on the right to die, or something similar, but don't be fooled. It's all about ratings and ad dollars. Nothing more, nothing less.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The dems circulate similar memos about the Republicans.

Similar???

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.............

otherwise, you're doing it again...making a tremendously damning accusation without supporting it with any facts whatsoever. Just as you'd accuse me of doing. Then, when I show you the proof, you explain it away with, "Well, welcome to politics!" Your heresay smells of horseshit.

I am not deluded enough to think that Dems don't puch issues specifically to hurt Republicans, but I'LL ASK YOU FLAT OUT, show me ONE recent example of the democrats exploiting an issue such as this and exclaiming that it's "Great!"

They don't care about Terri, or her family. If they could get ahold of you family and exploit them, they would. This is a "tough issue" from Democrats because they have just enough common sense to understand that this is a personal issue involving the family, and they have just enough moral fortitude to resist grand-standing on top of a living corpse.

This is nothing more than a blatant power grab by the ethically challenged Republicans, the "Party of Tom DeLay." Every day they do something that makes me hate them more. This is just such a thing.

If you're really curious what they're up to, I suggest you read through the following article, "Trial By Legislation" at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/opinion/courtwatch/main681785.shtml

I am continually disheartened by Bush supports and Conservatives on the right, in general, and their complete inability to call a spade a spade when it's necessary. This is dangerous territory and fredster, you're acting like nothing more than a cultist. If the dems did this you'd be furious...why can't you hold your party accountable when they step into other people's lives?



mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I do know that I am facing a similar situation in the future, maybe in 5 years. It's a situation that I hope nobody on this board ever has to face in any way shape or form.

I'm aware of your situation, bro.  Yours isn't similar.  You've said her relatives are in agreement with your view, and she isn't bedridden.  I also have FAR more faith that whatever you choose to do, it won't appear ANYTHING like this case.  Call me silly, but you already don't strike me as coming CLOSE to acting like Schiavo has, and I put a lot of stock in what you've already done for her as a damn good indicator of who you are as a person.  More folks could stand to have a little "fredster" in them, IMO.

Drew, you asked for it. You are silly.

How short-sighted do you have to be to conclude that this sort of thing couldn't *ever* happen to fredster? Simply, because your powers of insight allow you to deem him a "good person", based on forum postings on the internet?

What if his wife's parent's changed their mind, what if fredster himself changes his mind. What if any number of other things occur to change the situation?

This is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT trampling on STATE GOVERNMENT and using a families emotional turmoil as plausible deniability. (We'll, they asked us to!!)

Time and again, it seems those on the right of the policital spectrum are incapable of defending against a wrong-headed position unless it absolutely happens to them.

From the article, "Trial By Legislation":
"QUESTION: What does that concept do the regular give and take between the court systems, the idea of comity and cooperation between judges?

ANSWER: It destroys it. But that's the whole point of this Congressional action. Not liking a particular result in a case that has been litigated fully and completely by a court with competent jurisdiction, Congress now has said that the game must be re-done with new rules that heavily favor one side over the other. The implications of this move are astonishing. Just think about it. Anytime Congress doesn't like the result in a particular case, it could swoop in and call a "do-over," which is essentially what this legislation represents. And this from a Congress that has for a decade or so tried to keep all sorts of citizens-- including disabled employees-- out of federal court. If this law is declared valid, no decision in any state court in the country will be immune from Congressional second-guessing. It would throw out of whack the entire concept of separation of powers. The constitutional law expert Tribe calls it "trial by legislation" and he is right."

mrC

[JB]

This is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT trampling on STATE GOVERNMENT and using a families emotional turmoil as plausible deniability. (We'll, they asked us to!!)

Actually, it's federal legislature backing up state legislature after state legislature gets it's butt kicked by state court.

Remember, the Florida legislature ran a bill through EXPLICITLY DESIGNED to reinsert Schiavo's feeding tube in 2003.
The courts bounced it out of effect, but not before the tube was reinserted, starting the whole legal process over again.

[fredster]

MrC,

making a tremendously damning accusation without supporting it with any facts whatsoever

Democrats and Republicans send out internal memos about political stratagy all the freaking time. To you to claim ignorance is insulting your own intelligence. Too easy =
http://committeeforjustice.org/cgi-data/commentary/files/95.shtml

Google search for "democratic party internal memos attacking bush"  Just do a search and in .7 seconds be "shocked".

What's the basic issue with this Mr.C? Republicans messing around with "family" rights ?

It's a custody battle. It's a battle between two estranged family members over the welfare of a dependent.

The basic question is Terry's wishes. The Mother and Father have went to the media and all of their politicians with emotive speeches to save the life of their child. They have portrayed the husband as a greedy lecher that wants to off his wife.  That's the issue.  The husband hasn't went before camera anywhere I have seen to plead his case. That's another issue.

It's important now Because once it's done, there is no appeal. It hits hard to lots of people.

Time and again, it seems those on the right of the policital spectrum are incapable of defending against a wrong-headed position unless it absolutely happens to them.

Excuse me while I puke okay?

This is dangerous territory and fredster, you're acting like nothing more than a cultist. If the dems did this you'd be furious...why can't you hold your party accountable when they step into other people's lives?

No I wouldn't. I'm not that partisan. I vote for the man, not the party.  I'm a republican most of the time, but I split tickets when it calls for it. I vote against republicans in local and state elections if the opposing candidate shows me they have integrity and ideas. In this federal cycle, the republicans have it.
Federal level is no different.

You are acting like a "cultist". You don't like it that the republicans brought this up. Hell, this is a civil rights issue to you isn't it? Where were the dems on this? I say let them all have their say and be done with it.  I'm interested with what both sides have to say. Unfortunately, I don't hear much of anything valuable from the left on this one except that the courts have decided.

What if this isn't Terry's wish? What about her mother? Shouldn't she have a right to say that her child should live or die? What about the Husband? Is he acting in behalf of his wife and fighting for her civil right to have medical treatment removed?

How short-sighted do you have to be to conclude that this sort of thing couldn't *ever* happen to fredster? Simply, because your powers of insight allow you to deem him a "good person", based on forum postings on the internet?

No, because from time to time we get off the interent and acutally call each other and talk to each other on the phone. (novel way of communicating huh?)

Drew and I don't see eye to eye on a variety of subjects, but we discuss arcade games, women and tacos and their interlationship in the universe.  Occassionally we also discuss family matters and politics.  We talk about things we agree and disagree on.

Like you and me.  We both have a lot more in common that separate us. We both love Robotron. As a matter of fact, pm me and we can talk and discuss what an abortion I saw at the auction yesterday, a robotron board in a dynamo wide body cab with cheap joysticks. 

We agree on many aspects as far as religion goes.

Nobody can agree with everybody on any issue. Particularly when you frame this as some kind of Republican hatchet job. It's not. It's a media feeding frenzy generated by loving parents and a man who wants to help his wife do what he believes she wanted.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

MrC,

making a tremendously damning accusation without supporting it with any facts whatsoever

Democrats and Republicans send out internal memos about political stratagy all the freaking time. To you to claim ignorance is insulting your own intelligence. Too easy =
http://committeeforjustice.org/cgi-data/commentary/files/95.shtml

Google search for "democratic party internal memos attacking bush"  Just do a search and in .7 seconds be "shocked".

So in your mind attacking Bush, is the same as dragging a family out for some "morality" sideshow? Ok, that's clear now. Nice moral equivilancy you've got their fredster. No wonder you can continually support Bush. It's clear now. I've met your mental brick wall.

What's the basic issue with this Mr.C? Republicans messing around with "family" rights ?

Basic issue: ISN'T THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ABOUT SMALLER GOVERNMENT? First, they try to shove their religion down our throats, then they try to shove their idea of marriage down our throats, now they'd attempt to legislate whether or not we have the right to make our own decisions regarding death?

It's one more measure of the unbelievable level of hypocrisy running rampant in the right-wing today. For example, Bush and his cronies piss all over STEM-CELL research, which may be one of the only ways to improve a person with Terri's initial prognosis, then they have the gall to hoist her deteriorating body in front of the world and scream, 'Foul!"

It's disgusting.

It's a custody battle. It's a battle between two estranged family members over the welfare of a dependent.

The basic question is Terry's wishes.

From my understanding of the case, the state of Florida has looked at this MULTIPLE times and the court found that before the accident that left her incapacitated, she had said that she did not want to be kept alive on life support.

Given that, this fight would then be about the politicians trying to deprive her of that right, and/or using her body to further their agenda. Either way, they have no business intervening.

In Florida, there have been 19 hearings before 6 different judges.  Every aspect of this case has been very carefully examined. The Supreme Court has already refused to see the case.

Why does this need to be dragged out any further?


mrC

[daywane]

I must go with the husband.
My wife and family know I do not ever want to go on like that.
but Starve the girl?
give her a shot and be done with it.
show some mercy. I have put animals to sleep for less pain
Its the year 2005 we can do better for people than yank the tube.
OD the girl and move on.

[fredster]

Why does this need to be dragged out any further?

Because her mother and father want her to live, that's why.

I don't agree with dragging this on either. I never said I did. But I understand why.

People are upset, the media has painted the picture of the devil himself on this man.

[DrewKaree]

How short-sighted do you have to be to conclude that this sort of thing couldn't *ever* happen to fredster?

How myopic do you have to be to conclude from the words I posted that I EVER said this sort of thing couldn't happen to him?

 Simply, because your powers of insight allow you to deem him a "good person", based on forum postings on the internet?

No, it comes from more than that.  It comes from personally speaking to him, from seeing how he deals with what he's going through presently, from seeing how he's dealt with his situation thus far, and from seeing people who ARE in his exact same situation speak of him.  It isn't as simplistic as you'd like to paint it, for whatever reason you wish to question my opinion of fredster.  Frankly, you can't even begin to understand why I respect him as I do, and no amount of explaining is necessary to attempt to overcome your jaded view.

This is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT trampling on STATE GOVERNMENT and using a families emotional turmoil as plausible deniability. (We'll, they asked us to!!)

Time and again, it seems those on the right of the policital spectrum are incapable of defending against a wrong-headed position unless it absolutely happens to them.

You started speaking of my words to fredster.  Is this an attempt to lump them in with this case, when the two situations are, in fact, different and would have differing legal opnions as they stand right now, or simply a way to impugn the both of us because of some percieved wrong we've committed?  You're speaking of points that have nothing to do with my words to fredster.

[cdbrown]

I saw this story on TV this morning while getting ready for work and thought let her pass away.  Then they had an interview with a Dr or something like that and he went through the various reasons as to why she is still receiving sustainance through a tube.  He then went on to say there is a $1M trust fund from a malpractice payout which the husband would get once she dies and that the husband didn't make any appeals for the tube to be removed prior to the trust fund being formed.

I wouldn't want to be a vegetable for years on end kept alive by a machine unless there is a good chance of being treated and actually have quality of life.  From the small bits I've seen it does seem this guy is chasing the money while her parents don't want to give up the hope that things could change for her.

[shmokes]

The lady needs to die.  Starvation/thirstation is retarded, no doubt.  Any orderly with a heart (who could get away with it) would put a pillow over her face.  Obviously something even more humane, like a shot, would be preferrable. 

Christ, we're going to put Scott Peterson to death.  And for what?  To protect society from him?  No, of course not.  As retaliation for him seeming cold and heartless in the courtroom.

This is a lady who's been laying in bed for fifteen years.  If she has any cognitive function left her only thought for the last 14 and 1/2 has been, "Let me die you dumb ---daisies---.  Can't you see I can't do it myself?  What the *%$! is wrong with you people?"

If starvation is the only legal way to go (God Bless you Dr. Kavorkian), so be it.  Three days of misery is a pinprick compared with the last 15 years of her life, not to mention however long she still has in her if the tubes remain. 

So what if the guy is after the money?  Because he's a discusting person this poor woman should have to endure even more years of torture?  If the guy put off petitioning that the tubes be removed until the $1M trust fund got set up, shame on him.  She should have been allowed to die, or put to death, if you prefer, years ago.  Just because she wasn't doesn't mean that she shouldn't be now, just to deprive this guy of the cash.

I thought it was summed up well earlier in the thread when someone referred to keeping this woman alive for the last 15 years as "ghoulish".  God, it sends shivers up my spine. 

[JB]

He then went on to say there is a $1M trust fund from a malpractice payout which the husband would get once she dies and that the husband didn't make any appeals for the tube to be removed prior to the trust fund being formed.

WAS a million-dollar trust fund. It's down at something like 300, 000 last I saw.
As I understand, he's been using it to pay his lawyers(presumably under the argument that enforcing her wishes as he sees them is part of her care).

[Tailgunner]

The Moral Majority are the main consitutents of the Republicans.

Not really, they're just the most visible. The majority of republicans would fall into the "they're the lesser of two evils" camp.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

He then went on to say there is a $1M trust fund from a malpractice payout which the husband would get once she dies and that the husband didn't make any appeals for the tube to be removed prior to the trust fund being formed.

WAS a million-dollar trust fund. It's down at something like 300, 000 last I saw.
As I understand, he's been using it to pay his lawyers(presumably under the argument that enforcing her wishes as he sees them is part of her care).

Some Conservative Republican big-wig has already offered the husband $1M dollars to just walk away. He refused the offer. It doesn't seem like this is about money.


mrC

[missioncontrol]

I know if it were me....I'd trust what my wife would decide more than my familie's decision....she's known me more in the last 10 years than my family has.....

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This whole "culture of life" B.S. is really turning my stomach. It's crap. They're pandering to the religious zealots who put them over the top this past election. Bush refused to go to the mat regarding the gay marriage amendment, so they're using this issue to divide the American public  instead.

The party of "limited government," "states rights" and less "intrusion" in our lives, has sold out to the Christian Coalition and the "Right-To-Life" movement.

Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue who has been quoted as saying, "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban is a Political Scam but a Public Relations Goldmine," is now representing the Schindler family. Exactly how is this case NOT BEING EXPLOITED?

Furthermore, Bush, ever willing to swoop in for the good press in an attempt to look like the second-coming of Jesus frickin' Christ, has flown back to Washington specifically to sign the bill that'll push this into federal court. If the judges rule against "Terri's Law" once again, we're never going to hear the end of the attacks on "activist judges", as if Senators now know more about these situations than doctors (whom will testify before said judges). If they rule in favor of Terri, then she very well gets to suffer in ways we can only imagine as her last wishes are thrown out in favor of a partisan political power grab by the Republican majority. Maybe we can all soon enjoy a large order of "Terri-fries" or visit "TerriLand" in Washington, home of the "Terri Party" Republicans!!

Culture of life <auto-censored>...Bush sent 151 to die as governor of Texas (even mocking one women on death row in the manner of Buffalo Bill from 'Silence of the Lambs'), he sent another 1,521 people to their death in Iraq, as well as facilitated countless civilian deaths with his "war of choice", then he tried to destroy Social Security for our nation's elderly. Our country has one of the highest infant mortality rates out of all developed countries. 108 Died In U.S. Custody in Iraqi prisons. Torture is sanctioned by this VERY administration. I could go on and on....

This whole sideshow is just horrific and unbelievably hypocritical. Me and my girl are going to finish our living wills immediately. Bonus addendum: Bodies not to be used for any political agenda whatsoever!!

We've both decided, long ago....we would *never* want to be kept alive like this. Who the hell would?

Families will always have a hard time letting go, but sometimes...it's necessary.


mrC

[DrewKaree]

Christ, we're going to put Scott Peterson to death.  And for what?  To protect society from him?  No, of course not.  As retaliation for him seeming cold and heartless in the courtroom.

I don't agree with that decision.  Capital punishment isn't right.  This means I disagree with it in Texas as well, in spite of the fact that it is the law  

This is a lady who's been laying in bed for fifteen years.  If she has any cognitive function left her only thought for the last 14 and 1/2 has been, "Let me die you dumb ---daisies---.  Can't you see I can't do it myself?  What the *%$! is wrong with you people?"

Long ago her husband signed off on refusing any type of treatment, any rehabilitation program for her, and on anything but the most basic of things, such as giving her a sponge bath.  She hasn't been given a chance for quite a long while by her husband.  There is no way of knowing whether or not she would respond to treatment, because it can't be given to her due to her husband's wishes.  Which would be more ghoulish - to be proactive in keeping her in that state, or writing someone off without giving her so much as a chance, and in such a fashion?  Therein lies the issue at hand.

[DrewKaree]

Me and my girl are going to finish our living wills immediately.

So this case has served to make you think about it and act on it.  One good thing has come of this case then.

We've both decided, long ago....we would *never* want to be kept alive like this. Who the hell would?

Thankfully, your opinion on this is just that - your opinion - and we don't have to reconcile the decisions we wish to make in such situations with your opinion. 

What was it you said about shoving something down the throats of the people?  It had something to do with hypocrisy, IIRC

[fredster]

Hey Shmokes, you have lost your cognative function, and we haven't killed you yet.  I hope that something like this doesn't happen to you or yours Chuckles.

This whole "culture of life" B.S. is really turning my stomach.

Wasn't it Herman Goering that said "When somebody speaks to me of culture, I take out my revolver"?  Nice. And you wonder why people can't agree on this don't you?

Families will always have a hard time letting go, but sometimes...it's necessary.

I guess It depends on WHO says it's necessary doesn't it?  That's the issue here. 

I hope you never have to stare that decision in the face dude. I really hope not. I've had to make this type of decision not once, but twice.

[Dexter]

Anybody who thinks this intervention by the Bush cartel is anything less that religious fundamentalism opression is in a vegatitive state of their own. Big brother is now sitting on the sickbeds of amerika as well, laughable.

For somebody who cherishes life so much, Bush sure has no problem executing criminals, oh...and innocent women and children overseas, y'know...in godless 'brown' countries

Judge not, lest ye be judged? Truly the poster boy for hypocracy. This side of the water the general consensus is that the god squad should stay out of such a private matter and let the husband choose.

[GGKoul]

Regardless of this Bush debate... This story goes to show that everyone should have a living will. 

[GGKoul]

Latest ---> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7254897/

It appears nobody wants to make a bad PR move. 

[shmokes]

Hey Shmokes, you have lost your cognative function, and we haven't killed you yet. 

Ugg.....your insults are as bland as your arguments.  BTW, next time you want to insult my intelligence at least hit the spell check button.  What's next, will you tell me how dum I am?  Be more pacific; where exactly is my intelligence lacking?

[fredster]

Smhokes,

You aren't worth saving.  There's simply too much ideological damage.  God it makes me sick to see you suffer like you are here in the real world. 

You should have been allowed to die, or put to death, if you prefer, years ago.  Just because you were not doesn't mean that you shouldn't be now.

[shmokes]

 

Common Fred, you really want me to die?  Such acrimony.  I like that you feel sick for me, though.  That's pleasant enough.  Gotta appreciate that gesture, I guess.

You know what I love about you Fred?  You've got perserverence.  No matter how many beatings you get from me you just keep coming back for more.  You got moxy, kid, LMAO

[GGKoul]

acrimony

Is that your BIG word of the day?

[Chris]

I don't see why this is an issue. The law is clear; the decision is in the husband's hands.  Whether the parents, legislature, or President agree with it is irrelevant.

[shmokes]

acrimony

Is that your BIG word of the day?

No, that was perserverence.  Acrimony was my medium word of the day.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It would appear that the GOP is far out-of-step with mainstream America on this issue.

- 70% of Americans say it is inappropriate for Congress to involve itself in the Schiavo case.

- 67% of Americans

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This whole "culture of life" B.S. is really turning my stomach.

Wasn't it Herman Goering that said "When somebody speaks to me of culture, I take out my revolver"?  Nice. And you wonder why people can't agree on this don't you?

fredster, at least you are consistent in missing the point, w/ a Godwin to boot! You are getting better...

This ISN'T ABOUT A CULTURE OF LIFE...IT'S ABOUT HYPOCRITICAL EVANGELICALS CO-OPTING A PERSONAL TRAGEDY TO ERODE STATE'S RIGHT.

Btw, it's seems a majority of Americans agree with me on this...(see above). The Federal Government should STAY OUT. Furthermore, I don't think you've articulated where you stand on the issue of Federal courts overstepping state supreme courts on this issue?

As an aside, the majority of Americans also now agree with me on the Iraq War as well. With a majority believing it hasn't made us safer, nor was the war worth the cost.

You have no point, the facts do not support your "argument" (and I use that term loosely), you are simply wrong. I can not be any more pointed and/or clear.

As far as we (citizens) are concerned, we have no right to decide whether Terri lives or dies. We are not doctors, Congress people are not doctors, our President is not a doctor. We have not seen the facts. One thing we CAN decide on is at what level should this case be handled...State or Federal?

If, as it seems, the majority of Americans believe the federal government should NOT intervene, then what the GOP is doing is WRONG. If they are wrong, yet they have continued, then their actions are callous. If they have continue pushing said callous legislation, with no majority support from the public, then it can be concluded that their actions have been wrong-headed and politically motivated. That makes my argument, from the beginning, correct.

We'll see what happens from here on out. I'd put my money where my mouth is. Would you? I'm willing to bet that the midnight "Palm Sunday" legislation that Bush just signed with his mighty "God Pen" will be struck down as unconstitutional and the decision will be left to the Florida Supreme Court, which has already decided, but may have to review on appeal. (Not sure on that last bit)

Where *do* you really stand on that? Might you even, *gasp* agree w/ me? (even after wrongfully insinuating that people "don't agree w/ me on this?")




mrC

[fredster]

Godwin's law is only envoked if the comparison isn't correct.  Looks like a similar quote, word for word.  Looks like an accurate comparison to me.  But I guess I am not allowed to do this because I'm not Professor Churchill.

You have no point, the facts do not support your "argument" (and I use that term loosely), you are simply wrong. I can not be any more pointed and/or clear.

Right. And you are right without question.  Might as well just give up, because you have "facts". You have only opinions Mr.C. Only opinions. To be pointed and clear on my end, you are simply being a poltical hack.  Where is my basis for that?  You keep weaving in all the things you hate about Bush's administration into a thread that has nothing to do with it.  You are using  logical fallacies to prove your point, and they are in order:
Bandwagon fallacy, Appeal to motive , argument from repetition and many more.
 

What are the facts?  How about this quote -
"Democrats and Republicans in Congress came together last night to give Terri Schiavo's parents another opportunity to save their daughter's life," Mr. Bush said, his first public comments since the latest legal and legislative wrangling. "This is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life."

That's a fact. It's a word for word quote.

Now when it suits you I see that you have opinion polls. Nice. They don't mean anything to you unless you agree with them.

We'll see what happens from here on out. I'd put my money where my mouth is. Would you? I'm willing to bet that the midnight "Palm Sunday" legislation that Bush just signed with his mighty "God Pen" will be struck down as unconstitutional and the decision will be left to the Florida Supreme Court, which has already decided, but may have to review on appeal. (Not sure on that last bit)

Maybe. Last ones were held unconstitutional. I guess the point is the Husband will come out and air his case finally. 

This was handled poorly by the husband. He has a mouthpiece out there talking for him. If it were me, I'd be out there talking to the media and sounding it out. He now needs to be showing us just how passionate he was about this decision.  If he had done that from the time the parents were out there he'd have won this opinion poll.

I say that if she said she didn't want this, then the plug should be pulled. If there is a question, then we can't undo it once it's done.  A mother is crying for the life of her daughter, MrC. That's the issue.

If my wife's mother were to do this with my wife, I don't know if I could pull the plug. That's why I'm on the fence here.  I want to see what issue the husband has myself. He's not presenting his case now that this is in the public eye.  If it was clear beyond a shadow of a doubt there would be no issue here.

Today somebody else's plug was pulled.  Tommorow there will be more.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

What are the facts?  How about this quote -
"Democrats and Republicans in Congress came together last night to give Terri Schiavo's parents another opportunity to save their daughter's life," Mr. Bush said, his first public comments since the latest legal and legislative wrangling. "This is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life."

OMG! Bi-partisan??...backpedaling already? Majority of Dems stayed away. Those that did voted, more than likely felt compelled to vote so they wouldn't be seen as obstructionist. I can't read their minds though. Either way, to call this CHARGE into Shiavo' life bi-partisan is to COMPLETELY ignore who has led the charge, who's been talking it up day in and day out, and who has claimed Terri's cause as their own. This is a Republican thing. The bill that Bush signed, in the middle of the night after flying BACK to the WH for the sideshow, passed congress with a voice vote - ONLY THREE Republican senators were present.

When the Republican's crass powergrabs fail (which is happening on this case), they always cling to the few democrats too spineless to stand against them, and whimper, "See, it's not just us...it was bi-partisan!!" At your age, fredster, I thought you'd be able to see through these kind of political ploys. I not saying Democrats haven't force issues before (although you've shown no examples, and I know of none myself, that equate to the same debase level as hoisting Shiavo in front of the world)

That's a fact. It's a word for word quote.

Problem with you is that you think a quote from the Pres. determines what is factual. It's nothing more than *his* opinion.

Maybe. Last ones were held unconstitutional. I guess the point is the Husband will come out and air his case finally. 

Like pulling teeth...I can't get you to address the question. How do you feel about the Republicans desire to create a LAW that would allow Federal Courts to meddle in the personal affairs of the State??[/b]

I say that if she said she didn't want this, then the plug should be pulled. If there is a question, then we can't undo it once it's done.  A mother is crying for the life of her daughter, MrC. That's the issue.

Problem is, again, THAT'S NOT THE REAL ISSUE. We shouldn't be hearing about this in the news. It's their life. This is not Jerry Springer. We (the public) shouldn't be given the choice to side with one family member or another. I'm not her husband. We are not on the jury. The moment Bush signed that midnight bill, this was made a political issue about federal jurisdiction. It's not about whether Terri lives or dies, it's about WHO (Federal or State Supreme court) gets to determine whether Terri lives or dies.

Today somebody else's plug was pulled.  Tommorow there will be more.

If you support the Congressional Republicans on this, and they were to be successful, then you would have given them to power to tell you differently. Whether you like it or not. Whether you, or someone close to you wants to die or not.

mrC

[Zero_Hour]

Has anyone considered that our congressmen are simply up to their old tricks (non party specific)?

Could this simply be legislation that is there for the "feel good" factor - not that this case really has anything to feel good about - Those who brought forth and voted for the legislation can say they fought the good fight, knowing that the legislation will be nullified as unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court (which last I checked is as high as it gets judicially) was asked to hear this case, and declined - citing a previous case:

CRUZAN, BY HER PARENTS AND CO-GUARDIANS v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

In sum, we conclude that a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state. - Chief Justice William Rehnquist

While I agree with the Court's analysis today, and therefore join in its opinion, I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide -- including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the [state capital city] telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve his or her life, it is up to the citizens [of the state] to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life and death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable.... - Justice Anton Scalia in his concurring opinion

I agree that a protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions, and that the refusal of artificially delivered food and water is encompassed within that liberty interest. I write separately to clarify why I believe this to be so.... - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her concurring opinion.

The actions of Congress yesterday told the federal court system to not only ignore the state of Florida, but also the Supreme Court of the US and a decision authored by the  court.

Terri Schiavo's condition is heartwrenching,  but this end-around by congress is just stomache turning.

Just a thought.

[tommy]

Man you guys sure know how to depress a build your own arcade control forum , im sure theres a political debate somewhere your missing.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

A thought I just had:

May God (or Federal Marshalls) protect the Judge that rules against the "Moral Majority" and it's "Culture of life" in this case...I'm sure he'll have deaths threats a-plenty from these unabashed hypocrites.

Hypocrits? Yes. "Terri Schiavo's care was paid for by a lawsuit - the kind that many in the RNC would like to cap to prevent "abuse;" and that if her parents win this and can no longer afford to pay their credit card bills they will find it a lot harder to declare bankruptcy; it's also important to not that many Americans still can't afford, you know, medical insurance."

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Man you guys sure know how to depress a build your own arcade control forum , im sure theres a political debate somewhere your missing.

Does this cheer you up?

[tommy]

I thought i was going to get away with that one for second. 

[Chris]

Has anyone considered that our congressmen are simply up to their old tricks (non party specific)?

Could this simply be legislation that is there for the "feel good" factor - not that this case really has anything to feel good about - Those who brought forth and voted for the legislation can say they fought the good fight, knowing that the legislation will be nullified as unconstitutional?

I strongly believe this may be the case.  It's a Republican win-win.  They get to be on the side of "life", and if the judges rule against them they have more ammo in the war against "activist judges".

--Chris

[Chris]

This was handled poorly by the husband. He has a mouthpiece out there talking for him. If it were me, I'd be out there talking to the media and sounding it out. He now needs to be showing us just how passionate he was about this decision.

[fredster]

But it's just not her choice.

Chris, if it were your child you might not agree.

Why should he?  Public opinion shouldn't deciode this case.

And you are right.  But it is in the court of public opinion now because he didn't want to play. A lot of people are stirred way up, like it or not.

MrC

OMG! Bi-partisan??...backpedaling already? Majority of Dems stayed away.

What backpeddling? That was a quote from Bush.

MrC, let's define "spineless" as those Dems like Kerry and his bunch that didn't say yah or nay and stayed home getting their hair and nails done.  Doesn't that upset you that your former "man" isn't going to make any stand on this issue?

At your age, fredster, I thought you'd be able to see through these kind of political ploys.

I believe I said it was about 5 times. That's what politicians do. It's everything they do.
Let them do their thing.

You should be ashamed of your boys backing down from the fray. 

I can't get you to address the question. How do you feel about the Republicans desire to create a LAW that would allow Federal Courts to meddle in the personal affairs of the State??

They do it all the time. They did it with the Bankruptcy law didn't they? Clinton passed the law to prevent states from having to recognize gay marriages.  The tort reform bills, over and over. Nafta stopped states from enforcing trucking laws.  What's so different about this? Megans law, all of this kids names laws, what is the freaking difference?

Problem is, again, THAT'S NOT THE REAL ISSUE. We shouldn't be hearing about this in the news. It's their life. This is not Jerry Springer. We (the public) shouldn't be given the choice to side with one family member or another.

Yes it is. Terri's momma and daddy got them all stirred up and started a grass roots movement. Isn't that what you are trying to do against Bush? You should take notes dude.

What specific text of this law upsets you?  If it's not right, well that's what we have balance of power in the Consitution for.  The supreme court will shoot it down if it needs to be shot down. Have some faith in the system dude.  I know you are upset about Bush and all, and I share your pain, I was the same way when Clinton ran wild in the white house.  But we lived through the indignity of it.  I'm sure you'll live through this.  It will be okay.

And Shmokes,  You've got "perserverence".  But I'm sure a nice shot of antibiotics and some cream will take care of it.   Really, you should keep up with your shots. 

[Chris]

But it's just not her choice.

Chris, if it were your child you might not agree.

Whether I agree or not is irrelevant.  The law is very clear on the subject.

[jbox]

Godwin's law is only envoked if the comparison isn't correct.

Actually that is incorrect. The point of Godwin's law is that it is only 'correct' to compare genocidal facists to other genocidal facists.

[DrewKaree]

Offering poll results stating that the majority of America agrees with you?  I'm all atingle waiting for the explanation of how you came to this conclusion.

The poll was of 501 people.  44% of the people questioned replied that they haven't followed this case closely (16% not so, 28% NOT AT ALL)

The second question characterizes her treatment as "life support".  If almost HALF of the people haven't followed this case closely, how would they know the specifics of this case?  She's NOT on life support.  She has no machine working to keep her organs functioning.  The hospital believes her to be unable to swallow, therefore WILL NOT feed her anything because they don't want to be sued for causing her death (and since there has already been one lawsuit, they are acting in the best interests of the hospital).  This is why she is on a feeding TUBE.

Her parents have had legal action taken against them by Mr Schiavo and cannot request anything pertaining to her care of the hospital because of their request to allow her to be given food that she may swallow, tests they wished to pay to have performed to ascertain certain conditions, etc. 

Your very own poll, skewed as it is, shows a marked downward trend of "those that agree with you" after only a week went by.  Perhaps people asked these questions are starting to educate themself on the subject?

Another question refers to the federal courts saying they don't have jurisdiction because it involves Florida law only.  Not only did Zero Hour lay out the fallacy in that statement - "In sum, we conclude that a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings" - it also explains why this case is even being argued.

If Schiavo HAD presented "a clear and convincing evidence standard", this wouldn't be open for debate.  Saying his wife said something while watching TV years ago is your clear and convincing evidence standard? 

The legislation passed is to REQUIRE something of this nature to be put into WRITING, so that situations with as much murkiness surrounding them as THIS one does could be made clearer.

The law in this case is anything BUT black and white, which is why there is as much discussion as there is surrounding it. 

And the grandstanding is being done by both sides.  Calling it a power play by one side or another is ignoring that fact. 

Thankfully, once this is all resolved, someone can make a decision long overdue on Stephen Hawking.

[GGKoul]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7254897/?GT1=6305

There has to me a more humane way to do this then to starve the poor girl who has suffered enough.

[DrewKaree]

But to use those methods opens up the possibility of Schiavo being tried for murder.  This way is considered a "medical assessment", wherein the fault would lie with anyone BUT Schiavo, he would be considered "following the medical recommendation". 

It's a CYA thing.  Someone figure out why they can't do an autopsy on the woman - there's questions surrounding her physical well being while married to Schiavo that an autopsy would reveal the answers to.

[saint]

Putting the points on both sides of this issue aside....

CNN/Gallup poll showing 56% think pulling the tube was correct based on 909 respondants (number of respondants per ABC, link below).

But the ABC poll was also interesting showing 70% think that the matter should not have been acted upon by Congress, based on 501 polled.

edit: Utah poll added
Poll in Utah of 400 respondants who said 69% do not think the feeding tube should be reinserted, and 73% think the final say should belong to the spouse.

Now whether the polls accurately portrayed the facts, whether or not you think the poll respondants were informed on the matter, and regardless of what the right thing to do is or isn't, I think those numbers pretty much show that the majority are not in favor of keeping this woman alive.

--- saint

Offering poll results stating that the majority of America agrees with you?  I'm all atingle waiting for the explanation of how you came to this conclusion.

The poll was of 501 people.  44% of the people questioned replied that they haven't followed this case closely (16% not so, 28% NOT AT ALL)
.

[menace]

I find it absolutely apalling that they now discuss her lifespan as a matter of weeks before she starves to death.  Would an assisted suicide be less humane than that??? I sincerely doubt it.  I agree her suffering should end and the husband should have the right to decide in this instance but to let her starve for 2 weeks is NOT the way to end this.

[DrewKaree]

If the results include the same amount of people who haven't followed this case closely, if at all, then I still stand by the same point.  The questions asked are leading, and may not pertain to the case at all, while using the response of people who have no knowledge of what's going on to somehow show agreement of something they may not even be aware of.

An equal number of people are agreeing simply based on their pro-life views, I would guess.

General question:
If Terri had put in writing her wishes, I would support Schiavo's case.  Since she didn't, isn't it at least a BIT reasonable to look into it, and perhaps, based on this case, enact legislation to ensure this situation is finally addressed?

[shmokes]

I think that if Terri had put in writing that she WANTED to be kept alive then we should consider that.  If not, keeping her alive in her state is horrific.  People like that should be put out of their misery by default, save special circumstances -- not the other way around.  Bush had it backwards, I think, when he said that this is a complicated issue, so we should err on the side of life.  Life in a vegetative or near vegatative state, unable to move, unable to eat or drink except through a tube (or by being spoon-fed if Drew's baseless belief turns out to be true), unable to speak or read, unable to even call for a nurse in any way, is no life at all.  Erring on the side of life has a nice ring to it and all, but in a case like this it is simply erring on the side of morbid cruelty.

[DrewKaree]

Life in a vegetative or near vegatative state, unable to move, unable to eat or drink except through a tube (or by being spoon-fed if Drew's baseless belief turns out to be true), unable to speak or read, unable to even call for a nurse in any way, is no life at all.  Erring on the side of life has a nice ring to it and all, but in a case like this it is simply erring on the side of morbid cruelty.

I hear ya brother.  I'm starting the fight to end Stephen Hawking's life next week.  First I'll remove the speak-n-spell, though.

[shmokes]

I assume you're joking and understand the vast difference between Steven's and Terri's situation. 

[Chris]

Life in a vegetative or near vegatative state, unable to move, unable to eat or drink except through a tube (or by being spoon-fed if Drew's baseless belief turns out to be true), unable to speak or read, unable to even call for a nurse in any way, is no life at all.

[DrewKaree]

I assume you're joking and understand the vast difference between Steven's and Terri's situation.

Indeed I am, but perhaps they can do a swapperoo.  Her body for his brain.  (it's also why I threw the "speak-n-spell" in there the second time)

Here's a link of some observations and some questions referring to her treatment I'm speaking of.

[fredster]

Finally the husband has spoken to the media, and he is very very mad.

[Crazy Cooter]

I'm glad the decision for me is in my wife's hands; my wife knows me far better than my parents ever did or ever will.  I think it's horrific that a new law has been passed that potentially bypasses the person who knows me best.

That's my stance as well.  I told the girlfriend: "Give me a week, make a powerdown sound in my ear and pull the plug/tube/whatever.  If I hear the powerdown sound, I'll know it's now or never, if I don't hear it... see ya on the flip."

As far as the politics, Bush shot himself in the foot on this one (Mr. C will like this story):
News.Yahoo.Com Link

While Bush is fighting for this lady, some infant had the plug pulled (against the parents wishes) because of a law Bush passed in Texas.
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop...

[DrewKaree]

Your case speaks of a machine required to allow the patient to breathe, which couldn't be solved with therapy.

The Schiavo case has denied therapy that might allow the woman the ability to be taken off of a feeding tube, thereby eliminating the need for it. 

Her feeding tube is considered "life support" only because they won't allow her to be fed, which they think would cause her to choke to death. 

Would you be for allowing her the chance to swallow, thereby saving her life?

The end result would be the same if she can't swallow - she would die.

Which is more humane, allowing her to dehydrate/starve over a period of days/weeks, or dying in a few minutes after choking?  Why do you feel one way is a better way to die over the other?

If Michael had allowed her therapy to do so, and she wasn't/isn't able to swallow, do you not think he would have the paperwork/bills/tests saying so and trumpeting this from every rooftop? 

This reeks of something, and the only person with the air freshener can't answer some pretty damning questions.

[GGKoul]

I'm glad the decision for me is in my wife's hands; my wife knows me far better than my parents ever did or ever will.  I think it's horrific that a new law has been passed that potentially bypasses the person who knows me best.

As far as the politics, Bush shot himself in the foot on this one (Mr. C will like this story):
News.Yahoo.Com Link

While Bush is fighting for this lady, some infant had the plug pulled (against the parents wishes) because of a law Bush passed in Texas.
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop...

As I said earlier.. it appears no one whats to make a bad PR move.

[DrewKaree]

ABC News deceptive in Terri Schiavo poll?

"An ABC News poll reached the surprising  conclusion that a majority of Americans think Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should remain out so she can be starved to death, but the question posed by the news network portrayed her as having "no consciousness" and being on "life support," rather than an awake, responsive patient with a feeding tube

.....Since to most people, the phrase "no consciousness" suggests a coma and "life support" suggests a ventilator or other machinery, it's not surprising that many Americans

[mr.Curmudgeon]

MrC

OMG! Bi-partisan??...backpedaling already? Majority of Dems stayed away.

What backpeddling? That was a quote from Bush.

MrC, let's define "spineless" as those Dems like Kerry and his bunch that didn't say yah or nay and stayed home getting their hair and nails done.  Doesn't that upset you that your former "man" isn't going to make any stand on this issue?

At your age, fredster, I thought you'd be able to see through these kind of political ploys.

I believe I said it was about 5 times. That's what politicians do. It's everything they do.
Let them do their thing.

You should be ashamed of your boys backing down from the fray. 

You don't find it ironic AT ALL that you're demand I hold democrats responsible for not voting, while you refuse to hold Republicans responsible for forcing this issue?

I'll take the "spineless" Dems over the soulless Republicans any day.

The Rethugs have pushed this issue precisely because it's a "no-win" for Democrats. It's not ME saying that either. It's the REPUBLICANS themselves. I *am* ashamed from the Dems that they didn't stand up, but that doesn't excuse the behavior of the Republicans. That's what you don't seem to understand. I'm just not deluded enough to think that it wouldn't have been used against them. In '06, these ethically challenged Republicans will more than likely run campaign ads like, "Senator X voted to KILL TERRI SHIAVO!!!"

Read the despicable Talking Points. How many Right Wing ditto-heads have parroted these exact words over the past 7 days? Why? Because, just like you, they care more about their party than they care about people.

Give me a break fredster, people like you enable the corruption that runs rampant in this administration. Did you vote for Bush? A straight Republican ticket? If so, you are, as a citizen, required to hold them accountable for their behavior. Even moreso than ME, since I didn't elect them. But your lackadaisical attitude, and "Welp, that's politics" approach belies. This trainwreck isn't the Dems fault, and they couldn't have stopped it. If they could have, I'd certainly hold them accountable for not doing so. That said, I wish they would finally learn their lesson and just ignore the Republicans altogether. They need to stand united against this pathetic pandering, as people on your side, including you, don't seem to care whether or not the Republicans do the right thing.

I'm working, every day, to help clean house on the Dems side. Working to get more progressive, upstanding people into the body politic. I *do* hold Democrats responsible for their behavior. They are in office to do the people's bidding, just as Republicans are. The thing I continually find most disheartening is that I've got double the workload because the right let's their politicians slide. No matter how blatantly they disregard the law.

If you stood up, did your job and called these situations out for what they truly are...I wouldn't have half the angst I have for you and your side of the aisle.

mrC

[saint]

Far as I know, he doesn't have to wait for her to die to marry his girlfriend. Her current state would be grounds for a divorce in any court I'm sure, no?

not worth living. The poll question also omits any reference to the fact that Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, has been living with another woman for years, has sired two children by her, and is waiting for Terri to die so he can marry his girlfriend.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Finally the husband has spoken to the media, and he is very very mad.  If he had done this about 3 months ago, this would have been over.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/20/Tampabay/Schiavo___Come_down__.shtml

fredster,

You are so clueless sometimes, it hurts. I'm sorry. I'm usually patient w/ you but: HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO!!! HE'S BEEN TRYING THIS CASE FOR OVER 7 YEARS IN THE PROPER FORUM....A COURT OF LAW.

And NO, this WOULDN'T have been over. That's the point you cannot seem to understand. First you blame the Democrats for "not standing up", now you are blaming the husband for not being enraged soon enough? My God. This couldn't possibly be the fault of political opportunists on the right? Could it?

Furthermore, since when is a private citizen obligated to prove ANYTHING to the press?? Sure it would have helped him (as far as his media portait is concerned), but that is so far besides the point it's stupid to argue it. Legally, the Republicans have tried to take this out of his hands.

Go back to watching Jerry Springer.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Also, I'm no doctor, but for those people arguing about the possibility of rehabilitation, here's a little something they seem to refuse to acknowledge:

Here is a CAT scan of a normal brain:



Here is a CAT scan of Terri's brain



[via University of Miami Ethics Progams]


Brain matter can't be grown back.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Which is more humane, allowing her to dehydrate/starve over a period of days/weeks, or dying in a few minutes after choking?  Why do you feel one way is a better way to die over the other?

Personally, if she is going to die, I wish they could inject her with something to make it quick. Problem is, those same religious fundamentalists and "right to lifers" who are currently rallying around Terri have made that illegal in Florida.

Duh.

From my point of view, they are the reason Terri has to be "starved to death" rather than allowed to drift off to sleep like the most hardened criminals.

Shiavo is a prop for the Anti-Abortion movement. She can't die for them to be successful. Look for renewed calls for the repeal of Row V. Wade. Don't think this has anything to do with it? Think again.



mrC

[GGKoul]

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm

June 18, 1990

Court appoints Michael Schiavo as guardian; Terri Schiavo

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This reeks of something, and the only person with the air freshener can't answer some pretty damning questions.

I don't find it astonishing *at all* that you'd take the FOX NEWS line of reasoning on this. Just last night I watched Hannity drag out family and friends to allege that Michael BEAT Terri and caused the heart attack/coma and he doesn't want her to be rehabilitated because she'd tell on him.

Awesome. Pure heresay...they never pressed charges and given what GGKoul as posted it does look like the "people" with the air freshener can't answer some pretty damning questions.

mrC

[GGKoul]

This reeks of something, and the only person with the air freshener can't answer some pretty damning questions.

I don't find it astonishing *at all* that you'd take the FOX NEWS line of reasoning on this. Just last night I watched Hannity drag out family and friends to allege that Michael BEAT Terri and caused the heart attack/coma and he doesn't want her to be rehabilitated because she'd tell on him.

Awesome. Pure heresay...they never pressed charges and given what GGKoul as posted it does look like the "people" with the air freshener can't answer some pretty damning questions.

mrC

I just read the time line posted above, and it seems strange that the abuse claim came up only after the family was losing their case.  Also, if this had come up earlier, the would have filed for guardianship or never gave the husband guardianship.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Your "Liberal Media" at work:

In presenting the results of a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, CNN.com used a visually distorted graph that falsely conveys the impression that Democrats far outnumber Republicans and Independents in thinking the Florida state court was right to order Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed.



Laid out in this manner, the graph suggests that the gap between the two groups is overwhelming, rather than only 8 percentage points, within the poll's margin of error of +/- 7 percentage points. Also, this presentation obscures the poll's finding that majorities of all the groups sampled approved of the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube. A more accurate presentation of the poll's findings would have looked like this:



(via: Media Matters for America)


mrC

[GGKoul]

Just thinking about this...

She can breathe on her own but needs assistance to eat.
--Can you feed her by other means or does she require a feeding tube 100%?

She can't move out of bed
--Does she should signs of any body movement?

She going to require 24 hrs assistance
--Which costs money.

If the family is willing to pay for the continue care, then I say keep her alive... Because you never know. 

But here is the issue, is the husband looking to end life in order to stop the pain or is he just looking to cash in on the remaining trust fund?  Or are the parents looking to keep the her alive in order to make the husband spend all of the trust fund money, which happend to be the money they weren't given access too?

Then what happens when the trust money runs out?  Do the parents end up paying the bills since they want to keep her alive?

Messy, but making a person starve isn't the best thing medical science can do.   

[Zero_Hour]

An interesting Read:

http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/wolfson's%20report.pdf

 Dr. Jay Wolfson is a professor of public health and law at the University of South Florida; in 2003, a Florida court appointed him to be Terry Schiavo's guardian ad litem for a month, seeking data on mental abilities disputed by Schiavo's husband and parents.

As part of that charge, he reviewed all court and medical records, he also spent quite a bit of time visiting with Terri, her husband, family, and various medical professionals connected to her care.

Dr. Wolfson recommended that both parties in the case abide by the results of tests -- including a swallowing test -- which would gauge Schiavo's cognitive ability. In the end, he couldn't get them to agree. So here we are.

[Dartful Dodger]

There are two conflicting sides to this case what he says she wanted and what her family say she wanted. If this were a criminal case she would get the benefit of the doubt and she would not be put to death. She did not have a living will; we do not know what she wanted.

The government has a responsibility to protect the weak, those who can't defend themselves.

[saint]

Her husband says that she told him essentially just this. You don't believe him, fine that's your perogative. But it is *exactly* the spouse of a person who is the one person whom should be believed in this type of situation. That's part of what marriage is for pete's sake. Unless you have reasonable cause to believe that the husband is not trustworthy in the matter then he is the one who should be making this call.

Now, if you think the husband's motive are questionable that's one thing and certainly a reason for society to step in, but you didn't say that here. A blanket statement that a person in this situation should always be kept alive no matter what the spouse says the patient themselves wanted is just loony. More than loony, it gets into the realm of scary. Here's a blanket statement for the world -- in this situation, if it's me that's the patient, believe what my wife says -- she's the most qualified person in the world to make that judgement. Not my parents, not my kids, not the courts, not the president -- my wife.

Now starving to death is horrible, yes. But when a person says they don't want to be kept alive in such a situation, it's exactly this kind of thing that person is saying they are willing to have happen to them.  If it is true that she told her husband she wouldn't want to be kept alive in this situation, then until society is as concerned with the right to die as it is with the right to live, this is the only way.  It's sad, it's horrible, it's a situation I wouldn't wish on my worse enemy, but it is the way it is.

So if the issue is whether or not the husband is telling the truth, that's one thing. I don't know where the answer to that lies in this case, but I do know it's been through numerous courts trying to work it out. However, the position that the spouse shouldn't be the person to have the right to make that decision is quite another matter, and frankly just plain wrong.

"A woman

[shmokes]

I agree with Dartful that we should give her the benefit of the doubt.

[GGKoul]

Ok, answer me this.

The husband got money buy suing the doctors and put it in a trust fund to help pay for the medical bills.  If she is kept alive, what happens when the trust fund money runs out in a few years?  Who is going to pay the bills, the parents?  Taxpayers?


Also, I STILL can't believe they are starving the girl to death.  I mean, we can't do this to death row criminals or POWs as the activates would be all over this forcing victims rights.  But this is ok... man, there has to be another way.

[Dartful Dodger]

Her husband says that she told him essentially just this. You don't believe him, fine that's your perogative. But it is *exactly* the spouse of a person who is the one person whom should be believed in this type of situation.
...
Yes, her spouse. The person she chose to live the rest of her life with, to trust and love, for better or worse. The person most likely to be the one to know her thoughts, fears, and beliefs. I can't think of anyone more qualified.

The people that gave her life, raised her with their values and beliefs would be just as qualified.

When a person is murdered the first suspect is always the husband/spouse.

I am not saying Schiavo husband is a killer, but her family is just as trustworthy as he is.

I do not know either, maybe her parents are grieving and want to keep her alive because they don't want to give up on her.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The life-supporters want him to prove that she really would want to die. 

That's what the initial Florida court decided. Her husband provided testimony and witnesses. There just wasn't any "written" contract. Either way, from my understanding he *has* already proven she really would want to die.

This current spectacle is because initially Jeb Bush forced an appeal at the federal level. It's been a circus ever since. Bless those Bushes!

Timeline here: http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm

Most interesting points:

June 18, 1990
Court appoints Michael Schiavo as guardian; Terri Schiavo

[mr.Curmudgeon]

If her husband really loved her and death is what she really wanted, why didn't he cover her face with a pillow?

It's all so easy, isn't it?


mrC

[DrewKaree]

Far as I know, he doesn't have to wait for her to die to marry his girlfriend. Her current state would be grounds for a divorce in any court I'm sure, no?

If he divorced her due to her current state, her parents would become her guardians, responsible for her care. 

I'm almost positive you are correct on that, yes. 

That's another reason I'm suspicious about the man - what does it cost him to turn her over to her parents?

He's having to remove her feeding tube, effectively killing her, so I won't buy that it's because leaving her in her parents care would always make him sorry for deciding something like that.

I doubt everything will ever be known, and I question the legal decisions that allowed what is essentially hearsay from her husband be the deciding factor in ending her life.

If he was so money hungry, they way did he start a trust fund to help pay for medical bills?

The trust fund was ordered to be set up by the courts.  This is common in such cases

[shmokes]

If her husband really loved her and death is what she really wanted, why didn't he cover her face with a pillow?

Maybe he doesn't want to go to prison.  Just a thought.

[shmokes]

That's another reason I'm suspicious about the man - what does it cost him to turn her over to her parents?

If it were my wife, and her parents wanted to keep her alive in this state, it would cost me a great deal of guilt.  You don't get out of responsibility for something just because you allow others to do it, rather than doing it yourself.  Allowing her parents to become Terri's guardian is effectively the same as maintaining guardian status and choosing to keep her alive.

He wants her to die.  That's what he would lose by turning her over to her parents.  It would be a little Pontius Pilate of him to believe that she would want to die in her situation, but turn her over to her parents because it wouldn't "cost him anything".

[Crazy Cooter]

Pulling a feeding tube isn't as barbaric as people think.

[saint]

Presumably, what it would cost him is denying his wife her wish in the matter. If he loves her, and truly believes that she would want to die, then turning the matter over to her parents would be the last thing to do because he knows they will not honor that wish.  The fact that he hasn't is no more reason to mistrust his motives than if he had just abandonded her to her parents. If he believes he is fulfilling her wishes, then he has a moral obligation to see them carried out as her trusted spouse. Not a pleasant task, but not one a man of integrity would shirk either. The wrong thing to do in that situation would be to walk away just to make it easier on yourself and society.

I absolutely don't get why people think someone isn't qualified to speak for their spouse when their spouse can't. Isn't that a part of marriage? It certainly is of mine. If my wife tells you that I said "so and so" believe it.

I may be mistaken and this may be a rumor, but wasn't he offered a million dollars to walk away, and declined the offer?

--- saint

That's another reason I'm suspicious about the man - what does it cost him to turn her over to her parents?

He's having to remove her feeding tube, effectively killing her, so I won't buy that it's because leaving her in her parents care would always make him sorry for deciding something like that.

I doubt everything will ever be known, and I question the legal decisions that allowed what is essentially hearsay from her husband be the deciding factor in ending her life.

If he was so money hungry, they way did he start a trust fund to help pay for medical bills?

The trust fund was ordered to be set up by the courts.  This is common in such cases

[saint]

I couldn't disagree more. They may be the *next* qualified, but the most qualified is the person she *chose* to live her life with. Parents are the most qualified until you leave the nest, but when you start a new family your spouse is that person, or should be certainly. That doesn't mean you aren't close to your parents, but late at night it's my wife I talk about life, death, religion, raising my children, living wills, and issues such as these.

And I repeat, I don't believe his wife has to be dead for him to remarry. I don't believe any court would deny him a divorce under these circumstances.

Do you really mean to tell me that he should have to resort to killing her himself to honor her wishes to let nature take its course? If it is me in her situation, I don't want my wife to have to carry that weight around. Hard enough I'm asking her to let me die.

--- saint

The people that gave her life, raised her with their values and beliefs would be just as qualified.

When a person is murdered the first suspect is always the husband/spouse.

I am not saying Schiavo husband is a killer, but her family is just as trustworthy as he is.

I do not know either, maybe her parents are grieving and want to keep her alive because they don't want to give up on her.  Maybe her husband wants her dead so he can marry his girlfriend.

What I do know is, if she starves to death, that's it.

If she's not going to feel pain when they starve her to death, she won

[Dartful Dodger]

He wants her to die.

[saint]

What if she's not totally brain dead and in a living hell? aYes, her wishes matter.

The fact is not that her family couldn't come to a decision. Her spouse did come to a decision. I'm not entirely clear on the specifics of the law, but doesn't the  spouse get to make life or death decisions in medical care? IANAL, but I watch ER Seriously though, I'm curious what the law *does* say about such decisions.

By the way, apparently "Beck" has offered him $5 million to walk away (unless that's another urban legend), so perhaps we'll see what his motivations are now.  Apparently there have been other offers as well that were declined...

1 million

ten million? Same article mentions that allegations of abuse by the husband had been investigated and found to be groundless, said the (one of the?) current judge in the matter.

--- saint

He told us her wishes, keeping her alive may be going against her wishes, but it isn't hurting her, and if she's brain dead she doesn't care.

The fact is, she didn't have a living will, the family couldn't come to a decision, and so the state had to.

[saint]

What if she's not totally brain dead and in a living hell?  Yes, her wishes matter.

The fact is not that her family couldn't come to a decision. Her spouse did come to a decision. I'm not entirely clear on the specifics of the law, but doesn't the  spouse get to make life or death decisions in medical care? IANAL, but I watch ER Seriously though, I'm curious what the law *does* say about such decisions.

By the way, apparently "Beck" has offered him $5 million to walk away (unless that's another urban legend), so perhaps we'll see what his motivations are now.  Apparently there have been other offers as well that were declined...

1 million

ten million? Same article mentions that allegations of abuse by the husband had been investigated and found to be groundless, said the (one of the?) current judge in the matter.

Edit:The guy may be a snake, in which case yes all the legal interventions are warranted. However, so far I haven't seen any evidence that he's anything but what he says he is, and apparently according to the above last link, the courts have ruled out foul play. All I've seen so far, other than people on both sides putting their own positions forward on what they think is the right thing to do, is a tragedy become a national news story.

--- saint

He told us her wishes, keeping her alive may be going against her wishes, but it isn't hurting her, and if she's brain dead she doesn't care.

The fact is, she didn't have a living will, the family couldn't come to a decision, and so the state had to.

[GGKoul]

"There is no amount of money anyone can offer him to induce him to betray his promise to Terri," Felos said. "He's simply not going to betray her for money."

 In 1998, Michael Schiavo offered to donate to charity the $700,000 then remaining in a trust account set up for his wife's care if her parents agreed to let her feeding tube be removed. They refused.

The money had been won in a medical malpractice case. Schiavo stood to inherit it upon his wife's death. Today, only about $50,000 remains.

"He has said from the beginning that this case isn't about money," Felos said

[Dartful Dodger]

Do you really mean to tell me that he should have to resort to killing her himself to honor her wishes to let nature take its course?

If you don't give a baby food nature takes it's course and the baby dies.

Her husband says one thing her family says another.

Her family hired lawyers to save her, her husband hired lawyers to kill her.

She didn't have a living will, her family couldn't agree, so the state had to decide.

Since letting her live wasn't hurting anyone, I don't understand why people are trying so hard to convince everyone that killing her is the best option.

What if she's not totally brain dead and in a living hell?

What if she's 7 days away from waking up and making a complete recovery, but instead she starves to death in 6?

[DrewKaree]

Mr Schiavo didn't recollect Terri's wishes to not live her life in this state until several years later, and specifically, didn't recall them until after the malpractice settlement.

He hadn't received offers of money to walk away from her until just recently.  He'd look like a lowlife crook if he took it now, and he would have to relinquish guardianship of her, opening up the possibility of tests to try to determine if she got to this state through what he claimed, or if foul play were involved.  This isn't just a case of family and friends who believe this might be the case, there have been doctors who have examined her and do not believe her symptoms and injuries to be consistent with the story Schiavo tells.

Since he has guardianship of her, he has also chosen to cremate the body, so any possibility of finding these things out go right in the ashcan as well.

The stipulation of any money ever offered to him was that he relinquish guardianship and/or divorce her, thereby allowing her parents to assume care for her.

It's fine to say my spouse speaks for me and I trust her to make those decisions for me should the need arise, but the possibility that someone may have that decision made for them by someone who doesn't share you and your spouse's views towards each other not only exists, but is a real enough possibility that the law should be clear in cases such as those.

I don't trust her husband.  Enough exists for me to doubt his motives.  At the very least, the judge should have reserved judgement long enough to mandate tests as to whether the man has ulterior motives, since his wife can't speak for herself now.  Enough has been brought up in this case for me to question his more-than-peculiar "timing" of things throughout this case, and his actions while still married to his wife.

I simply don't trust the guy. 

[GGKoul]

If you don't give a baby food nature takes it's course and the baby dies.

Yes, but if you did that, your child would be moved to someone else to take care of you until then are legally old enough to take care of yourself.

Her husband says one thing her family says another.

Her family hired lawyers to save her, her husband hired lawyers to kill her.

She didn't have a living will, her family couldn't agree, so the state had to decide.

The state has setup that when you marry, your spouse becomes your guardian should this happen.   The Husband is doing something to honour her wishes

Since letting her live wasn't hurting anyone, I don't understand why people are trying so hard to convince everyone that killing her is the best option.

What happens when the trust money runs out?  Who is going to pay the medical bills?

What if she's 7 days away from waking up and making a complete recovery, but instead she starves to death in 6?

It's been 15 years and numerous doctors later.  I hope to god a mircale happens in this case.  And I agree, there needs to be a better way.

[GGKoul]

Hate to think what would happen if her bills were being paid via an Health Insurance Company...

[DrewKaree]

Glenn Beck has taken pledges from listeners and people who wish to do so.  The money will be collected and given to Schiavo if and when he divorces his wife, turning guardianship of Terri over to her parents.

I don't know of another person who's been speaking of this case for as long as he has.  He's been doing so for ~6-7 years

The "I Saved Bobo" campaign is his effort to make his point in this case.  I believe it to be in his "free" audio section, for anyone to hear.



Another point:  If marriage today wasn't looked at as a 50/50 proposition, there might be more willingness to believe that the best interests of a person will always be an overriding factor life/death decisions.  Enough people decide to skip worrying about a feeding tube and end their spouse's life through lethal means to bring into question the possibilty as well.

[saint]

Her husband says one thing her family says another.

Then trust the husband. That's marriage.

She didn't have a living will, her family couldn't agree, so the state had to decide.

The state decided that the wishes of the parent outweighed the sanctity of marriage. That makes me really uneasy.

And yes, before anyone pipes in on his girlfriend -- the fact that after time has passed with no recovery he decided to go on with his life doesn't mean he didn't and doesn't love his wife or isn't qualified to speak for her wishes. After a reasonable mourning period I would want my spouse to go on with her life as well, and would not feel betrayed by such.

Since letting her live wasn't hurting anyone, I don't understand why people are trying so hard to convince everyone that killing her is the best option.

Because it was her wish? Perhaps she felt that such an existance would be harmful to her family - 15 years this has occupied her family's life.  Because the thought of such an existance horrified her? Because she didn't want something like this to drain her family of their lives and resources? I dunno what her reasoning may have been, but if it was her wish it should be honored.

What if she's not totally brain dead and in a living hell?

What if she's 7 days away from waking up and making a complete recovery, but instead she starves to death in 6?

Then it's sad, but it's still her wish. And specifically, in this case, looking at the cat scan it appears a good chunk of her brain is just gone. There's no complete recovery happening here. We're not talking coma here with an intact brain, we're talking severe brain damage. According to this article, there's severe damage to her cerebral cortex - the part of the brain that makes you "you." -- Her lower brain stem is intact, which is keeping her body going, but she's not likely to be there anymore. Cases of people who have recovered from brain damage are different from this situation, among other reasons because hers was due to lack of oxygen as compared to being from trauma (again from this article). In oxygen damage, brain cells just die and don't regrow. In trauma, some brain cells die, but also networks between brain cells die and those can be regrown sometimes. ''After 15 years, if neurological recovery has not occurred, it is not going to occur,'' said Dr. Michael A. Williams, a Johns Hopkins neurologist. ``If she hasn't recovered by now she's not going to recover.''

--- saint

[saint]

Mr Schiavo didn't recollect Terri's wishes to not live her life in this state until several years later, and specifically, didn't recall them until after the malpractice settlement.

Now that's the first thing someone's said that would give me pause. Do you have a reference? I have not seen that.

got to this state through what he claimed, or if foul play were involved.  This isn't just a case of family and friends who believe this might be the case, there have been doctors who have examined her and do not believe her symptoms and injuries to be consistent with the story Schiavo tells.

I hadn't seen any info about doctors believing this either, and would be interested in seeing them. I did read this page which brought up the questions, but I'd sure like to see something more "newsworthy" on it such as police reports, court reports, or doctor reports.

Since he has guardianship of her, he has also chosen to cremate the body, so any possibility of finding these things out go right in the ashcan as well.

Meh - here's one point where I do think the wishes of the family or court are reasonable even if contrary to the husband's wishes. The body can certainly be cremated after an autopsy.

It's fine to say my spouse speaks for me and I trust her to make those decisions for me should the need arise, but the possibility that someone may have that decision made for them by someone who doesn't share you and your spouse's views towards each other not only exists, but is a real enough possibility that the law should be clear in cases such as those.

See, here's where my layman non-lawyer bias shows, but I thought that pretty much *was* the law --- that the spouse had the legal right to make those decisions. IANAL .... no hyphen either!

I don't trust her husband.  Enough exists for me to doubt his motives.  At the very least, the judge should have reserved judgement long enough to mandate tests as to whether the man has ulterior motives, since his wife can't speak for herself now.  Enough has been brought up in this case for me to question his more-than-peculiar "timing" of things throughout this case, and his actions while still married to his wife.

One thing to bear in mind however is that this isn't a new case - this is a 15 year old situation, and at least a 7(?) year old case as far as the courts are concerned. Wasn't one of the judge's perspectives that there wasn't anything being brought up that hadn't already been investigated and determined before?

I guess I need to see more of what the allegations about her husband are to come to negative conclusion about him -- I'm looking, but so far what I've seen hasn't really told me much about him to draw a conclusion one way or another. If he was abusing her, and that's verified and not hearsay, then all bets are off on his speaking for his wife.  If she was bruised, and talking about divorce, as this page says, then no, I don't think his word should be trusted or taken. However, I would like to see it from something more official than that page before I believe it. Even the page itself brings up the strong emotions in the case that must be considered when weighing what you hear. The page mentions several fractures found later in her body, but no sign of trauma when she was admitted to the hospital. Either they were old and healed, or inflicted during therapy. There are apparently no police reports of abuse in the marriage(?)... The page goes on, and what it claims is pretty damning for the husband, but the page gives no references to where they came up with their details.

If he is indeed a snake, then let her parents care for her and make those decisions - in that case, they would indeed then be the most qualified. However, my position on spousal rights to speak for a spouse don't change, even if we conclude they don't apply in this case.

--- saint

[Chris]

And specifically, in this case, looking at the cat scan it appears a good chunk of her brain is just gone. There's no complete recovery happening here. We're not talking coma here with an intact brain, we're talking severe brain damage.

Was that her scan?  I thought it was a composite of the brains of all the politicians involved.

[Crazy Cooter]

Cooter, did anyone in your family hire a lawyer to stop the tube being pulled?

No, luckily he made his wishes known after the first (mild) stroke.

This isn

[Zero_Hour]

He hadn't received offers of money to walk away from her until just recently.  He'd look like a lowlife crook if he took it now, and he would have to relinquish guardianship of her, opening up the possibility of tests to try to determine if she got to this state through what he claimed, or if foul play were involved.  This isn't just a case of family and friends who believe this might be the case, there have been doctors who have examined her and do not believe her symptoms and injuries to be consistent with the story Schiavo tells.

Drew, can you link to those Doctors exams?

The link I pointed to was written by a Doctor / Professor of law who had access to all Medical & Legal records, and there was no mention of this in them. Also if I recall correctly, the abuse angle was already played out in court and amounted to nothing.

In reading the whole report (yes I actually did) there seemed to be more than a few occasions where both sides altered their path - given the length of time involved, none of it seemed especially strange or underhanded to me.

And saint, I'm with you my marriage is among other things, a legal contract - My wife supercedes everyone else as far as I'm concerned.

Brain tissue does not regenerate. Her cerebral cortex has been replaced by spinal fluid. Everything I've read on the subject indicates that is well beyond the point of no return.

This case has gone through every avenue available, and then had a few avenues built especially for it. The end result comes out the same. I believe that our Congress has inserted itself where it doesn't belong in this case, and ultimately, I suspect the courts will agree.

[shmokes]

So let me get this straigtht.  He deliberately injured his wife in the hopes that Doctors would screw up, in hopes that he would win a million dollar malpractice suit.  Oh yeah....I almost forgot to mention that he was hoping to meet a new girlfriend a few years down the road.  I gotta admit, there's some pretty hardcore motive going on there.  Then, when offered $5 million to walk away from it, he turns down the money because he doesn't want people to think he's slimy?  C'mon Drew....step back and look at what you're saying.  You think he's capable of murdering his wife, but too worried about what the neighbors might think to accept 5 or 10 million dollars?  You think he's willing to go through a 7 year court battle and the microscopic scrutiy of the public eye to pull the plug on a lady he doesn't care about all so the scumbag can gain access to the measly amount of money left in the trust fund, when he could just walk away with millions? 

The state will order an autopsy if there is any evidence of foul play (unfortunately Drew's distrust will probably not be enough to force the autopsy). 

And the cremation thing casting a shadow of foul-play is absurd.  I'm going to be cremated.  It's EXTREMELY common.  What's he supposed to do?  Should he say, "Well....we were going to be cremated, but there are all those people like Drew at BYOAC who are worried about that precluding the possibility of her body being exumed some time in the future for an autopsy.  Maybe I should accomodate their wishes too..."?

[shmokes]

What if she's 7 days away from waking up and making a complete recovery, but instead she starves to death in 6?

What if the winning McDonalds Monopoly Sweepstakes gamepiece is at my local McDonalds?  Perhaps I should start spending my entire sallary at McDonalds every time that sweepstakes comes around.

Or perhaps you should take a little trip back to the land of reality.  She's never waking up.  Her brain is mush.  The only person capable of fixing Teri is god, and she's made it pretty clear that she's standing this one out.

[DrewKaree]

Mr Schiavo didn't recollect Terri's wishes to not live her life in this state until several years later, and specifically, didn't recall them until after the malpractice settlement.

Now that's the first thing someone's said that would give me pause. Do you have a reference? I have not seen that.

From 2003, when it was first brought up

From 2004, down under Questionable Circumstances

More recent, but further from the case

"But since 1998 Schiavo has insisted that his wife, whom he refuses to divorce, told him before her collapse that she would never want to live "by artificial means."  This has been going on for almost 15 years.  That would put the start of her condition at '90-'91-ish.  Her malpractice suit was settled around '92, and in '93-ish is when the trouble started.

The 2nd article refers to the physicians and caregivers speaking of the possibilities for improvement with her through therapy, including the swallowing therapy.  The swallowing reflex is lost by more people than you'd think, and therapy exists to retrain the body in a short enough time (less than a dozen treatments) that this could easily have been done, but was disallowed.

got to this state through what he claimed, or if foul play were involved.  This isn't just a case of family and friends who believe this might be the case, there have been doctors who have examined her and do not believe her symptoms and injuries to be consistent with the story Schiavo tells.

I hadn't seen any info about doctors believing this either, and would be interested in seeing them. I did read this page which brought up the questions, but I'd sure like to see something more "newsworthy" on it such as police reports, court reports, or doctor reports.

Dr Hammasfahr, who was also allowed access to her medical records, speaking on the case.

One of a series of reports they've done

Another regarding the hearings on this

Interestingly, in the above link, it speaks of another thing to consider:

Fidelity is a key component of the respect and dignity that our society expects one spouse to afford the other; yet, this guardian believes that Terri

[DrewKaree]

Evidently Dr. Hammesfahr was asked by the Second District Court Of Appeals to give her a basic examination in reporting on her condition.

Take this for what it's worth.  It's from the site promoting the fight to keep her alive, however, it's not in dispute that he was able to see all of her medical records.  I'm simply saying I don't know if all that's there is verifiable.

[DrewKaree]

So let me get this straigtht.  He deliberately injured his wife in the hopes that Doctors would screw up, in hopes that he would win a million dollar malpractice suit.  Oh yeah....I almost forgot to mention that he was hoping to meet a new girlfriend a few years down the road.  I gotta admit, there's some pretty hardcore motive going on there.

You'll have to point to where I stated this, as I believe you to be walking on your hands again.

Then, when offered $5 million to walk away from it, he turns down the money because he doesn't want people to think he's slimy?

No, I believe he won't accept the money because the condition in each offer to him has been that he give the parents control of her treatment (guardianship) and/or divorce her, thereby returning control to the parents.  I believe he's got to go through with making it appear that he's in this for her best interests, and is willing to settle for what's left, or willing to settle for having this end for him with her death, since this more than likely will fade away after that.  To accept the money would demonstrate that he WAS in this for the money, and I think he's realized he's in it too far to back out in that fashion now, and would open him up to legal action that not only could cost him dearly, but could land him in jail. 

You think he's capable of murdering his wife

If you're intimating some other situation you percieved me to have said, again, you'll have to point it out.

If you are referring to his removal of her feeding tube as murder, I view it as potentially murder by proxy. 

You think he's willing to go through a 7 year court battle and the microscopic scrutiy of the public eye to pull the plug on a lady he doesn't care about all so the scumbag can gain access to the measly amount of money left in the trust fund, when he could just walk away with millions? 

Answered.  See above.

The state will order an autopsy if there is any evidence of foul play (unfortunately Drew's distrust will probably not be enough to force the autopsy). 

There are medical records which bring up the question.  If they don't perform an autopsy, fine.  Enough other questions arise in this case to call into question his motives and bring legislative action due to these.  Is there some undue discomfort that will befall her by doing one?

And the cremation thing casting a shadow of foul-play is absurd.  I'm going to be cremated.  It's EXTREMELY common. 

The only reason it's been brought up is to put to rest questions unanswered.  Nowhere have I said it's NOT common, I bring it up to point out that any of these charges of potential abuse will be null and void after cremation.  It's yet another thing the families disagree about, as well. 

Your charges of absurdity are based on your opinions of this case.  You've brought up the "ghoulishness" of your view, disregarding anyone else's opinion that might differ due to their wishes.  Are you dropping a #3 next? 

This is a personal issue for many, and you seem content to pass judgement on the absurdity of this based on your own personal opinion.  Are you wishing to cram your views down everyone else's throat, or have you decided to take some of fredster's tactics and co-opt them for yourself?

[DrewKaree]

I spoke of this earlier.

Flashback:  The Bobo Saga

[fredster]

I dunno.

MrC, that information has been out there in the media since this hit the Florida Supreme Court.

I agree that the Husband should be the one.  Parents if there is no spouse.

We don't know the exact funding options. I have a little experience with this, unfortunately.  If she doesn't have medication then she is paying about $150 a day for nursing home care (or there abouts).  When the trust fund is depleted, she'd have to go to Medicade.

The parents are adamant that she be kept alive, and that's where all this started. 

Drew, I don't agree with this:

No, I believe he won't accept the money because the condition in each offer to him has been that he give the parents control of her treatment (guardianship) and/or divorce her, thereby returning control to the parents.  I believe he's got to go through with making it appear that he's in this for her best interests, and is willing to settle for what's left, or willing to settle for having this end for him with her death, since this more than likely will fade away after that.  To accept the money would demonstrate that he WAS in this for the money, and I think he's realized he's in it too far to back out in that fashion now, and would open him up to legal action that not only could cost him dearly, but could land him in jail. 

I think that if it were for the Money, he would have walked. He could have walked 15 years ago and really have forgotten all about it by now.

If he were greedy enough to be doing what you say, he would have taken the money and ran. No, I think he's doing what he believes is right and that's why he's fought to the point.  He's commmitted.

But the Parents have used every PR move they can to save their baby.  It's touched hearts all over and attracted the right media attention, and the right political factions.

My guess is that the judges will not touch this and keep passing it around until Terri is dead.  Then there will be no story.  I believe the rest of the money will be donated to some kind of charity or fund for people like Terri.  The parents will be heartbroken and the husband will move on. IMHO.

[Dexter]

More from the God Squad...

http://www.earnedmedia.org/cfts0323.htm   

[Zero_Hour]

From: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt

Dr. Hammesfahr feels his vasodilatation therapy will have a positive affect on     
        Terry Schiavo. Drs. Greer, Bambakidis and Cranford do not feel it will have such an
        affect. It is clear that this therapy is not recognized in the medical community.   
        Dr. Hammesfahr operates his clinic on a cash basis in advance which made the       
        discussion regarding Medicare eligibility quite irrelevant. A lot of the time also 
        was spent regarding his nominations for a Nobel Prize. While he certainly is a     
        self-promoter and should have had for the court's review a copy of the letter from 
        the Nobel committee in Stockholm, Sweden, the truth of the matter is that he is     
        probably the only person involved in these proceedings who had a United States     
        Congressman recommend him for such an award. Whether the committee "accepted" the   
        nomination, "received" the nomination or whatever, it is not that significant. What
        is significant, however, and what undemises his creditability is that he did not   
        present to this court any evidence other than his generalized statements as to the 
        efficacy of his therapy on brain damaged individuals like Terry Schiavo. He         
        testified that he has treated about 50 patients in the same or worse condition than
        Terry Schiavo since 1994 but he offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no
        tests results to support his claim that he had success in all but one of them. If   
        his therapy is as effective as he would lead this court to believe, it is           
        inconceivable that he would not produce clinical results of these patients he has   
        treated. And surely the medical literature would be replete with this new, now     
        patented, procedure. Yet, he has only published one article and that was in 1995   
        involving some 63 patients, 60% of whom were suffering from whiplash. None of these
        patients were in a persistent vegetative state and all were conversant. Even he     
        acknowledges that he is aware of no article or study that shows vasodilatation     
        therapy to be an effective treatment for persistent vegetative state patients. The 
        court can only assume that such substantiations are not available, not just         
        catalogued in such a way that they can not be readily identified as he testified.
       
            Neither Dr. Hammesfahr nor Dr. Maxfield was able to credibly testify that the   
        treatment options that they offered would significantly improve Terry Schiavo's     
        quality of life. While Dr. Hammesfahr blithely stated he should be able to get her 
        to talk, he admitted he was not sure in what way he can improve her condition       
        although he feels certain her can. He also told the court that "only rarely" do his
        patients have no improvement. Again, he is extremely short of specifics. Dr.       
        Maxfield spoke of a "chance" of recovery although he stated there was a significant
        probability that hyperbaric therapy would improve her condition. It is clear from   
        the evidence that these therapies are experimental insofar as the medical community
        is concerned with regard to patients like Terry Schiavo which is borne out by the   
        total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature. The Mandate requires
        something more than a belief, hope or "some" improvement. It requires this court to
        find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the treatment offers such sufficient
        promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo's cerebral cortex so as to 
        significantly improve her quality of life. There is no such testimony, much less a 
        preponderance of the evidence to that effect. The other doctors, by contrast, all   
        testified that there was no treatment available to improve her quality of life. They
        were also able to credibly testify that neither hyperbaric therapy nor             
        vasodilatation therapy was an effective treatment for this sort of injury. That     
        being the case, the court concludes that the Respondents have not met the burden of
        proof cast upon them by the Mandate and their Motion. Accordingly, it isORDERED AND AJDUDGED that the Motion for Relief from Judgment filed herein by     
        Robert and Mary Schindler, Respondents, be and the same is hereby denied.

[Dartful Dodger]

Your daughter tells you  that she and her husband had a talk about living wills.  You raised her not to be a quitter, and she thinks that pulling the plug is a cowards way out. You don't agree with her, but she thinks it's like suicide without having to tie a noose, but her husband told her:
"Keeping me alive in that state is horrific."

"Being kept alive in a situation like that seems so horrible that it should be obvious, a normal person would not want it done to them."

"Pulling a feeding tube isn't as barbaric as people think."

"Pull the plug and let nature take its course."

Then you daughter tells you she agreed with him, because he was making her feel stupid.

Now she's in a comma and her husband wants to pull the plug.

...

Peterson felt his wife had to drown.
Spousal rights to speak for a spouse are not absolute.

All of you rooting for her death, can rejoice.
The courts investigated this case and decided she would want to die.

[Crazy Cooter]

Your daughter tells you that she and her husband had a talk about living wills. You raised her not to be a quitter, and she thinks that pulling the plug is a cowards way out. You don't agree with her, but she thinks it's like suicide without having to tie a noose, but her husband told her:
"Keeping me alive in that state is horrific."

"Being kept alive in a situation like that seems so horrible that it should be obvious, a normal person would not want it done to them."

"Pulling a feeding tube isn't as barbaric as people think."

"Pull the plug and let nature take its course."

Then you daughter tells you she agreed with him, because he was making her feel stupid.

Now she's in a comma and her husband wants to pull the plug.

LOL.  Where was your source for this "info"?
How about this:
She wanted the plug pulled.  Her parents don't.  Her husband wants to fulfill her wishes.  End of story.  Has anyone come up with an actual motive for this guy to be doing this for some other reason?

[saint]

Peterson felt his wife had to drown.
Spousal rights to speak for a spouse are not absolute.

This is a patently ridiculous statement. Murdering your spouse does not equate to speaking for your spouse.

All of you rooting for her death, can rejoice.
The courts investigated this case and decided she would want to die.

For me personally, I was not rooting for her death. I was rooting for her right to choose. Two entirely different things.

[Dartful Dodger]

She wanted the plug pulled.

[fredster]

What he is saying is that there is lots of doubt in the public court that these were her wishes.

That's the dispute.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

What if she's 7 days away from waking up and making a complete recovery, but instead she starves to death in 6?

Have you even LOOKED at the CAT scan of Terri's skull?

Just so we are clear: MOST OF HER BRAIN IS GONE! IT HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH SPINAL FLUID!!! BRAIN MATTER DOESN'T GROW BACK.

Even microscopic neural damage can wreck havoc on a person's motor skills and memory, Terri on the other hand is COMPLETELY MISSING THE MAJORITY OF HER BRAIN! How can you even suppose a recovery of any kind, let alone a *ROFL* "complete recovery?"

Jesus H. Christ...you can't POSSIBLY believe the things you type, can you? Seriously? No, really...SERIOUSLY??




Note: Dark areas are holes in the brain that have been replaced by fluid.



mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

I have to *sigh* Side with Shmokes.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

If he was a good person he would have taken the money and donated it to her favorite charity in her name.  She then would be suffering for a cause...

He DID. She was the charity. Almost all the money was used to care for her. He even asked the family to donate the remainder TO A CHARITY, and they refused.

Who the hell gave you the right to judge him, or *anybody* for that matter? Isn't that supposed to be against your religion?

How wrong do you have to be before you admit it? This is getting ridiculous.

mrC

[fredster]

Dodger you have a point.

I was siding with Shmokes because he's a sociopathic heathen.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Looks like this is finally over: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/23/schiavo/index.html

For anyone really interested in the complete backstory regaring this whole ordeal, I HIGHLY recommend reading the following report, linked in the paragraph below:

"After Florida passed

[fredster]

I read that through.

It shows he had doctors say she was dying and the doctors from the parents weren't very convincing.  Then it details the law.

It's long and wordy for a "summary". 

It does detail the early days.  What's surpsing is the allegation that the parents agreed with Schiavo for the first few years and even introduced other women to Michael.

That's interesting.

Then the families became estranged after the Money came into play.  He says it was them, they say it was him.

He said/she said.

This document doesn't offer any more conclusive evidence that Terri said she wanted to go.

It does offer insight that the Husband tried pretty hard to help her for some time.   It doen't clearly define the way this is being paid off either, or what will happen afterward. 

Who's gonna write the book do you think? The Husband or the Parents.

I got $5 on the parents.  Anybody take that?

[DrewKaree]

My guess is that the judges will not touch this and keep passing it around until Terri is dead.  Then there will be no story.  I believe the rest of the money will be donated to some kind of charity or fund for people like Terri.  The parents will be heartbroken and the husband will move on. IMHO.

I think you've hit it on the head there.  What I wonder is, will the legislation passed be used in the next case like this?  I have heard conflicting reports as to why the court won't look at/follow the legislation passed. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This document doesn't offer any more conclusive evidence that Terri said she wanted to go.

Did you happen to see this part:

"The hearings and testimony before the trial court leading to the decision to discontinue artificial life support included admitted hearsay from Theresa

[Zero_Hour]

I read that through.

It shows he had doctors say she was dying and the doctors from the parents weren't very convincing.  Then it details the law.

Particularly, The Schindlers Neurosurgeon made numerous claims of rehabilitating cases worse than Theresa's, but could not provide any facts to back up his claim.

It's long and wordy for a "summary".

It's pretty short, for a summary of over 30,000 pages of legal/medical records.

It does detail the early days.  What's surpsing is the allegation that the parents agreed with Schiavo for the first few years and even introduced other women to Michael.

I don't think that them getting along in the early years is an allegation, I think it is presented as fact. Also, it does mention Michael introducing women he was dating to the Schindlers, but makes no mention of them introducing him to women. It does say that they encouraged him to "get on with his life"

Then the families became estranged after the Money came into play.  He says it was them, they say it was him.

He said/she said.

Yes, it also says that the parents tried to have Michael removed as gaurdian, and that ultimately that first try was dismissed with prejudice (no appeal). It also says that there were other attempts to have Michale removed, but that all attempts failed.

This document doesn't offer any more conclusive evidence that Terri said she wanted to go.

That's because there is no more convincing evidence. Everything has already been heard in court. and it all comes back to the credibility of hearsay.

It does offer insight that the Husband tried pretty hard to help her for some time.   It doen't clearly define the way this is being paid off either, or what will happen afterward.

There were 2 settlements from the malpractice suit. $300,000 went to Michael, $750,000 went into a trust for Theresa's care.  It doesn't mention what would happen if Theresa died and money was still in the trust.

Who's gonna write the book do you think? The Husband or the Parents.

I got $5 on the parents.  Anybody take that?

I suspect the parents will go with a movie of the week. 

And so far a judge and an appelate panel have ruled on the matter since the law was passed. If that's sitting on it / passing it around then I'm not sure what else they were supposed to do.

I too am interested to see what effect the legislation will have (if any) on future cases.

[DrewKaree]

What he is saying is that there is lots of doubt in the public court that these were her wishes.

That's the dispute.  No doubt most people agree that if this were her wish, then so be it.  The dispute is lots of people don't think it was her choice.

I think you've clarified it perfectly.

I have to *sigh* Side with Shmokes.  I think that if he was as big an ass as the media made him out to be he would have took the money and ran.

Now I know you've made accusations in the past that shmokes is a big ass, but could you please provide sources for your claim that the media is making him out to be one too?  That just seems like slander.

[shmokes]

He hadn't received offers of money to walk away from her until just recently.  He'd look like a lowlife crook if he took it now, and he would have to relinquish guardianship of her, opening up the possibility of tests to try to determine if she got to this state through what he claimed, or if foul play were involved. 

Since he has guardianship of her, he has also chosen to cremate the body, so any possibility of finding these things out go right in the ashcan as well.

I take out of this your belief that she may be in her state because of deliberate actions on Terri's husband's part.  You didn't say murder, but if he deliberately caused her initial collapse (her heart was stopped and paramedics brought her back with a defibrilator (spelling?), then yeah, you believe that he is capable of murder.  Why else were you asking for an autopsy.

You also have indicated multiple times, including in that post, that you believe he is in this for the trust fund money.  My point is that if he is slimy enough to kill his wife (and psychic enough to know that she'll get brought back to life and then have bad treatment that will lead to a $1 million dollar malpractice award) then he's not going to bawk at the bad press that would follow his acceptance of $5 or $10 million.  Like he's worried about having people people think he's slimy???  Think of all the ultra right-wing gun nuts that are plotting his execution as we speak 

To make a long story short, you seem to believe that he may have deliberately put Terri in this postition (obvious attempted murder), that he is a lowlife scumbag for fathering children with another lady, that the only reason he wants to pull the plug is for money -- a GRADE A, lowlife, pond-scum, slimeball.  But, for some inexplicable reason, you think he's above walking away from it filthy rich because he doesn't want people to think poorly of him.  I don't buy it. 

As for doing the autopsy, yeah there are discomforts.  It's unconstitutional search & seizure for one.  It's no different than the police knocking on your door and saying, "We know that drugs have been sold in your neighborhood.  We have no evidence suggesting that you sold them, but we'd like to come in and search your house to make sure.  Hey, if you're innocent, what discomforts are you going to face?"

[shmokes]

I have to *sigh* Side with Shmokes.

OH MY!!!!!  Is it too late to change my vote?   

[shmokes]

Peterson felt his wife had to drown.
Spousal rights to speak for a spouse are not absolute.

Darful, seriously.....

Even the people on your side know that your Scott Peterson analogy is retarded.  There's no parallel.  Even if Scott Peterson's wife had a living will saying that she would not want to live in Terri Shiavo's state there would be no useful analogy that could be drawn.  WTF?  Are you delusional?

Are you suggesting that Scott Peterson's defense rested not on his innocence, but on his claim that she had expressed her wish to be killed and dumped in the sea? 

[Dartful Dodger]

Are you suggesting that Scott Peterson's defense rested not on his innocence, but on his claim that she had expressed her wish to be killed and dumped in the sea?

[shmokes]

Scott Peterson's case has nothing to do, whatsoever with speaking for your spouse.

It has nothing to do with Guardianship. 

It has nothing to do, in fact, with the Terri Shiavo case.

[Dartful Dodger]

Scott Peterson's case has nothing to do, whatsoever with speaking for your spouse.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

It's easy to see this from the husband

[GGKoul]

Latest news ---> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7273739/

[DrewKaree]

I have to *sigh* Side with Shmokes.

OH MY!!!!!  Is it too late to change my vote?   

No, but you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.  Either fredster would agree with you, I would, or Dartful would.

You're stuck.   

[fredster]

Zero_Hour,

When I said "wordy" I ment the report used dictionary definitions to make points.  Pretty strange for an executive report.

You're right.  I miss read the passage -

It took Michael a long time to
consider the prospect of getting on with his life

[DrewKaree]

MrC, is that Terri's brain scan? Where in the world did you get Terri's Brain scan?  That could be my mother in law's.
 

I can't believe you passed up the opportuni....nevermind, I'll do it myself.  I'm amazed at you fredster.  You're slipping.  It's your old age.  I hope you have a living will, too.  Your quality of life is going right downhill.

*inserted due to fredster's brain fart*
".....Where in the world did you get Terri's Brain scan?  That could be my mother in law's "buddy" shmokes!
 

Well, I believe tomorrow (Thursday) will be the last and final chance to have the feeding tube reinserted.  I'm also putting my money on the parents to have a book deal in the works, if not written, within the year.  If not, I'll be glad to be wrong, if right, I'll think they're just as bad as Schiavo, and I'll always wonder what Terri's wishes truly were.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Did you notice the report was pretty one sided? I didn't see any quotes from the parents, as if they didn't participate in the writing of this report.  It also points to the cause of this as an accident, not a malpractice.

Nobody "participated" in the writing of this report. It is an independent analysis from a independent (non-biased) court appointed adviser/guardian who wrote the report for Jeb Bush. I stated that when I posted the link.

For what it's worth, I imagine the parents aren't as prominent in the report because the husband was more prominent in the care-giving. I read in the report, and I've heard confirmed elsewhere, that over 13 years, she hadn't suffered any significant bed sores. I had a cousin; very dear to me, who was quadriplegic (he has since died from complications)...even with our overly attentive family...he still developed bed sores. I know you've probably also experienced it, but health care providers are not always the most thorough or attentive people either (their plates are often full), so if left solely to them, most patients facing long-term care will develop sores.

Terri hasn't. The administrators managed-care facility considered Michael Schiavo to be a tremendously attentive husband. They jokingly called him, the facilities "Worst Nightmare." To me, it seems he has done a more than thorough job of caring for his wife in the past. This vilification he's facing by the "right-to-lifers" and the Washington Republicans, again to me, could be the most shameful aspect of this whole ordeal.

MrC, is that Terri's brain scan? Where in the world did you get Terri's Brain scan?  That could be my mother in law's.

It's not your mother in law's. Where do I get these things? I do my research. A lot. It's a pain in the @ss, but I argue with integrity at stake.

Mrs. Schiavo's CAT scan is from the University of Miami Ethics Progams Shiavo resource. I sourced it when I first posted the images (visible on pg 2 of this thread). I always try to provide links and references for the things I post here that need substantiating. Keep an eye out, it's always there. I try to make it easy and post it in the same format.  Picture, then a link underneath (ie: [via: link])

Not being smarmy here, but you're slippin'...it's no fun arguing with you when your watching TV and debating at the same time. Focus, man! You're missing some pretty glaring stuff.




mrC

[Crazy Cooter]

I see a TV special on its way... This crap is too much.  Jeb Bush wants to be her guardian, yet George Bush signed that law in Texas.  WAAAY to much politics involved here.  I put $5 down saying the parents make a mint off this one.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I put $5 down saying the parents make a mint off this one.

Same here. The husband's life has probably been destroyed, the ReTHUGlicans have effectively marketed him as a shallow heartless killer. Imagine walking down the street if you were him. I feel really bad for this guy if he doesn't deserve it.

mrC

[Crazy Cooter]

The saddest part is this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7273739/page/3/

[DrewKaree]

I put $5 down saying the parents make a mint off this one.

Same here. The husband's life has probably been destroyed, the ReTHUGlicans have effectively marketed him as a shallow heartless killer. Imagine walking down the street if you were him. I feel really bad for this guy if he doesn't deserve it.

mrC

[JB]

-edit:
The more I think about it, I wonder if the parents just never accepted the whole situation and now they're actually seeing what condition she is in and coming to terms with it.

Bingo.

Only they still aren't coming to terms with it. They think if they stick the feeding tube in, she'll jump back up in another week or 2.

[Zero_Hour]

Fredster,

I think the "one-sidedness" of the report comes largely that a majority of it is summarizing the past court actions which largely went against the parents. There was one passage from the report that I missed earlier that I think is particularly relevant - and a bit disturbing, to me anyway...

Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state.

[GGKoul]

I see a TV special on its way... This crap is too much.  Jeb Bush wants to be her guardian, yet George Bush signed that law in Texas.  WAAAY to much politics involved here.  I put $5 down saying the parents make a mint off this one.

Sadly, Nobody wants to make a bad PR move ...

[shmokes]

I wonder less about when the parents will accept the reality of Terri's condition than when Dartful will accept it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I wonder less about when the parents will accept the reality of Terri's condition than when Dartful will accept it.

ROFL!  *Applause*

Sincerely,

mr.Curmudgeon
Founder - Shmokes FanClub!

[SirPeale]

[DrewKaree]

WOW!  MrC, you never cease to amaze!

We get a link from you:

Where were thay for the past 15 years? Why jump in *now* at the last minute? Here's why:

"ABC News has obtained talking points circulated among Republican senators explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them: "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited..." and "This is a great political issue... this is a tough issue for Democrats." (via ABCnews)

And you provide more links:

Read the despicable Talking Points. How many Right Wing ditto-heads have parroted these exact words over the past 7 days? Why? Because, just like you, they care more about their party than they care about people.

They go on to throw more against the wall to see what sticks

"EXCLUSIVE: GOP's Schiavo Talking Points Revealed In Full
Here are the GOP's talking points on Schiavo that garnered so much attention over the weekend. Rumor has it that Rick Santorum's office wrote these talking points - blah blah blah"
     which of course, you "worked your ass off" to make ensure you weren't offering yet another Rather-ism.

Since we're dealing in rumor, I'll give you my own rumor mill.  When it comes to memos, it's a wonder you ever report on them anymore.  This one seems to be headed the way of CBS: GOP memo questioned

You've spoken of

This is a Republican thing. The bill that Bush signed, in the middle of the night after flying BACK to the WH for the sideshow, passed congress with a voice vote - ONLY THREE Republican senators were present.

ignoring the fact that 47 Dems voted with the "rethugs" in the House (btw, what do you label the "idiots" who vote with those "rethugs"?) and that a voice vote was done in the Senate, which got this bill passed sometime around MIDNIGHT-ish, and that this was done because they were...stay with me here....trying to get this voted on as quickly as possible to have it signed into law if it passed.

You've tried to equate Terri Schiavo's case to Bush's carrying out of the law in Texas, and with the war on terror.

You make some silly point to Dartful while doing exactly that which you carp about - to the parents, the people who might disagree with your point of view, Bush

Who the hell gave you the right to judge him, or *anybody* for that matter? Isn't that supposed to be against your religion?

....I know I'm missing someone, but I can't keep track of all the people you yourself judge....well, other than yourself, that is.

Your links are often so suspect, it's about the only reason people have for going to them - to see just what you've chosen to ignore in your very own defense of positions!  What's amazing to me is that fredster didn't see your link, and you can't for the life of you figure out why anyone would question you, after all you laid it out pretty clearly:

Where do I get these things? I do my research. A lot. It's a pain in the @ss, but I argue with integrity at stake.

Arguing with integrity at stake?  It sounds as if you think anyone questioning you to be out to get you.  It sounds more like sanctimony that you argue under, your very survival at stake.  I hope you're done with your living will - the Religious Right appreciate you complying with their ultimate goal!  GOTCHA!    

And to think, all they had to do to get you to bend to their will was to make you think it was to save yourself from the dreaded "THEM".  a-BOO!

Now to work on making you vote conservative in '08....lemme get "the machine" to work on this, toot-sweet.

[fredster]

MrC,

It's obvious that the woman had severe brain damage. It's obvious to most of us who aren't her loved ones that she is a total invalid.  That's obvious. Most of us here are horrified at the prospect of being kept alive in such a state.
(btw, I respect your research, always have.)

That's not the issue at all is it? The issue is did she want this or No? The Husband and his sister in law and Brother

 The republican "thugs" are framing this as a civil rights issue.  They are doing the political thing like they always do.  They are representing their base, that's what they are supposed to do isn't it?  For some reason, doing what they do keeps winning elections for them.

Jeb Bush wants to be her guardian, yet George Bush signed that law in Texas.

Mr C, research me this, was that bill amended in 2003 to include a medical "tribunal" that makes the final decision? (well after Bush was governor) The law you pointed out didn't really seem to me to indicate the family could be superceeded.  But I'm not a lawyer.

I can see that you don't agree with anything the republicans do.  I love your research, but I have to quote one of the many Dilbert Principals -
"People make up thier minds first, then find information to support it later."

I firmly believe that. I try not to do that, but I slip too.

They go on to throw more against the wall to see what sticks

Good one Drew.  That's what is happening here.


Zero_hour, you said that this was distrubing -

Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it.

Can you imagine how the Husband's lawyer tried to break them down?  He asked them "what if her arms need to be removed" "What if she was covered in boils" OMG. They had to hold the extreme to be faithful to the point.  It's distrubing, but not surprising.

The reason this is getting the support is all the unanswered questions.  There were people in support of Terri that said she did move around.  Other doctors didn't describe her condition as a persistant vegative state.

Here in TN a man had a good fraction of his brain abruptly removed by a propeller from an aircraft.  Not only did he survive, he became an artist.  He lost some functions, but not all.  They removed a good section of a young girl's brain for damage done by menigitis and expected her to survive.

(I won't go into the obvious jokes about women not needing 1/2, but it's hard for me..)

And there are lots of stories about people who recover from what doctors call a hopeless case.  Look at this story - http://susanedsall.com/
This man recovered after doctors wrote him off completely.  He was able to not only recover, but to recover 97% and actually fly planes.

This is why the people support the parents.  They want to hold onto hope as long as they can.  There is no hope if Terri is dead. 

At least that's what we are lead to believe from the Parents. 

[GGKoul]

Fredster, it's been 15 years and for the first 8 years they appear to have tried everything to get Terri better and have spent the past 7 years fighting this issue in court.

With the amount of media attention this is getting, I assume if there was any hope for her to get better.  Someone out there would have stepped forward to say I can help or this is what I could do to get her better.


I wonder what would happen if the millionaire offered the parents 5 million to walk away?

[fredster]

This would be over.  That's what would happen.
Then we wait for the movie of the week.

Brain cells can be regenerated, the technology is new.  There are many examples of it.  Things like this fuel hope for people like Terri. http://ww3.komotv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3107692

[Zero_Hour]

I understand why people have hope, why they support the parents . I have no problem with any of that. What I do have a problem with is that this case has had it day in court. It made it through the entire appeals process. Now the losing side wants the rules changed in their favor - no wait - they have had the rules changed in their favor.  After all of it is said and done what will we have?

Terri Schiavo will be dead.

The Husband and Family will have to go about trying to find some sort of normalcy to their lives - something I don't envy them at all.

The folks who have kept vigil outside the hospice, or been arrested protesting will find another cause.

The courts will overturn the law as unconstitutional.

Our congressmen will oversimplify the entire episode and use it in future campaign speeches. Plus they will be able to yell "activist judges" and stir people up as they are wont to do.

The media will find someone elses life to insert themselves into and speak as if they have insight, which they almost universally do not.

And me? I'll probably be playing video games.

[daywane]

Well I hope if things ever go for me as bad as it is for her. Kill me.
there its in print.
just plain kill me.
thats all I have to say.
oops. Saint.. I agree. My wife knows what to do. No one else knows me like my wife.
I trust her and her trust is in no better hands than mine.

[GGKoul]

Latest--->http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7283607/?GT1=6305

[GGKoul]

Brain cells can be regenerated, the technology is new.

[fredster]

Zero_Hour,
I agree. I'm hoping it is over for her, and it happens quickly and painlessly.

GGKoul,
It's adult Stem Cell research in that particular article, that's unlimited.  Use all the adult stem cells you want.

There is no limit on stem cell research anyway. 

The limit is on the federal funding of embryonic stem cells.  The embryonic cells used have to be of cultures that existed at the time of the limit.  If you have your own funding, you can use any stem cells you want.

California passed a funding bill last election cycle to fund embryonic stem cell research on it's own. 

There's no law against stem cell research, just limits on federal funding.  Don't believe everything on the CBC.

[Zero_Hour]

The stem cell article was a good find fredster. It's a shame the research is still in such an early stage. I hate when science/industry is asked to put timelines on when "things will be ready" - they seem to always underestimate the time frame.

I'm still waiting for my flying car, and they've been promising that one since before I was born. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

ignoring the fact that 47 Dems voted with the "rethugs" in the House

I didn't ignore that, I pointed out my disappointment that Dems didn't wholely reject this blatant pandering game. Still doesn't changed the fact that this is a completely partisan Republican issue. They own it. Just because they're to yellow-bellied to take responsibility, doesn't mean that they aren't responsible. You know how it works, you never hold them accountable for anything. You are a member of the party of Frist (R), DeLay (R), Hastert (R)...I hope you like the company of snakes. They led the charge. Not the Dems.

Most of them, intelligently, stayed out of the way and let the Republican pull out their own feeding tubes, so to speak. A good deal of the Republicans in congress that "care so deeply" for her, never even took the time to learn how to pronounce her name correctly for their speeches.

You've tried to equate Terri Schiavo's case to Bush's carrying out of the law in Texas, and with the war on terror.

It's more than that, it's the hypocrisy of, on one hand bashing gays in defense of the "sanctity of marriage", then ignoring that very same "sanctity of marriage" when trying to rip a wife away from a husband trying to carry out her last wish solely to pander to the religious right. I equate it with the hypocrisy of claiming to support a "culture of life" opposed to the "slow, torturous death" of this "as healthy as you or I" invalid, while supporting, nay encouraging the torture of terror "suspects" in Gitmo and "civilains" in Iraq's Abu Gharib (Bush promoted the guy (Gonzales) that advised on the derailing of Geneva Conventions)

You make some silly point to Dartful while doing exactly that which you carp about

The thing you miss is I don't claim to be a member of any religion that purports, "let those without sin cast the first stone." It's just another example of the rampant hypocrisy feastering in the conservative right. I haven't judged any family member in this case. Just the Republican opportunist that would so callously take advantage of them.

It sounds as if you think anyone questioning you to be out to get you.

It's more like I expect I arguing against disingenuous apologists who'll look for *any* excuse to avoid discussing the topic at hand. Hey! Wait, your reply just provided a perfect example. Thanks!

I hope you're done with your living will - the Religious Right appreciate you complying with their ultimate goal!  GOTCHA!    

Their ultimate goal was to throw red meat to the extremist ultra-conservative religious base by exploiting a family's personal tragedy by furthering their anti-abortion agenda at the cost of destroying state's rights. That the American public saw through this phony ploy, and are trending toward defending themselves against this kind of exploitation (by either family or government) by creating a living will, is just a positive side effect.

GOTCHA, indeed!



mrC

[fredster]

They did that already dude.

[Zero_Hour]

They did that already dude.  In 1972.

The Ford Pinto was converted.

Now that was funny.

[fredster]

MrC,

Don't break this into some Gitmo thing, you are wavering. After all,

It's more like I expect I arguing against disingenuous apologists who'll look for *any* excuse to avoid discussing the topic at hand.

.

I guess I see it now.  We were discussing Terri Shiavo, and you were discussing the republicans. NOT the same thing.  Come on man. Come on. Your people didn't fight it.  I'd be a little more than "disappointed" if I were you.  Where's the equivalent outrage?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Don't break this into some Gitmo thing, you are wavering.

You honestly don't see any hypocrisy present in a group of people screaming bloody murder over the "torturous death" of one individual but then turn a blind eye to the fact that 108 prisoners in captivity in Iraq were killed by mostly "violent causes" in a War that they overwhelmingly support?

You know how many U.S. POW's were killed in captivity during the ENTIRE Vietnam war? 114. From all causes.

[Sources:
http://www.eiis.net/cmart/vietwarstats.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/16/terror/main680658.shtml]

Now, is Schiavo part of the war on terror, no. Are the people who'd claim to be "pro-life" and "anti-torture" (in her case) the same people? It would seem, yes. Is that a moral conflict? Should be.

This is a culture war and the side that opposes my beliefs claims to have a higher moral standard than me. They should be called out as the hypocrites they are, every chance we get. They are the ones claiming Terri's tragedy as their own. Not me, and not the party I currently support.

They made this political. Not me, and not the party I support. To let these blatant hypocrisys go unchecked...is wrong.


mrC

[fredster]

Torture is cutting people arms and legs off. Torture is killing their family in front of them, raping their wives, etc.  Torture is extreme pain that causes organs to stop functioning.  Gitmo was people stacking people naked more like a college frat initiation.  It was traced to the source, a really wierd chick and guy on 3rd shift.  It is NOT systemic.

The Government is trying to extract information from people who have no other goal in life than to strap bombs on themselves and blow up people around them.  They can't withhold thier TV priviliges to get the info.  They have to do deal with extreme people with extreme measues.

What was the other answer? Just keep asking them? What is the alternative?  All the stuff Clinton did after the first Terrorist Bombing? Call a cop? Have lawyers present and put together a case for each one?

Did you know I once had a job that would allow me only 4 hours of sleep per day, not necessarily all at once.  Where I had to keep moving for 72 hours?  Where I had to go for a week at a time without a shower and sleep on the ground? I was forced to march for 10-20 miles a day carrying huge packs.  Where if I made a mistake I could go to jail for the rest of my life?  That's the life of a soldier MrC. 

There are rules of conduct in love and war.  One was love of a parent. The other is the war on terror. It's not inconsistent. We are treating soldiers like soldiers and loved ones like loved ones.
 
All these people who caused this harm to these prisoners were criminals. They will pay for what they have done.  It's against their general orders and against the credo they were taught.  It's not systemic.

We have to do this to protect ourselves, and we hold our selves to a high standard.  But we are still human, and mistakes were made, perhaps on both issues. 

But we have to protect ourselves and we have to keep living and moving on. 

[DrewKaree]

Fredster, it's been 15 years and for the first 8 years they appear to have tried everything to get Terri better and have spent the past 7 years fighting this issue in court.

From whatever sources you can find, that is not true.  For the first perhaps 2 years, care was given, some therapy was started, progress seemed to be made by Terri.  It was all abruptly terminated when the lawsuit was won.  Also, almost half of her trust fund was used to pay the legal fees for this case, rather than be used for her treatment and potential rehabilitation, which Schiavo denied her.  Again, the denial of any theraputic measures was prohibited by Schiavo years before he recalled Terri saying she'd want to be killed if something like this happened to her.

With the amount of media attention this is getting, I assume if there was any hope for her to get better.  Someone out there would have stepped forward to say I can help or this is what I could do to get her better.

Again I point to Schiavo refusing therapy for her before he recalled her remarks on this.

I wonder what would happen if the millionaire offered the parents 5 million to walk away?

That is an EXCELLENT point, and I wish it would happen.  Right-to-die groups have been working in this case for a while now, and it would be an interesting monkey wrench to throw in the works. 

I guess the question left is:

     What is your definition of life support?

[DrewKaree]

The religious fanatics can somehow coerce people to turn out in record numbers to give an election to someone based on a moral issue, but can't whip 'em up into a lather on this?  What kind of crap power is that where they can't turn it on and off at will?  Sheesh.....if this keeps up, people will be forced to come to the conclusion that others are able to think for themselves or some other such nonsense! 

You've made it impossible to miss that you don't claim to be a member of any religion, but your error is in telling us that Dartful is a member of a "religion that purports, "let those without sin cast the first stone.""

You're using your views of that majority to judge one man based on your notions of him.  The doctrine of his religion may also not include that precept, as I don't recall Dartful EVER telling us what he believes.  It again leads back to you holding someone to a standard you don't feel you have to follow.

Now, try and follow what's posted.  The joke wasn't about Elected Officials You Despise, it was about you doing exactly what the Religious Right want to have happen in cases like this - make your wishes known and put them in writing beforehand.  You can't even do a decent GOTCHA! anymore!  And you think FREDSTER is the one slipping 

I hope you're done with your living will - the Religious Right appreciate you complying with their ultimate goal! GOTCHA!

Their ultimate goal was to throw red meat to the extremist ultra-conservative religious base

Interesting that you can equate this case with the war, but have no problems with claiming "victory" based on something you "feel", that words don't back up, but there can be two explanations, and you're choosing to believe yours is the correct view.

That the American public saw through this phony ploy, and are trending toward defending themselves against this kind of exploitation (by either family or government)

It very well might be that "phony ploy" that people agree with, that would cause them to draft a living will.  Seems as if people are choosing to make their wishes known via living wills for the opposite reasons you cite, as well.  They wish to leave a record so that they won't be killed against their wishes.

And I'll go on assuming Bush is responsible for all the good happening in the Middle East. 

I look forward to your "DK you're wrong and daft, let me demonstrably prove how by not clearing up the issue one bit" reply

/Fez :  Good day sir.





I said good day!

[DrewKaree]

One of the more comprehensive collections of stories on this


That's a link to a BUNCH of links of stories they've done as far back as '02, I believe.  I dunno how far back they go, I haven't read all of them yet, but I've got a fair number of them under my belt.

Well, I believe this to be it for her.  Not sure when exactly she'll die, but seems as if it will be it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Torture is cutting people arms and legs off. Torture is killing their family in front of them, raping their wives, etc.  Torture is extreme pain that causes organs to stop functioning.  Gitmo was people stacking people naked more like a college frat initiation.  It was traced to the source, a really wierd chick and guy on 3rd shift.  It is NOT systemic.

Some would argue that the act of removing the Geneva Conventions from the equation, a choice made by the Bush administration and present in the recommendations of one, Alberto Gonzales, recently promoted to Secretary of State, is the very REASON these types of acts were allowed to have occured, nay, encouraged.

In other words, the "few bad apples" theory is bullsh!t.

The Government is trying to extract information from people who have no other goal in life than to strap bombs on themselves and blow up people around them.  They can't withhold thier TV priviliges to get the info.  They have to do deal with extreme people with extreme measues.

There have been numerous studies that show extreme rendition DOES NOT WORK. It leads to false information and/or compromised information, and in a majority of cases is less productive than other less violent measures. Believe me, I want to torture the guilty, but not at the price of destroying the innocent in lieu of *finding* the guilty.

What was the other answer? Just keep asking them? What is the alternative?  All the stuff Clinton did after the first Terrorist Bombing? Call a cop? Have lawyers present and put together a case for each one?

Every major player in the first World Trade Center bombing is now locked being bars, and is no longer a threat to our country thanks to this approach. The "Mastermind" Ramzi Yousef, The "Blind" Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman and NINE others. All within three years.

On the other hand, Osama is still free and still a danger to our nation. Zarqawi is still free and a danger to our nation. Mullah Omar is still free and a danger to our nation. All within three years.

One approach took cops and lawyers and succeded. The other approach (Iraq=War on Terror) took $300+ billion, 1,500+ soldiers killed, 150,000+ overseas, hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and hasn't captured a single major player involved in the 2nd World Trade Center attacks (9/11).

HINT: Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and we are not arguing which president was resonsible. Rather, I'm talking about success in capturing those who attacked us, within a certain timeframe.

But we have to protect ourselves and we have to keep living and moving on. 

Initially I didn't want to address the morality/ethics of torture, but rather stick to the hypocrisy of supporting one form while opposing another. The people that support Terri's "right to life" are on the news day after day, describing the horrors she faces with starvation, while at the same time remain supportive of the people that allowed a system in which the very horrors you originally described (Torture is killing their family in front of them, raping their wives, etc.) was taking place, and some believe *still* taking place in Gitmo and elsewhere, since our government has been shipping people to countries that are well versed in torture.

I don't agree that this isn't systemic and convicting a few grunts doesn't convince otherwise. But that is besides the point.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

fredster,

When I talk about hypocrisy, I also mean things like this:

NY Times, 3/23/05:
Among them was Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma and a family practice doctor, who said in an interview, 'I don't think you have to examine her. All you have to do is look at her on TV. Any doctor with any conscience can look at her and know that she does not have a terminal disease and know that she has some function.'

Tulsa World, 7/20/98:
[In] an interview after [Coburn]'s panel appearance, he conceded the issue of caring for a terminally ill patient brings with it complex questions and is not always simple. For example, under certain circumstances when there is no hope of recovery, he said physicians should have the option of withholding nutrients and water from a dying patient. Coburn said he has done that in the past. 'If somebody does not want a feeding tube, I won't put a feeding tube down,' he said.

mrC

[Grasshopper]

Gitmo was people stacking people naked more like a college frat initiation.

I'm glad I didn't go to your college.

Edit: grammar.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Gitmo was people stacking people naked more like a college frat initiation.

I glad I didn't go to your college.

It explains a lot about fredster though. I think I understand him better now.

Plus, that happened in Abu Gharib in Iraq, not Gitmo and it's a cold-hearted, callous thing to say if they are innocent. A lot more happened than stacking people naked, (one man died while hanging from his wrists) show some compassion why don't ya'...a lot of these people held there were released, for christsakes, because they were held for no reason. These weren't the terrorists we were all programmed to see.

edited by saint: No more shock pictures! Link to these if you want, or put them in a thread that clearly states to people what they'll find within.
Picture of Iraqi prisoner, possibly deceased
Picture of deceased Iraqi prisoner with jubilant American soldier standing over
End of edit by saint

So a vegatative women, having her body peacefully shut down*, is somehow worse?


mrC
* For the record, I tend to side with the majority of doctors that have stated she won't feel any pain because that portion of the brain is gone. Beyond that, I believe the body inherently shuts down the nervous system at some point to degrade the amount of pain it would feel in a state like this. Plus, she won't die of "starvation", but rather "dehydration". That's the reason people on hunger-strikes (Ghandi) still drink water. You can go a long time without food, but water is a necessity. Finally, I'd rather advocate injection in her case, but as Florida law (based on religious fundies pandering) doesn't allow for that...removing the feeding tube is really the best, and only, option available.

[Dartful Dodger]

I glad I didn't go to your college.

I is glad me wasn't gone to you is college.

 

[shmokes]

All your college is belong to us.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

She's not even dead yet, and the fundies are already angry. I think the GOP really has the tiger by the tail on this one. The backlash begins.

Gov. Bush Cancels Appearance at Good Friday Service for Fear of Facing Schiavo Supporters
To: National Desk
Contact: Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition [phone number removed]

[Link: http://www.earnedmedia.org/cdc0325.htm]



mrC

[DrewKaree]

There isn't a winning proposition for him since the courts agreed with Mike.

He's probably going to become the Republican's version of John Kerry.

[Chris]

He's probably going to become the Republican's version of John Kerry.

I'm not sure I understand what this means... 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

CNN is reporting that the FBI has arrested a North Carolina man for offering, via the internet, a reward of $200,000 for the murder of Michael Schiavo, and an additional $50,000 for the murder of Judge Greer.

"Right-to-lifers" really crack me up...Irony is dead. It choked to death on it's own vomit.


mrC

[DrewKaree]

From Todd Webb:

His byline link
     "If one good thing comes out of this fiasco, it will be more people drawing up living wills. Seriously, that will dispel the arguments that are sure to follow about what to do with you."

[DrewKaree]

CNN is reporting that the FBI has arrested a North Carolina man for offering, via the internet, a reward of $200,000 for the murder of Michael Schiavo, and an additional $50,000 for the murder of Judge Greer.

"Right-to-lifers" really crack me up...Irony is dead. It choked to death on it's own vomit.

Relax.  Someday they'll try to pass legislation to make actions like that legal someday also.  You may not be alive to see that day, but they'll have argued over pulling your plug long before. 

If it makes you feel all warm and tingly inside that you've "converted" me, I'll be leading the fight to have your plug pulled   Are you currently on a plug now, or should I just start gathering materials for the court?

Dartful, care to take a road trip?  I'll pick ya up on the drive around the big pond there.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Dartful, care to take a road trip?  I'll pick ya up on the drive around the big pond there.

Make sure he knows what your vehicle looks like:



mrC

[DrewKaree]

*insert Napoleon Dynamite voice*

That?  Dude, that's my sweet ride!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Alright, so the Schiavo case is coming to it's inevitable end. If you agree with the courts decision, then Terri is getting her wish. She'll be at peace soon.

That being said, the political fallout from this horrible spectacle will be around for some time to come.

One last thing that I want to share, something I think will come into play after this first stage is over (If the media is worth anything), is this: Tom Delay, the leading advocate for "saving" Terri (apparently from her own wishes), in 1988 pulled the plug on his OWN FATHER.

CANYON LAKE, Texas

[Crazy Cooter]

That doesn't surprise me in the least,
  It's all part of the American Motto:
    "Do as we say, not as we do."

[Crazy Cooter]

Looks like the parents are still in denial about what is going on:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/
"A spokesman for the Schindlers denied a report from David Gibbs III, their lead lawyer, who told CBS

[DrewKaree]

It's just pathetic to see you blithely dismiss the glaring differences in these cases.

DeLay's case (nice link too, I'll do the same ) was regarding "oxygen equipment".  Shindler was being starved.  She had no such problem breathing, and we have no idea if she was or wasn't able to swallow in order to sustain herself because Greer disallowed it, and hearsay, while allowed in deciding if she wanted to die, wasn't allowed in deciding if she could swallow food.  DeLay's comments of what's happening with Shindler are hypocritical?  Try starving your dog to death in Florida, see how that goes.

You ought to write political ads too, Mr Half-the-story.  In Shindler's case, there was dispute by many as to what Terri's wishes were.  The reason it's in dispute is that they're working off of the changed testimony of Schiavo.  In the malpractice suit, he testified that he would need this money for the long-term care Terri would require.  Once he won the malpractice judegement, he now conveniently "remembered" that Terri said she wouldn't want to live like this in that long ago "conversation".

In DeLay's case, you're trying to pin the blame on him because he's the figurehead here.  What you fail to inform everyone else on, is this:

"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old widowed mother, recalled in an interview last week. "There was no way [Charles] wanted to live like that. Tom knew

[DrewKaree]

I can't do it.  I can't sit here and let people wonder if you truly ARE a partisan hack or if it's just namecalling, so here's MrC's story he's talking about.  Read the story for yourself, see if any of you can figure out why there was a lawsuite
See if any of you can see the glaring inconsistencies of MrC's charges and the depths to which he's willing to sink.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-delay27mar27,0,5710023.story

Most notably, and since I realize some won't check that link out, I'll quote it here:

"The preliminary decision to withhold dialysis and other treatments fell to Maxine along with Randall and her daughter Tena

[DrewKaree]

Looks like the parents are still in denial about what is going on:

I suppose it just depends on what part of the news you choose to focus on:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050327/D893IBGO0.html

"The Schindlers said they would stop asking courts to intervene after the Florida Supreme Court rejected their most recent appeal Saturday. The parents were rebuffed repeatedly by federal courts after Congress passed an extraordinary law last weekend allowing the case to be heard by federal judges."

Maybe if it were your child, you'd be more apt able to speak to their "power of denial".

[Dartful Dodger]

Looks like the parents are still in denial about what is going on:

Maybe if it were your child, you'd be more apt to speak to their "power of denial".

No one can deny that her body is still alive.

Her parents will continue to keep her alive as she continues to live.

[Zero_Hour]

The Schindlers are in denial though. Much as we have pointed out that Michael Schiavo has flip flopped on the point of what Terri's wishes were - so too, have the Schindlers flip-flopped on the condition of their daughter. Again going back to the report of the most recently appointed GAL, the schindlers had acknowledged repeatedly that their daughter was in a "persistant vegetative state", something that they now do not acknowledge.  Truly, opinions do vary.

I really see no reason to try and argue this episode in our governance with other cases that may or may not be related. The simple fact - the one we can't deny regardless of our feelings on the matter is this:

The case was run through all possible avenues including the appeals process, including an appeal to the U.S. Supreme court which declined to hear the case. Our Congress took the extrordinary step of demanding that the case be considered again (that seems akin to "double jeopardy" in a criminal case) - which flies in the face of just about everything I ever learned about how the branches of government are intended to balance each other.

We can argue about the validity of hearsay evidence all we want, but the bottom line is that the courts found it admisible, and obviously on appeal, nobody found a reason to overturn that decision. I do feel sorry for all parties involved, simply because most of us have no desire to have the attention of a media circus thrust upon us. When you decide to litigate though, you sahould damn well be prepared for the consequences of a loss.

[Crazy Cooter]

 
Drew that article you linked shows their denial.

Also, in your quote: "The Schindlers said they would stop asking courts to intervene after the Florida Supreme Court rejected their most recent appeal Saturday."

They've been through the whole judicial system (and the executive branch somehow ).
It's to the point now where the courts won't even let them stand in front of a judge anymore.  They don't accept the results from any doctor that has actually done a full diagnosis.  They don't accept the fact that her brain is all juice.  They're in denial.  This didn't happen yesterday, it happened 15 years ago.  That's a loooooooooooooong time to not acknowledge reality.  It isn't healthy.

[Dartful Dodger]

This didn't happen yesterday, it happened 15 years ago.

[Chris]

The people that are upset over Gore losing are still complaining, they won

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It's just pathetic to see you blithely dismiss the glaring differences in these cases.
BLAH BLAH BLAH *Apologist rant* BLAH *Apologist Rant*

Drew,

I am not suprised in the least that you see no irony in the similarities and that you'd immeditely jump to DeLay's defense. You are a member of the Party of DeLay. To admit his hypocrisy is to admit your own.

DeLay's case (nice link too, I'll do the same Roll Eyes ) was regarding "oxygen equipment".  Shindler was being starved.

Both involve life sustaining equipment and a hypocritical blowhard named Tom Delay.

"There was no way [Charles] wanted to live like that. Tom knew

[DrewKaree]

This is really quite simple, if you "argue with integrity at stake."

Mrs. DeLay "pulled the plug" on her husband.

Mr. Schiavo "pulled the plug" on his wife.

If you DON'T have integrity at stake, it's quite easy to lie and tell us that Tom DeLay "pulled the plug" on his father.  Evidently I linked the story correctly, since you have no issue with that, you just saw it as an opportunity to demonstrate ignorance at the facts within it.  Kudos.   


Zero, in the quote Cooter pulled from the story, they're stating they've done just what you said in your final paragraph.  Not saying you have a point worth debating, simply stating that what you said is happening.   

[Dartful Dodger]

One last thing that I want to share...

If only that were true.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This is really quite simple, if you "argue with integrity at stake."

Mrs. DeLay "pulled the plug" on her husband.

Mr. Schiavo "pulled the plug" on his wife.

If you DON'T have integrity at stake, it's quite easy to lie and tell us that Tom DeLay "pulled the plug" on his father.  Evidently I linked the story correctly, since you have no issue with that, you just saw it as an opportunity to demonstrate ignorance at the facts within it.  Kudos.   

Tom Delay was there...did not object. By his definition of life, he should have objected, he didn't, so he's a barbaric murder who pulled the plug. Plain n' simple. It's not me that set this standard, it's him. You can't seem to grasp that. Under the SCCM definition, a feeding tube is life support. DeLay's father was on life support, and in fact, his prognosis would have been better than Terri's as he had a greater chance of coming out of a coma than she does of achieving rehabilitation while missing the majority of her cerebral cortex.

I'm not the only one that finds it hypocritical. Try the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC, Wapo, etc...

The thing you seem to fail to understand is this: by his recent actions and words, Tom DeLay has condemned everyone who has had the misfortune of having to carry out a loved one's dying wish, after he himself, joined his family consensus to let his own father die. By his VERY OWN definition, he is "a murderer who refused to err on the side of life." Don't shoot the messenger here, if that idea makes you mad, which it should (and succesfully has, it seems)...then you should be pissed at Mr.DeLay...not me. I'm only throwing his words back in his face in an attempt to show you how absurd it truly is.

If only you had even one bit of this "integrity" thing I speak of, you'd know better than to defend the likes of Tom Delay. But keep it up though, this is fun to watch.

Furthermore, since you seem to enjoy it so much, here's some more wingnuts from the "morality crusade" for you to defend:

Jesus freak, Scott Heldreth, anti-abortion leader and father of the 10yr-old boy arrested at Schiavo protest, is a registered sex offender.

Bill Tierney; Schiavo protester who weeps at the notion that Terri may "suffer" a torturous death, has himself advocated/practiced torture as Former UNSCOM Inspector, where he also used his God-given powers of divination to proclaim he knew exactly where WMD were hidden in Iraq (confirmed to him by a friend's clairvoyant dream) and could drive there with his eyes closed.

I couldn't have made up that last one if I tried. This Schiavo deal has really brought the right-wing nutjobs out of the woodwork.

To sum up:

Tom DeLay=Unethical Hypocrite
Bible-thumping "Pro-life" protester#1=Multiple Offender/Sexual Predator
Bible-thumping "Pro-life" protester#2=Torturer and "Magician"
Bible-thumping "Pro-life" representative for the Schindler family (Randall Terry)=Censured Adulterer/Pro-violence anti-abortionist






mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

One last thing that I want to share...

If only that were true.

Whaaaat? You mean Tom DeLay's father is still alive?? You better call him right this instant, i'm positive he'd want to know that, it's just been eating him up inside.


mrC

[fredster]

Nice Try MrC, but no dice.

I don't like Tom Delay myself. He's a political hack.

First you say that this is sad case is a "right wing" nut job issue that should be kept private, then you dig up crap like this from the Daily Kos. 

Tom Delay was there...did not object.

So he didn't pull the plug. 

Different situation entirely.  What was the issue here was a battle for custody between parents and estranged husband.  There was enough doubt cast by the family on the exact wishes of Terri that it put this out of the realm of black and white into he said she said.

It also proves that the Bush family follows the rules of Law doesn't it?  They didn't put an executive order down and re-insert and bow to political pressure did they?  Wow, now that would be an easy way out wouldn't it?

What kind of crusade are you on anyway MrC?  What is your world view? I can't fathom it.  I don't understand why you keep hammering on this at all. The Bible pounders have as much right to say what goes on as you do. Actually, there are more of them aren't there?

You call people "Jesus freak" and "right wingnuts".  What is this position you are taking ? "Liberal fanatic" what?





 

[DrewKaree]

Just heard she passed overnight. Jeez o pete, man!  It was a pre-written story that was accidentally published!    Who the hell....nevermind.  Just boggles the mind

Schiavo has decided to have an autopsy done.  Appears as if it will be done on the brain only.  Yeah, because THAT'S the concern  

Nice to hear about Judge Greer's first book.

[DrewKaree]

I may have to REALLY rethink this!

Jesse Jackson and Susan Sarandon have spoken in support of Terri's feeding tube being reinserted.  Has anyone noticed any swine in their area at least hovering off the ground?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

What kind of crusade are you on anyway MrC?  What is your world view? I can't fathom it.  I don't understand why you keep hammering on this at all. The Bible pounders have as much right to say what goes on as you do.

NOTE: As I imagine most people will not read through this, I've bolded the more important points I'm trying to make. fredster, on the other hand, you have to read the whole thing...you asked for it. 

You

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Nice to hear about Judge Greer's first book.

About as predictable as the "selling of Schindler's list."  (Registration required, use http://www.bugmenot.com)

"The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups."

...

"Privacy experts said the sale of the list was legal and even predictable, if ghoulish."


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

One last thing that I want to share

You said this 7 posts ago.

The last two posts are from you.

Sharing with yourself isn't sharing.

[Crazy Cooter]

Wasn't I the first to say the parents were going to cash in?
I wonder how much they got?

[Hoopz]

The ending of a terrible ordeal for all involved.  God rest her soul.

[ChadTower]

Ending?  This is only the beginning, the very beginning.

[Shape D.]

now thats shes passed away politicians will use this as a standing point on what constitutes life support.

They wouldn't touch it as much as they wanted to while she was alive, now its politics without a persons life in jepordy.

I hate polititions.

[DrewKaree]

So the Shindler case opened the door for the case in this thread.  Hip hip, shudder.

Murder by doctor is starting to get a helping hand from murder by judge.  I don't foresee a whole lot of objections to that linked case, either. 

I guess it DOESN'T really matter if you've got a living will, you've gotta TATTOO your wishes to your CHEST so some idiot pencil pusher and an imbecile for a judge can actually see you "may have meant what you said"

[saint]

Well my replies are in the other thread, but:

1. The judge ruled that the woman be fed and life sustaining measures given, at this point. I don't quite see how this is murder by judge at all. Until the judge was brought in, at best this was human error or incompetence by the hospital staff, unless someone shows that they deliberately put the woman in this situation contrary to her wishes. Misunderstanding the extent of a power of attorney is a far cry from deliberately deciding to kill the woman.

2. Something this serious shouldn't be done by amateurs, which is most of us. Have a lawyer help you with your living will and power of attorney documents, and make sure many people have copies of them all.

So the Shindler case opened the door for the case in this thread.  Hip hip, shudder.

Murder by doctor is starting to get a helping hand from murder by judge.  I don't foresee a whole lot of objections to that linked case, either. 

I guess it DOESN'T really matter if you've got a living will, you've gotta TATTOO your wishes to your CHEST so some idiot pencil pusher and an imbecile for a judge can actually see you "may have meant what you said"