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?