Death to Terry Shivo

[mondaynightpoker101]

Who is with me????

[Bill?]

i think they should leave it up to her husband and leave them the fuck alone.

[spectorx51]

i think they should leave it up to her husband and leave them the fuck alone.

If thats what she wanted, I agree>

[Bill?]

If thats what she wanted, I agree>

well you'd think if anybody would know what she wanted, it'd be her husband.

[artimoff]

I know I would want to die if I were like that.

[Shwicaz]

My boyfriend and I were just discussing this. I mean the woman has been in a 'persistent vegetative state' say her doctors since 1990. :shock:

I told Matt that if that were me, pull the plug. He talked about establishing a 'living will' just in case something like this happened.

I just don't understand why Congress/The President is getting involved. :?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers said on Friday they plan to issue a congressional subpoena to keep alive Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman at the heart of a heated debate over the right to die.

"Later this morning, we will issue a subpoena, which will require hospice administrators and attending physicians to preserve nutrition and hydration for Terri Schiavo to allow Congress to fully understand the procedures and practices that are currently keeping her alive," three Republican leaders said in a statement.

The lawmakers -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis of Virginia -- support the reform committee's inquiry into the long-term care of incapacitated or non-ambulatory adults.

The subpoena will be joined by a Senate investigation, the lawmakers said.

"This inquiry should give hope to Terri, her parents and friends, and the millions of people throughout the world who are praying for her safety," the statement said. "This fight is not over."

Schiavo has been fed through a tube since she suffered an incapacitating heart attack in 1990. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, contends she would not have wanted to be kept alive in what court-appointed doctors describe as a persistent vegetative state.

Her parents dispute this, saying their daughter responds to them and could improve with rehabilitation.

"Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert are not members of the Politburo in Stalinist Russia," Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, told Reuters by telephone. "The state does not own Mrs. Schiavo's body and Congress cannot simply order her to remain alive contrary to her medical treatment wishes and court order."

Felos said Congress has no power to enter an injunction. "The only subpoena Congress can issue is to appear before a congressional body," he said.

The House (of Representatives) on Wednesday and the Senate on Thursday passed legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life, by allowing federal courts to review the case. But the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) declined to step in, sending the matter back to a Florida court.

Late Thursday night, several senators announced they were still holding talks and Congress -- which is supposed to start a two-week recess -- might return on Monday to work on the bill. Even if Schiavo's feeding tube is removed at 1 p.m. Friday, death would not be instantaneous.

In a White House statement, President Bush (news - web sites) said, "In instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life." He was due to visit Florida to talk about Social Security (news - web sites) on Friday.

Schiavo was in her mid-20s when she became ill and had no "living will" or written directive about end-of-life care. She remains at the Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida, under police guard. Outside demonstrators held a prayer vigil.

The Florida legislature failed on Thursday to agree on legislation aimed at stopping or delaying removal of the feeding tube, and Republican leaders said prospects were bleak for an agreement on Friday.

[Taxman]

Make a living will, and you can avoid any chance of something like this happening to you.

[TRILL, THE CARBON BASED LIFEFORM]

Who is with me????
Ha. You need to stay up even later tonight to think up something that's inflammatory.

[Shwicaz]

Anyone else find it odd that it took months/years to form a decision on whether to even form a 9/11 committee...

...or how it took months/years to get body armor for our troops in Iraq (and elsewhere--and some still don't have any....)

but when it comes to 'smaller' matters like Steroids in baseball, a federal gay marriage ammendment, and this case here.... everything has to be done right away...?

Congress is supposed to recess for two weeks, but feel this issue is important enough to come back on monday for....

if only they were this dedicated for every issue, not just ones that involve 'right to life' cases, gay cases, or drug cases.

(or is that just the cynic in me talking? )

[bstie1198]

"Fate worse than death" is a phrase that's used too often, but I really think it applies here. Let the poor woman rest in peace.

[Patrick J]

I wouldn't put it like that, but yes, Terry Schiavo should be unplugged and allowed to die.

[uberleslie]

i think half of the tampa bay area (where she 'lives') is ready to pull the plug themselves. this case is always on the news, always in the newspaper, and always being talked about everywhere.

unfortunately, they're not gonna let her die though...even if their bills pass next week after the feeding tube is out, they'll put the it back in. they've done it to her before. then all the people who are standing outside her hospice will say their prayers saved her or some bullshit.

[Fourthman]

They should do what Hal (the Dad) on Malcolm in the Middle did when faced with this dillema a mere 3 weeks ago.

[Balthazar]

I need to make a living will.

[Jonny Z]

They should do what Hal (the Dad) on Malcolm in the Middle did when faced with this dillema a mere 3 weeks ago.

i dont watch the show anymore- what did he do

[Fourthman]

They should do what Hal (the Dad) on Malcolm in the Middle did when faced with this dillema a mere 3 weeks ago.

i dont watch the show anymore- what did he do

Ruining my (and their) joke but the whole episode was him losing his mind from being the one to decide for a neighbor (who had given him the power of attorney in case of this happening).

Going into the last commercial break he makes a decision and coming out of it we get from a conversation between he and Lois that he chose something that no one's ever thought of before (of course, they don't tell us what that is).

[mondaynightpoker101]

Did you know...
Her parents (the ones making the fuss about keeping her alive) have not visited her for over 6 months.

What i do not understand....and perhaps someone could shed some light on this...Their are millions of situations exacty like this case, so why are they making such a big deal about this particular one????

[Raphael J]

Did you know...
Her parents (the ones making the fuss about keeping her alive) have not visited her for over 6 months.

What i do not understand....and perhaps someone could shed some light on this...Their are millions of situations exacty like this case, so why are they making such a big deal about this particular one????

Because lawmakers are getting involved in this one. Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida, has intervened a few times and the House is trying to do so now.

Plus, the family has spread some rumors about her husband (I say rumors because I don't believe they've been proven) about possible spousal abuse/neglect/overall douchiness.

[mondaynightpoker101]

That is my Point....why did lawmakers find the need to get involved in this particular case??? Why not one of the other million case that are exactly the same????

[RegularJoe]

Make a living will, and you can avoid any chance of something like this happening to you.

not really. the hospital'll side with living relatives in a lot of instances.

[Bill?]

Make a living will, and you can avoid any chance of something like this happening to you.

not really. the hospital'll side with living relatives in a lot of instances.

thats why you not only make a living will, but make sure your family knows and agrees with your wishes.
Terri Schiavo had a legal living will that agreed with what her husband says her wishes were, this would have been over years ago.

[Smokinblues]

Make a living will, and you can avoid any chance of something like this happening to you.

not really. the hospital'll side with living relatives in a lot of instances.

thats why you not only make a living will, but make sure your family knows and agrees with your wishes.
Terri Schiavo had a legal living will that agreed with what her husband says her wishes were, this would have been over years ago.

absent a living will it's word versus word. And word versus word, is it not better to side with life? especially since the parents are willing to accept responsiblity and care for her?

It's not like starving to death is a humane way to let someone go.

[Bill?]

absent a living will it's word versus word. And word versus word, is it not better to side with life? especially since the parents are willing to accept responsiblity and care for her?

It's not like starving to death is a humane way to let someone go.

I don't know. I'm not even sure the state shes in is "life". Legally these decisions are supposed to be up the next of kin (in this case the husband). However her parents have been fighting him in court for like 20 years. The husband, if he's not lying, is trying to do what she told him she wanted. The guy has apparently been offered millions of dollars by various people to sign his rights away and he refused.

[Kensington]

Did you know...
Her parents (the ones making the fuss about keeping her alive) have not visited her for over 6 months.
I don't believe this for a second. Where are you getting this?

[Shwicaz]

INELLAS PARK, Fla. (Reuters) - Doctors removed the feeding tube that has kept a brain-damaged Florida woman alive for 15 years on Friday after U.S. lawmakers tried to prolong her life by subpoenaing her to appear before Congress.

The feeding tube was removed from Terri Schiavo, the woman at the heart of a long and furious right-to-die battle, at 1:45 p.m. (1845 GMT) and she was expected to die in seven to 14 days.

Her husband's lawyer called the last-minute attempt by U.S. congressional Republicans to keep the tube in place "nothing short of thuggery" and called Democrats "spineless" for failing to thwart it.

House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay called removing the feeding tube "an act of barbarism."

"Terri Schiavo is alive ... She is as alive as you or I, and as such we have a moral obligation to protect and defend her from the fate premeditated by the Florida courts," DeLay said.

Felos said the congressional action was "odious, it was shocking, it was disgusting and I think all Americans should be very alarmed about that."

"They cannot walk over the dying body of Terri Schiavo for political gain," he added.

Schiavo was 26 when she became ill and had no "living will" or written directive about what end-of-life care she might want.

After hearing testimony from doctors and neurologists, the Florida courts ruled that the cardiac arrest robbed her brain of "all but the most instinctive of neurological functions" and that there was no hope she could regain consciousness.

It ruled that she would not have wanted continued life support based in part on a relative's testimony that when her husband's grandmother was being kept alive by a respirator, Terri Schiavo had said, "If I ever go like that, just let me go ... I don't want to be kept alive on a machine."

[Blake Sims]

just let her go

[Jamie Howdeshell]

let the poor woman die. if this country would get a freakin' clue and actually properly address the issue of euthanasia and a person's right to maybe die with at least some dignity, we wouldn't have to let her starve to death.


what i love is that some of the people making the biggest stink over this don't appear to care less about the thousands of innocents killed in the iraq war. i guess it's just a matter of perspective.
:roll:


the spouse versus parents aspect of this is interesting to me. i think most people would be pissed if their parents' wishes were honored over those of their spouses'. spouses are more important than parents. at least, they should be.

[Kensington]

The "spouse" is a joke. He has a common-law marriage and children with another woman. He didn't bother to "remember" that Terri "wanted" to die until she'd been her present state for seven years. A nurse who worked at the convalescent center where Terri lived in the mid 90s swore an affidavit that: "Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch gonna die?'"

This isn't about "letting" a woman die. Nobody can prove what Terri wanted, nothing is on paper, her family wants to care for her, her "husband" is a sleazebag, and she is being killed in a nightmarish manner, not "allowed" to die.

The whole thing is disgusting and dismaying.

But hey, go ahead and make cheap jokes about it or use it to try and score cheap political points about the Iraq war.

[Kensington]

...the woman has been in a 'persistent vegetative state' say her doctors since 1990.

According to Terri's advocates, it is a myth that she is in a "persistent vegetative state." According to Florida Statute 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.

So there is conflicting perspectives on the matter, in which case we should err on the side of letting her live and be cared for by the people who love her and want to take care of her.

[Bill?]

The "spouse" is a joke. He has a common-law marriage and children with another woman. He didn't bother to "remember" that Terri "wanted" to die until she'd been her present state for seven years. A nurse who worked at the convalescent center where Terri lived in the mid 90s swore an affidavit that: "Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch gonna die?'"

This isn't about "letting" a woman die. Nobody can prove what Terri wanted, nothing is on paper, her family wants to care for her, her "husband" is a sleazebag, and she is being killed in a nightmarish manner, not "allowed" to die.

The whole thing is disgusting and dismaying.

But hey, go ahead and make cheap jokes about it or use it to try and score cheap political points about the Iraq war.



Yeah, but you're also getting into things that aren’t part of the issue. You’re really just judging him for two things, moving on, and still wanting to carry out his wife’s wishes. But the real issue is, is this what she would have wanted (and this is what time and time gain the courts have ruled). And he husband is the person that legally is supposed to make that decision. He is her spouse, and as such, is also her legal guardian. Which means he gets to make decisions regarding her legal care.
Also, you ignore that there have been something like 21 legal decisions made in this case, and they have ALL ruled that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state. They’ve even had "impartial" doctors examine her. By the way it was only three years, just after therapy had failed, that Michael Schiavo signed a do not resuscitate order for his wife.
This thing is disgusting and dismaying because there is no reason at all for this to have gone on this long. There is no reason so many courts and politicians should have been involved. This case is about whether or not a man has a right to make medical decisions for his wife.
Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, and the husband was arguing that what his wife wanted was to be kept alive. Would you still think he parents should decide?

[Raydawggie]

I think the husband is a douche, but I also know that if it was me, I'd want to be killed instantly. After watching The Sea Inside I promptly let my family know that if I was ever in that situation or anything like it, where there was no hope of recovery, I'd want to be unplugged post haste. And I'm working on getting my living will made up. Yeah, I'm only 21 and it's a bit morbid, but a casual acquaintance of mine was hit by a bus and killed last year. I'm not taking any chances.

[Shannon Chenoweth]

I have one thing to say about this, and I'm not reading the other posts since I'm about to get ready for the con.
I totally believe that they should let her parents be in charge of her. They WANT to take care of her, so the husband should just let them. He doen't care what happens to her anymore.

RC

[Taxman]

I have one thing to say about this, and I'm not reading the other posts since I'm about to get ready for the con.
I totally believe that they should let her parents be in charge of her. They WANT to take care of her, so the husband should just let them. He doen't care what happens to her anymore.

RC

But he is her guardian by law. He also claims that she never wanted to live in this type of state. Were it my wife, I wouldn’t give up the fight either. We both have living wills though, thank The Maker!

[sonnylarue]

My boyfriend and I were just discussing this. I mean the woman has been in a 'persistent vegetative state' say her doctors since 1990. :shock:

I told Matt that if that were me, pull the plug. He talked about establishing a 'living will' just in case something like this happened.

I just don't understand why Congress/The President is getting involved. :?

because they're ASSHOLES.

15 years in a vegetative state? That's a living death, and I'm beyond repulsed at this congressional intervention. They have no shame.

[gwyllgi]

I'd get a living will made up for stuff like this. I wouldn't want to be kept alive by a machine.


And it's fucking sick that someone would want their daughter to live like that.

If I'm ever in that state I hope they let me die.

Hell, I hope someone puts a bullet between my eyes to make it quicker.


And, Rangerchic, you can't just decide on a new legal guardian like that, because you favor their decision. The husband is the LEGAL GUARDIAN and he will STAY the legal guardian for as long as they are married or he signs his rights over.

Them taking that from him just because they're her parents is illegal. Just like capping the poor woman would be.

[sonnylarue]

That is my Point....why did lawmakers find the need to get involved in this particular case??? Why not one of the other million case that are exactly the same????

because many landmark legislation or judiciary decisions come from a single case being petitioned.

Roe Vs Wade (abortion) , Plessy Vs Ferguson (created sepreste but equal) , etc .

This case raises the issue for all those who are in similar situations , with no lving will.

[King of Mars]

I'd get a living will made up for stuff like this. I wouldn't want to be kept alive by a machine.


And it's fucking sick that someone would want their daughter to live like that.

It's sick to not want to starve your daughter to death when you think she shows signs of awareness and recognition? Color me sick then, because I certainly wouldn't want to do that.

http://www.tldm.org/news6/terri.jpg

And, Rangerchic, you can't just decide on a new legal guardian like that, because you favor their decision. The husband is the LEGAL GUARDIAN and he will STAY the legal guardian for as long as they are married or he signs his rights over.

Them taking that from him just because they're her parents is illegal. Just like capping the poor woman would be.

So...you're saying that the decision of the guardian/acting health care agent should always be followed, no matter how flawed his/her decision making might be? That's a scary proposition. The parents have every right to challenge the husband's decision because A) they feel like he's made a bad choice and B) they don't feel he's looking out for his wife's best interests. They're challenging him through legal channels so what's the problem?

[Bill?]

I have one thing to say about this, and I'm not reading the other posts since I'm about to get ready for the con.
I totally believe that they should let her parents be in charge of her. They WANT to take care of her, so the husband should just let them. He doen't care what happens to her anymore.

RC

I think he must. He’s been offered millions of dollars to sign her care over to her parents. He claims he's just trying to do what she told him she wanted.
Just because he may have started to move on in his personal life, doesn’t mean he doesn’t still want to do what she would have wanted.

[Shwicaz]

new info:

Bush, Congress Set to Act in Right-To-Die Case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) cut short a holiday to return to Washington and be ready to sign a bill that may keep a brain-damaged woman alive in a case pitting Christian conservatives against right-to-die activists.

In a rare Sunday session, the U.S. House of Representatives was to discuss a deal aimed at pushing the Florida case into federal court and restoring the feeding tube that has kept Terri Schiavo alive for the past 15 years.

"The president intends to sign legislation as quickly as possible once it is passed," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "This is about defending life."

A deal on the bill, which could be approved by Monday, was forged on Saturday, 24 hours after doctors removed the 41-year-old woman's feeding tube under a Florida court order.

Bush was to return to Washington from a break at his Texas ranch.

Schiavo's husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, has long argued -- and has been supported by the courts -- that his wife would not have wanted to live in such a condition.

Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have persistently appealed, believing their daughter responds to them and could improve with treatment.

Supporters of the bill believe that a judge would ask for the feeding tube to be reinserted so Schiavo did not die before a U.S. federal court review required by the legislation was complete.

"It would be irresponsible not to begin by preserving the individual about whom the case is to be about," Sen. Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican, told a news conference. He compared it to death-penalty cases subject to federal review.

Schiavo has been fed through a stomach tube since a heart attack starved her brain of oxygen in 1990, leaving her in what the courts declared was a persistent vegetative state.

The tube feeding has twice been halted and resumed in the past amid legal wrangles and she was expected to survive for one to two weeks without the tube.

Until now, federal courts have turned the case back to state courts during a bitter seven-year legal battle over Schiavo's fate. But intense lobbying by Christian conservatives and widespread publicity have made the issue a political test case.

"GREAT POLITICAL ISSUE"

A memo distributed to Republican senators by party leaders called the case a "great political issue" and a "tough issue for Democrats," the Washington Post said in its Sunday edition.

It said the case would excite the party's anti-abortion base and put pressure on Florida Sen. Bill Nelson (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat who faces re-election next year.

Husband Michael Schiavo assailed the congressional attempts to intervene.

"They should be ashamed of themselves," he said in an interview with CBS television before the latest deal was disclosed. "Leave my wife alone. Leave me alone."



Schiavo's mother urged politicians in Florida and Washington to help keep her daughter alive.

"My daughter is in the building behind me starving to death. We laugh together, we cry together, we smile together, we talk together. She is my life," Mary Schindler said before visiting her daughter Saturday.

Martinez rejected criticisms that lawmakers were grandstanding over the issue.

"Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a difficult, gut-wrenching issue," he said.

Dozens of people protested outside the Florida hospice where Schiavo has lived in recent years. At least two were arrested on Saturday when they tried to cross a police line with a symbolic offering of food and water for her.

[chrisfasowned]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?

[DaveCummings]

I think that they should let her live.

What her Husband said about what she wanted is kinda fishy anyways. I mean, he waited a couple of years, after he won like a million bucks through a malpractice suit before he was like "oh yeah, she didn't want to live that way, she told me that one time before when we were watching TV". I mean, you'd think the guy would of expressed that immediately.

That and after seeing footage of the lady on TV, I don't think she is in a persistant Vegatative state. It's funny though, a couple of doctors say she is, but then there are alot of other doctors who disagree with that.

I know alot of you say that if it was you, you'd want to die. But, with her parents, they see a spark of life in there, it may be faint, but to them it's there. And to them as long as it is there, hope remains that she may recover. I mean, she is not going to get up and sing and dance a jig, but they have hope that she will recover, at least somewhat.

But, yeah it's up to the caretaker overall, which is Michael.

But, at the same time, if he really felt like he just didn't want her to go on after a couple of frustrating years of her in this condition, maybe all of a sudden saying that she didn't want this after all this time has passed was not that good of a tactic. I mean if he just said straight up, "Look guys, I know you're her parents and you still hope for the best, but this is really frustrating to me and I really don't think that she would want to live this way for this long". I think that things would probably have gone alot more smoothly.


~Dave

[King of Mars]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?

Yeah, that's what freaks me out. As I stated in the other Terry Schiavo thread, I work for an agency that provides residential care for retarded/handicapped individuals. Plenty of them are severely brain damaged, plenty of them are fed through feeding tubes. Their care is maintained, they are kept comfortable, and their continued existence means a lot to their loved ones and the people that care for them. No one would EVER consider removing their feeding tubes and starving them to death in order to 'end the suffering'. That's just crazy.

[GoddessOKay]

Anyone else find it odd that it took months/years to form a decision on whether to even form a 9/11 committee...

...or how it took months/years to get body armor for our troops in Iraq (and elsewhere--and some still don't have any....)

but when it comes to 'smaller' matters like Steroids in baseball, a federal gay marriage ammendment, and this case here.... everything has to be done right away...?

Congress is supposed to recess for two weeks, but feel this issue is important enough to come back on monday for....

if only they were this dedicated for every issue, not just ones that involve 'right to life' cases, gay cases, or drug cases.

(or is that just the cynic in me talking? )
nope, you're right :|

[Kensington]

I mean, he waited a couple of years, after he won like a million bucks through a malpractice suit before he was like "oh yeah, she didn't want to live that way, she told me that one time before when we were watching TV". I mean, you'd think the guy would of expressed that immediately.
He waited four years after the malpracticue suit (7 years after she first went into her coma) before saying that she told him not to let her live. That does seem fishy to me.

However, to be fair to him, it looks like he has not, and will not, profit personally from any leftover malpractice money, which has been pledged to charity. It also seems that his brother and sister also testified as to Terri's wish not to be kept alive in unusual circumstances.

Still, although the judge didn't think it was significant that this information took seven years to disclose, I'm not so blaise. It's not like the importance of telling the truth in court hasn't taken a severe beating in this country over the last ten years. There are a lot of people who would commit perjury as long as it was for what they perceived was a greater good. :?

[Kensington]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?
It's "humane" to starve someone to death? We don't even let people do that to their dogs because it would be inhumane. We can't do that to death row prisoners because it would be cruel and unusual.

[xyzzy]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?
It's "humane" to starve someone to death? We don't even let people do that to their dogs because it would be inhumane. We can't do that to death row prisoners because it would be cruel and unusual.

She's already dead. Her body is just being kept alive.

[xyzzy]

That is my Point....why did lawmakers find the need to get involved in this particular case??? Why not one of the other million case that are exactly the same????

because many landmark legislation or judiciary decisions come from a single case being petitioned.

Roe Vs Wade (abortion) , Plessy Vs Ferguson (created sepreste but equal) , etc .

This case raises the issue for all those who are in similar situations , with no lving will.

Did Congress try to pass emergency legislation to circumvent the court rulings in those cases, though?

[Bill?]

Did Congress try to pass emergency legislation to circumvent the court rulings in those cases, though?

No. And it’s a ridiculous overriding of states rights that they're intervening in this case.

[chrisfasowned]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?
It's "humane" to starve someone to death? We don't even let people do that to their dogs because it would be inhumane. We can't do that to death row prisoners because it would be cruel and unusual.

She's already dead. Her body is just being kept alive.

kensington, you made my point for me. thank you.

xyzzy, BZZT, WRONG! she's not being "kept alive" she was being FED. hello? depriving someone of nourishment is STARVATION.

to reiterate a previous post:

Yeah, that's what freaks me out. As I stated in the other Terry Schiavo thread, I work for an agency that provides residential care for retarded/handicapped individuals. Plenty of them are severely brain damaged, plenty of them are fed through feeding tubes. Their care is maintained, they are kept comfortable, and their continued existence means a lot to their loved ones and the people that care for them. No one would EVER consider removing their feeding tubes and starving them to death in order to 'end the suffering'. That's just crazy.

i don't see how people could think it's okay to let someone starve to death. it's an agonizing and horrible way to die...

[quote="quote"]Starvation is the most severe form of malnutrition. It may result from fasting, famine, anorexia nervosa, catastrophic disease of the GI tract, stroke, or coma. The basic metabolic response to starvation is conservation of energy and body tissues. However, the body will mobilize its own tissues as a source of energy, which results in the destruction of visceral organs and muscle and in extreme shrinkage of adipose tissue. Total starvation is fatal in 8 to 12 wk(s)[/qoute]

http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section1/chapter2/2b.jsp

...8 to 12 weeks?! this is how long it could take terri schaivo to die. Jesus Christ, how sick and insensitive can people be to think it's okay to remove her feeding tube so she can pass away like this?

[xyzzy]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?
It's "humane" to starve someone to death? We don't even let people do that to their dogs because it would be inhumane. We can't do that to death row prisoners because it would be cruel and unusual.

She's already dead. Her body is just being kept alive.

kensington, you made my point for me. thank you.

xyzzy, BZZT, WRONG! she's not being "kept alive" she was being FED. hello? depriving someone of nourishment is STARVATION.


She has no mental activity. Her mind is gone. Whatever's left there isn't a person, it's just a body.

[Bill?]

kensington, you made my point for me. thank you.

xyzzy, BZZT, WRONG! she's not being "kept alive" she was being FED. hello? depriving someone of nourishment is STARVATION.



She’s considered clinically dead. She’s not like a retarded person with a limited understanding or anything like that. Her mind is gone. A feeding tube is considered a life saving machine just like a respirator.
Legally. The husband is well within his rights. as has been proven time and time again in the courts.
It’s absolutely insane that this has gone on as long as it has and that congress has no injected itself into this. There hasn’t been such a large overriding of states rights and the separation of powers in decades.

[Smokinblues]

kensington, you made my point for me. thank you.

xyzzy, BZZT, WRONG! she's not being "kept alive" she was being FED. hello? depriving someone of nourishment is STARVATION.



She’s considered clinically dead. She’s not like a retarded person with a limited understanding or anything like that. Her mind is gone. A feeding tube is considered a life saving machine just like a respirator.
Legally. The husband is well within his rights. as has been proven time and time again in the courts.
It’s absolutely insane that this has gone on as long as it has and that congress has no injected itself into this. There hasn’t been such a large overriding of states rights and the separation of powers in decades.

Not since Roe v Wade.

[Bill?]

Not since Roe v Wade.

before that even. I don't think congress even intervened there.

[sonnylarue]

It’s absolutely insane that this has gone on as long as it has and that congress has now injected itself into this. There hasn’t been such a large overriding of states rights and the separation of powers in decades.


even more so that it's THE GOP leading the charge, who up until this religious sect took full control of the party, was all about LESS INTERVENTION from the federal gov't in private lives.


a complete 180 from the party who came to power in 1994 with the contract for america.

I wish some real CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS would explain to their supposed moral GOP pals, that leaving things to "God's Will" would not include force feeding tubes.

The congress has become the living definition of unmitigated gall.

[Shane W]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?
It's "humane" to starve someone to death? We don't even let people do that to their dogs because it would be inhumane. We can't do that to death row prisoners because it would be cruel and unusual.

She's already dead. Her body is just being kept alive.

kensington, you made my point for me. thank you.

xyzzy, BZZT, WRONG! she's not being "kept alive" she was being FED. hello? depriving someone of nourishment is STARVATION.


She has no mental activity. Her mind is gone. Whatever's left there isn't a person, it's just a body.

Actually the way they do it is very humane, she'll be so morphined up, that even if she can feel pain, she won't notice. I wish euthunasia was permitted in cases like this.

[Patrick J]

Actually the way they do it is very humane, she'll be so morphined up, that even if she can feel pain, she won't notice. I wish euthunasia was permitted in cases like this.

Too bad the Medical Industry won't ever allow that to happen.

I said earlier, and I'll say it again, the woman should be allowed to die.

Personally, I don't doubt that the husband has ulterior motives, based on what I've read, even still, she should be allowed to die.

It's nice that the parents want to take care of her and all that, but they shouldn't be clinging onto a hope of something that is never going to happen.

There's all this talk that "Ohhhh poor Terry, she can think, she has limited brain activity" and yadda yadda yadda. IF there's anything left of Terry Shiavo left in that broken body, who's to say she isn't saying "Kill me now, please."

[mario]

sigh, give her a shot so she can get her peace.

The husband has turned down a million dollars to let her live. That's what i call a loving thing to do. Sometimes it's better to die with dignity that an embarrasmently prolonged "non-death"

If the parents truely love her daughter, they wouldn't let her suffer like this anymore. It's time for closure

[King of Mars]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?
It's "humane" to starve someone to death? We don't even let people do that to their dogs because it would be inhumane. We can't do that to death row prisoners because it would be cruel and unusual.

She's already dead. Her body is just being kept alive.

kensington, you made my point for me. thank you.

xyzzy, BZZT, WRONG! she's not being "kept alive" she was being FED. hello? depriving someone of nourishment is STARVATION.


She has no mental activity. Her mind is gone. Whatever's left there isn't a person, it's just a body.

Well, there are thousands of brain damaged/retarded people in care facilities all over the country who have very little brain activity and might be described as 'vegetables'. I'd be willing to guess that a significant amount of them rely on feeding tubes to survive. Should we remove all their tubes so that we can 'end the suffering' and 'allow' them to die? This woman isn't being 'allowed to die', she's being killed. The means exist to care for her and maintain her comfort. If she has loved ones that want to keep her around and are willing to provide care, I don't see any reason to condemn her to this slow death.

[Ashton]

They need to let her go- that's no way to live.

[sonnylarue]

Well, there are thousands of brain damaged/retarded people in care facilities all over the country who have very little brain activity and might be described as 'vegetables'. I'd be willing to guess that a significant amount of them rely on feeding tubes to survive. Should we remove all their tubes so that we can 'end the suffering' and 'allow' them to die? This woman isn't being 'allowed to die', she's being killed. The means exist to care for her and maintain her comfort. If she has loved ones that want to keep her around and are willing to provide care, I don't see any reason to condemn her to this slow death.


your arguement is based on speculation, while doctors, lawyers, and judges have spent REAL TIME dealing with the facts of this case.

Congress is getting involved in a personal family matter, that has been resolved by the florida courts.

There are no laws being broken here. The federal gov't is overstepping its bounds in a very shallow display of pandering, to cater to a group of voters.

This woman's "slow death" has been going on for 15 years.

[XSaraXPoeX]

I honestly don't know how to feel about this. It's a horrible thing to live that way but starving to death is even worse. I believe that she has the right to live no matter what condition she's in, but I also believe that if she said she didn't want to live that way then she shouldn't have to.

I'm just it's not a decision I have to make on someone I love.

[Anad]

In some ways comparing:

Have you ever seen a chicken get it's head cut off. It will fly around for a good deal of time... without a head. Even sometimes landing and then walking around.

Unfortunately Terri is somewhat like a chicken, we all are.

From what I have read and seen on interviews, Terri has her lower brain intact, but not her upper brain capacity. Her movements are random and involuntary.

I'm also speaking from a little experience as I had a fiancee die in a coma. My fiancee's parents were the least realistic about the situation. Especially her Mother. See took every twitch as a sign that she was trying to comunicate. Meanwhile the brainwaves showed no sign of this. Thankfully no one had to make a decision to unplug or remove anything in my fiancee's case. She passed on her own, but was hooked up to machines at the time giving her food and oxygen.

[Kensington]

IF there's anything left of Terry Shiavo left in that broken body, who's to say she isn't saying "Kill me now, please."
"Who's to say?" I don't know, but if it's true that no one can say with any certainty what she wants, I think it's more appropriate to err on the side of life.

[DaveCummings]

In some ways comparing:

From what I have read and seen on interviews, Terri has her lower brain intact, but not her upper brain capacity. Her movements are random and involuntary.


I am not too sure about that. There's an audiotape Terri's father recorded after the feeding tube was removed on Friday. He went in there talking to her. First she was quiet, then as he asked her how was she feeling, she started to moan. All of the moans were just general and could be viewed as involuntary or whatever. That is until he tried to get her to tell him hello. The moans sounded like she was trying to vocalize. Michael and the doctors try to say that she won't feel pain as she starves. Well, if she can't feel pain, why do they have to give her pain relievers once a month due to menstrual cramps, which cause her to moan in pain?

The thing is PVS which she is supposedly in, is misdiagnosed 40% percent of the time. We need other doctors in there to view her condition and give thier diagnosis, not just the ones that Michael selected himself.

The doctors try to say that there is no progress. Yeah, there would be no progress, when she is denied outside stimuli. I mean, he won't let the curtains be drawn so sun can be in the room, they are not allowed to have the TV or radio on, they can't even brush her goddamned teeth. I mean, the only stimuli she recieves is from her parents. It's almost as he doesn't want her to have stimulus because she you know, might actually make progress.

~Dave

[Kensington]

In some ways comparing:

From what I have read and seen on interviews, Terri has her lower brain intact, but not her upper brain capacity. Her movements are random and involuntary.

I am not too sure about that. There's an audiotape Terri's father recorded after the feeding tube was removed on Friday. He went in there talking to her. First she was quiet, then as he asked her how was she feeling, she started to moan. All of the moans were just general and could be viewed as involuntary or whatever. That is until he tried to get her to tell him hello. The moans sounded like she was trying to vocalize. Michael and the doctors try to say that she won't feel pain as she starves. Well, if she can't feel pain, why do they have to give her pain relievers once a month due to menstrual cramps, which cause her to moan in pain?

The thing is PVS which she is supposedly in, is misdiagnosed 40% percent of the time. We need other doctors in there to view her condition and give thier diagnosis, not just the ones that Michael selected himself.

The doctors try to say that there is no progress. Yeah, there would be no progress, when she is denied outside stimuli. I mean, he won't let the curtains be drawn so sun can be in the room, they are not allowed to have the TV or radio on, they can't even brush her goddamned teeth. I mean, the only stimuli she recieves is from her parents. It's almost as he doesn't want her to have stimulus because she you know, might actually make progress.
I heard that tape last night -- it's chilling, but I'm sure it could *only* be incidental winds passing through her vocal chords accidentally; the state told me so. Besides, life is only for the obviously robust, especially if George W. Bush wants her to live. In any case, starving her to death will soon put a stop to this.

Well, maybe not *soon,* but, you know...eventually.

Maybe a compromise could be reached. We'll keep her alive, and in return she'll be allowed to vote Democrat in the next elections. Maybe that would change Barney Frank's mind...

And also, any Republican who is championing this poor woman solely for political gain is a douchebag, too, but at least their partisanship serves the cause of life.

[Brendan]

The fact that this issue is even debated shows how low our culture has fallen. Terri is not in a vegitative state. She's not brain dead. And this isn't about unplugging a machine that makes her heart beat or helps her breathe. We're talking about STARVING a woman to death. Inhumane doesn't even begin to describe this. We treat convicted murderers better than this poor woman.

And those of you championing the supposed rights of her "husband" need to get all the facts. There's a lot of shady stuff going on with this guy. There's more than a little suspicion that the accident that put Terri in this state was brought on by abuse. When it first happened, the husband swore to do everything he could for her. Then he found a new woman, with whom he has been living with for years, fathered children, but still has not divorced Terri. He has repeatedly refused to answer questions concerning the Life Insurance policy he took out on Terri, of which he would be the solde beneficiary in the event of her death.

This isn't about the right to die. This is about the right of a man to starve his incapacitated wife to death in order to collect a bunch of cash.

We're a sick, deprived culture to allow this to happen.

[Kensington]

The fact that this issue is even debated shows how low our culture has fallen. Terri is not in a vegitative state. She's not brain dead. And this isn't about unplugging a machine that makes her heart beat or helps her breathe. We're talking about STARVING a woman to death. Inhumane doesn't even begin to describe this. We treat convicted murderers better than this poor woman.

And those of you championing the supposed rights of her "husband" need to get all the facts. There's a lot of shady stuff going on with this guy. There's more than a little suspicion that the accident that put Terri in this state was brought on by abuse. When it first happened, the husband swore to do everything he could for her. Then he found a new woman, with whom he has been living with for years, fathered children, but still has not divorced Terri. He has repeatedly refused to answer questions concerning the Life Insurance policy he took out on Terri, of which he would be the solde beneficiary in the event of her death.

This isn't about the right to die. This is about the right of a man to starve his incapacitated wife to death in order to collect a bunch of cash.

We're a sick, deprived culture to allow this to happen.
BRAVO!

[Miken Ayers]

If thats what she wanted, I agree>

well you'd think if anybody would know what she wanted, it'd be her husband.

Or maybe the husband wants to go pick up chicks again, but has this warped sense of honor.

[Brendan]

i think they should leave it up to her husband and leave them the fuck alone.

I'm sure Scott Peterson agrees with you 100%.

[Fourthman]

i think they should leave it up to her husband and leave them the fuck alone.

I'm sure Scott Peterson agrees with you 100%.

Classy, how very Roy Cohn of you.

[Brendan]

Roy Cohn

Who???

[TyPierce]

My boyfriend and I were just discussing this. I mean the woman has been in a 'persistent vegetative state' say her doctors since 1990. :shock:

I told Matt that if that were me, pull the plug. He talked about establishing a 'living will' just in case something like this happened.

I just don't understand why Congress/The President is getting involved. :?

I believe because it's politically convenient.

Check this out... Link: GOP memo says issue offers political rewards (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002213728_memo20.html)

It's sad, because the husband's been fighting this in court for 7 years, and now he gets to watch his wife become a political tool.

Horrible.

[Kensington]

My boyfriend and I were just discussing this. I mean the woman has been in a 'persistent vegetative state' say her doctors since 1990. :shock:

I told Matt that if that were me, pull the plug. He talked about establishing a 'living will' just in case something like this happened.

I just don't understand why Congress/The President is getting involved. :?

I believe because it's politically convenient.

Check this out... Link: GOP memo says issue offers political rewards (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002213728_memo20.html)

It's sad, because the husband's been fighting this in court for 7 years, and now he gets to watch his wife become a political tool.

Horrible.
Just because some callous douchebag writes a memo, that doesn't mean that everyone (or anyone, for that matter) in his party agrees with him.

[Anad]

The fact that this issue is even debated shows how low our culture has fallen. Terri is not in a vegitative state. She's not brain dead. And this isn't about unplugging a machine that makes her heart beat or helps her breathe. We're talking about STARVING a woman to death. Inhumane doesn't even begin to describe this. We treat convicted murderers better than this poor woman.

And those of you championing the supposed rights of her "husband" need to get all the facts. There's a lot of shady stuff going on with this guy. There's more than a little suspicion that the accident that put Terri in this state was brought on by abuse. When it first happened, the husband swore to do everything he could for her. Then he found a new woman, with whom he has been living with for years, fathered children, but still has not divorced Terri. He has repeatedly refused to answer questions concerning the Life Insurance policy he took out on Terri, of which he would be the solde beneficiary in the event of her death.

This isn't about the right to die. This is about the right of a man to starve his incapacitated wife to death in order to collect a bunch of cash.

We're a sick, deprived culture to allow this to happen.

Sorry, it looks to me that she is brain dead.

Do you realize that starvation and dehydration is how most people die? People get old and their body shuts itself down. They loose the desire to eat, drink and then slowly die. Have you ever visited retirement homes? I've visited with the elderly and this is a very common occurrence.

This entire situation is being over simplified and at the same time exaggerated for the gain of a politicians and power mongers such as James Dobson.

It is about the right to die in a humane way rather then being propped up by technology like a exhibit at a side show.

I understand people have different frames of reference for things and it is good to have dialogue on these and other issues, but many will never be simply rapped up because of all the manipulation of facts.

[Shane W]

The fact that this issue is even debated shows how low our culture has fallen. Terri is not in a vegitative state. She's not brain dead. And this isn't about unplugging a machine that makes her heart beat or helps her breathe. We're talking about STARVING a woman to death. Inhumane doesn't even begin to describe this. We treat convicted murderers better than this poor woman.

And those of you championing the supposed rights of her "husband" need to get all the facts. There's a lot of shady stuff going on with this guy. There's more than a little suspicion that the accident that put Terri in this state was brought on by abuse. When it first happened, the husband swore to do everything he could for her. Then he found a new woman, with whom he has been living with for years, fathered children, but still has not divorced Terri. He has repeatedly refused to answer questions concerning the Life Insurance policy he took out on Terri, of which he would be the solde beneficiary in the event of her death.

This isn't about the right to die. This is about the right of a man to starve his incapacitated wife to death in order to collect a bunch of cash.

We're a sick, deprived culture to allow this to happen.

Sorry, it looks to me that she is brain dead.

Do you realize that starvation and dehydration is how most people die? People get old and their body shuts itself down. They loose the desire to eat, drink and then slowly die. Have you ever visited retirement homes? I've visited with the elderly and this is a very common occurrence.

This entire situation is being over simplified and at the same time exaggerated for the gain of a politicians and power mongers such as James Dobson.

It is about the right to die in a humane way rather then being propped up by technology like a exhibit at a side show.

I understand people have different frames of reference for things and it is good to have dialogue on these and other issues, but many will never be simply rapped up because of all the manipulation of facts.

A guy at work just came in and was talking about this.. He said if starvation is so humane, why are the left so hell bent of feeding the hungry?

I have to admit, I got a chuckle out of it.

[Bill?]

i think they should leave it up to her husband and leave them the fuck alone.

I'm sure Scott Peterson agrees with you 100%.

so your message here is -"i gave no real argument anymore so i'll just make an inflamatory statement and prove myself a douche."

[Anad]

The fact that this issue is even debated shows how low our culture has fallen. Terri is not in a vegitative state. She's not brain dead. And this isn't about unplugging a machine that makes her heart beat or helps her breathe. We're talking about STARVING a woman to death. Inhumane doesn't even begin to describe this. We treat convicted murderers better than this poor woman.

And those of you championing the supposed rights of her "husband" need to get all the facts. There's a lot of shady stuff going on with this guy. There's more than a little suspicion that the accident that put Terri in this state was brought on by abuse. When it first happened, the husband swore to do everything he could for her. Then he found a new woman, with whom he has been living with for years, fathered children, but still has not divorced Terri. He has repeatedly refused to answer questions concerning the Life Insurance policy he took out on Terri, of which he would be the solde beneficiary in the event of her death.

This isn't about the right to die. This is about the right of a man to starve his incapacitated wife to death in order to collect a bunch of cash.

We're a sick, deprived culture to allow this to happen.

Sorry, it looks to me that she is brain dead.

Do you realize that starvation and dehydration is how most people die? People get old and their body shuts itself down. They loose the desire to eat, drink and then slowly die. Have you ever visited retirement homes? I've visited with the elderly and this is a very common occurrence.

This entire situation is being over simplified and at the same time exaggerated for the gain of a politicians and power mongers such as James Dobson.

It is about the right to die in a humane way rather then being propped up by technology like a exhibit at a side show.

I understand people have different frames of reference for things and it is good to have dialogue on these and other issues, but many will never be simply rapped up because of all the manipulation of facts.

A guy at work just came in and was talking about this.. He said if starvation is so humane, why are the left so hell bent of feeding the hungry?

I have to admit, I got a chuckle out of it.

It is a funny joke, but he's admitting that the Right doesn't give a rats ass about the Hungry unless it is for political gain?

Of course there is a difference as I'm sure you are aware. You are a smart guy.

[Shane W]

The fact that this issue is even debated shows how low our culture has fallen. Terri is not in a vegitative state. She's not brain dead. And this isn't about unplugging a machine that makes her heart beat or helps her breathe. We're talking about STARVING a woman to death. Inhumane doesn't even begin to describe this. We treat convicted murderers better than this poor woman.

And those of you championing the supposed rights of her "husband" need to get all the facts. There's a lot of shady stuff going on with this guy. There's more than a little suspicion that the accident that put Terri in this state was brought on by abuse. When it first happened, the husband swore to do everything he could for her. Then he found a new woman, with whom he has been living with for years, fathered children, but still has not divorced Terri. He has repeatedly refused to answer questions concerning the Life Insurance policy he took out on Terri, of which he would be the solde beneficiary in the event of her death.

This isn't about the right to die. This is about the right of a man to starve his incapacitated wife to death in order to collect a bunch of cash.

We're a sick, deprived culture to allow this to happen.

Sorry, it looks to me that she is brain dead.

Do you realize that starvation and dehydration is how most people die? People get old and their body shuts itself down. They loose the desire to eat, drink and then slowly die. Have you ever visited retirement homes? I've visited with the elderly and this is a very common occurrence.

This entire situation is being over simplified and at the same time exaggerated for the gain of a politicians and power mongers such as James Dobson.

It is about the right to die in a humane way rather then being propped up by technology like a exhibit at a side show.

I understand people have different frames of reference for things and it is good to have dialogue on these and other issues, but many will never be simply rapped up because of all the manipulation of facts.

A guy at work just came in and was talking about this.. He said if starvation is so humane, why are the left so hell bent of feeding the hungry?

I have to admit, I got a chuckle out of it.

It is a funny joke, but he's admitting that the Right doesn't give a rats ass about the Hungry unless it is for political gain?

Of course there is a difference as I'm sure you are aware. You are a smart guy.

Yes, I know the difference. It just struck me as funny.

Just for the record, I'm for pulling the tube, but I wish there was a quicker way to do it instead of waiting it out.

[Anad]

My boyfriend and I were just discussing this. I mean the woman has been in a 'persistent vegetative state' say her doctors since 1990. :shock:

I told Matt that if that were me, pull the plug. He talked about establishing a 'living will' just in case something like this happened.

I just don't understand why Congress/The President is getting involved. :?

I believe because it's politically convenient.

Check this out... Link: GOP memo says issue offers political rewards (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002213728_memo20.html)

It's sad, because the husband's been fighting this in court for 7 years, and now he gets to watch his wife become a political tool.

Horrible.
Just because some callous douchebag writes a memo, that doesn't mean that everyone (or anyone, for that matter) in his party agrees with him.

The fact that Bush has rushed so fast on this, shows that his party agrees with this memo. Bush never rushes to anything to save lives. Look at how quick he was as Governor to execute Mentally Handicapped people. Look at Iraq? Look at Sudan... oh wait Bush isn't doing anything about thousands of people getting murdered daily, just the one life that can benefit him politically.

Dobson and other religious backers are breathing down his neck on this. Since they see it as a means to manipulate more of their flocks (I'm saying this as a Christian).

Mmmm isn't Bush for less government?

[Bill?]

The fact that Bush has rushed so fast on this, shows that his party agrees with this memo. Bush never rushes to anything to save lives. Look at how quick he was as Governor to execute Mentally Handicapped people. Look at Iraq? Look at Sudan... oh wait Bush isn't doing anything about thousands of people getting murdered daily, just the one life that can benefit him politically.

Dobson and other religious backers are breathing down his neck on this. Since they see it as a means to manipulate more of their flocks (I'm saying this as a Christian).

Mmmm isn't Bush for less government?

He’s also a giant hypocrite. A law Bush singed as governor of Texas allowed a hospital to pull the plug on a 6-month-old baby over the parent’s objections.

[Kensington]

The fact that Bush has rushed so fast on this, shows that his party agrees with this memo. Bush never rushes to anything to save lives.
Nonsense. You can generalize about Republicans all you like, but the fact that Bush has "rushed so fast" does not prove that he agrees with some callous douchebag's memo about capitalizing politically on Terri Schiavo.

[Shwicaz]

And those of you championing the supposed rights of her "husband" need to get all the facts. There's a lot of shady stuff going on with this guy. There's more than a little suspicion that the accident that put Terri in this state was brought on by abuse.


Really, where did you hear that, because all of the news reports I have read, including the latest one this morning, said this:

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly because of a possible potassium imbalance brought on by an eating disorder. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding tube to keep her alive.



Your mentioning it was the first I have heard of any 'shady character' and 'abuse suspictions'.

[David Aspmo]

I hear people (not just here, but, you know, congressmen and such) disagreeing about whether or not she's brain dead (with regard to her higher brain functions that provide cognition and sentience, anyway - clearly her autonomic systems are still functioning).

Now, isn't that something that's verifiable either way?

I thought I heard one of the doctors who actually treated her say that there is zero higher brain activity. Now, that's either true or not, right?

To me, this seems like the absolute crux of the matter.

.
David Aspmo

[Kensington]

He’s also a giant hypocrite. A law Bush singed as governor of Texas allowed a hospital to pull the plug on a 6-month-old baby over the parent’s objections.
Well, here (http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_03_20_corner-archive.asp#058783)'s a different take on Bush's "hypocricy" in this instance, namely, that the law you're citing was actually an *improvement,* however flawed, upon the existing Texas law and gave patient's *more* protections against hospitals pulling the plug then they had before. Here's part of the background. The existing law in Texas...
...hospitals in Houston were denying life-saving treatment, food and fluids against the wishes of patients and their families, when the hospital ethics committees said their quality of life was too poor. Patients and families were being given only 72 hours after being notified of the proposed denial to find another health care provider.

The legislation that Governor Bush was able to sign granted:
...more protections for in-hospital review;
second, gave patients 10 days of treatment while seeking transfer, and
third, authorized court proceedings to extend the 10 days for reasonable additional periods to accomplish transfer.
Not hypocritical at all. Patients had *more* rights after Bush's law then they had *before.* He wanted more comprehensive patient's rights, but he didn't have the votes for it.

[Evan Wiener]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What amazes me about this whole issue right now, is that the Conservatives in Congress are doing this because of a political power struggle with the Judicial branch. Due to many cases like Gay Marriage, conservatives feel activist judges have been over-stepping authority of their branch of government.

Now Republicans are violating their own politics, meddling in state affiars from the Federal level, while sticking to their 25 year trend of meddling in the affairs of family and what morals they want to insert into the "American Family." I wonder what kind of strife this would have started if Florida wasn't governed by the President's brother, and had a Democrat for Governer. Show me a politician, and I'll show you a hyppocrite. (This goes for both sides, by the way. It just so happens, this one's the Republicans.)

[Bill?]

Well, here (http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_03_20_corner-archive.asp#058783)'s a different take on Bush's "hypocricy" in this instance, namely, that the law you're citing was actually an *improvement,* however flawed, upon the existing Texas law and gave patient's *more* protections against hospitals pulling the plug then they had before. Here's part of the background. The existing law in Texas...
...hospitals in Houston were denying life-saving treatment, food and fluids against the wishes of patients and their families, when the hospital ethics committees said their quality of life was too poor. Patients and families were being given only 72 hours after being notified of the proposed denial to find another health care provider.

The legislation that Governor Bush was able to sign granted:
...more protections for in-hospital review;
second, gave patients 10 days of treatment while seeking transfer, and
third, authorized court proceedings to extend the 10 days for reasonable additional periods to accomplish transfer.
Not hypocritical at all. Patients had *more* rights after Bush's law then they had *before.* He wanted more comprehensive patient's rights, but he didn't have the votes for it.


Right. The 6-month old boy died because his parents couldn’t pay. Which means they couldn’t move to another care facility in Texas, because they could pay there either. Its hypocritical because he didn’t step in to save patients that died under his law. His argument now is that he stepped in because he wants to come down on the “side of life”.
It was a bill passed to save costs for hospitals. He did that to score the right political points, and that’s why he stepped in here. To score political points.

[Shane W]

The problem with this situation, comes down to her real wishes. If we go by his word without any written expressed directive, then we are possibly opening up a can of worms in future cases.

[Kensington]

Right. The 6-month old boy died because his parents couldn’t pay. Which means they couldn’t move to another care facility in Texas, because they could pay there either. Its hypocritical because he didn’t step in to save patients that died under his law.
Huh? If a six-month-old boy died because his parents couldn't pay, how does that qualify as dying "under his law," a law which gave patient's more rights then they had before? The law you're citing was not about a patient's ability to pay their bills, it was about what rights a patient has when a hospital decides to deny life support. Is George Bush a hypocrite every time a poor person dies now?
His argument now is that he stepped in because he wants to come down on the “side of life”.
Nobody is looking at this as an all-purpose, "nobody on life support will ever be allowed to die" situation. There are people who believe that Terri Schiavo's rights have not been adequately represented in court, and they want to make sure that isn't glossed over. Everything else you're saying is a leap beyond this situation.

[Bill?]

Huh? If a six-month-old boy died because his parents couldn't pay, how does that qualify as dying "under his law," a law which gave patient's more rights then they had before? The law you're citing was not about a patient's ability to pay their bills, it was about what rights a patient has when a hospital decides to deny life support. Is George Bush a hypocrite every time a poor person dies now?

in texas, yes. the little boy died because his parents couldnt pay the hospital. the bill bush signed into law in texas allowed th hospital to pull the plug.


Nobody is looking at this as an all-purpose, "nobody on life support will ever be allowed to die" situation. There are people who believe that Terri Schiavo's rights have not been adequately represented in court, and they want to make sure that isn't glossed over. Everything else you're saying is a leap beyond this situation.

so, fuck everyone else except Terri Schiavo because she got in the news. thats what I'm hearing. because you're nuts if you think other people aren't going to come looking for the same "help" her family got. should they denied?
Terri Schiavo's "rights" have gotten 7 years and 19 judges and she's still being used a political pawn.

[Kensington]

Huh? If a six-month-old boy died because his parents couldn't pay, how does that qualify as dying "under his law," a law which gave patient's more rights then they had before? The law you're citing was not about a patient's ability to pay their bills, it was about what rights a patient has when a hospital decides to deny life support. Is George Bush a hypocrite every time a poor person dies now?

in texas, yes. the little boy died because his parents couldnt pay the hospital. the bill bush signed into law in texas allowed th hospital to pull the plug.
Look, it's a horrible story, but you're still off the mark. Here's why the baby died:
Texas law allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.
Prior to the law that you're using as a political cudgel to beat George W. Bush over the head, the hospital wouldn't even have had to give the family the ten days. It's sleight of hand, or misdirection, to suggest that he is responsible for the boy's death because he signed the law. He tried for more comprehensive legislation which would not have allowed this to happen, and he couldn't get the votes. The current legislation, at least, is an improvement, however flawed, and he deserves credit for getting even *that* much, not to be pilloried opportunistically.
so, fuck everyone else except Terri Schiavo because she got in the news. thats what I'm hearing. because you're nuts if you think other people aren't going to come looking for the same "help" her family got. should they denied?
I realize that's what you're hearing, and that's probably why this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. This is an issue that *should* be addressed for everyone, not just Terri Schiavo, but one thing at a time. At the moment, there isn't time to haggle -- the woman is already starving to death.

[sonnylarue]

Nonsense. You can generalize about Republicans all you like, but the fact that Bush has "rushed so fast" does not prove that he agrees with some callous douchebag's memo about capitalizing politically on Terri Schiavo.


Of course it does, you Kensington, are denying the reality of what this Tom DeLay led initiative is doing here.

How are some "right to life" zealots more qualified to make this decsion in mere days, , instead of the doctors and florida judicials, who have spent years on this specific case?

It's all politics, and it's being done in the slimiest fashion.

I wish more republicans , who don't agree with this move would stand up and represent the "contract with america" that they rode their revolution in with.

Remeber those ideas? Less federal intervention, states rights, etc?

This is an absolute abuse of the fedreal gov't getting involved in the private lives of citizens, in an unconstitutional way.

THESE ARE NOT THE MOVES OF TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVES , and more real cons should stand up and object to these pandering moves to the christian cons.

[Balthazar]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

[Shane W]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

Why would you want congress to be more concerned with people they were not elected to represent?

[Balthazar]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

Why would you want congress to be more concerned with people they were not elected to represent?

Because the people they were elected to represent should care more about it.

[Shane W]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

Why would you want congress to be more concerned with people they were not elected to represent?

Because the people they were elected to represent should care more about it.

Well, that's pretty self-serving. What else should they care about because you say they should? :wink:

[SolidGoldBomb]

Nonsense. You can generalize about Republicans all you like, but the fact that Bush has "rushed so fast" does not prove that he agrees with some callous douchebag's memo about capitalizing politically on Terri Schiavo.


Of course it does, you Kensington, are denying the reality of what this Tom DeLay led initiative is doing here.

How are some "right to life" zealots more qualified to make this decsion in mere days, , instead of the doctors and florida judicials, who have spent years on this specific case?

It's all politics, and it's being done in the slimiest fashion.

I wish more republicans , who don't agree with this move would stand up and represent the "contract with america" that they rode their revolution in with.

Remeber those ideas? Less federal intervention, states rights, etc?

This is an absolute abuse of the fedreal gov't getting involved in the private lives of citizens, in an unconstitutional way.

THESE ARE NOT THE MOVES OF TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVES , and more real cons should stand up and object to these pandering moves to the christian cons.

I agree totally buddy. I'd elaborate more but this issue has been beaten to death here for months. Fuck DeLay, Hassert and all the Republi-nazis in office who are using this to further their facist agenda.

P.S. - Kiss your rights goodbye.

[Kensington]

Nonsense. You can generalize about Republicans all you like, but the fact that Bush has "rushed so fast" does not prove that he agrees with some callous douchebag's memo about capitalizing politically on Terri Schiavo.

Of course it does, you Kensington, are denying the reality of what this Tom DeLay led initiative is doing here.
No, I'm just not deferring to the opinions of those with histories of hating Republicans regarding what motivates Republicans. I don't accept that there's some sort of nefarious agenda at work, just because Democrats say so.
How are some "right to life" zealots more qualified to make this decsion in mere days, , instead of the doctors and florida judicials, who have spent years on this specific case?
Anyone who raises the issue of whether or not Terri Schiavo's rights, based upon the issues raised over the last week, have been properly vetted is automatically a "right to life zealot"? This is why honest discussion is almost impossible nowadays.
I wish more republicans , who don't agree with this move would stand up and represent the "contract with america" that they rode their revolution in with.

Remeber those ideas? Less federal intervention, states rights, etc?
You mean *this* contract with America:
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;

FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;

FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;

SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;

SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;

EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
None of this is at odds with Congress intervening on behalf of Terri Schiavo. Article III grants Congress the right to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts. That's all that has happened today. Congress is authorizing a federal court to ascertain whether Terri Schiavo's due process rights, and the right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, has been protected. Not exactly a revolutionary action.

I wish some of you guys would get this worked up by the extremist overreach that was Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court took the issue of abortion away from the states. Now *that* was revolutionary.

[sonnylarue]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

Why would you want congress to be more concerned with people they were not elected to represent?

Because the people they were elected to represent should care more about it.

Well, that's pretty self-serving. What else should they care about because you say they should? :wink:

IT DOES point to the whole inconsistency to intervene in IRAQ, but not in the Sudan, which would require far less resources.

Afghanistan is different, because THEY attacked us.

[Balthazar]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

Why would you want congress to be more concerned with people they were not elected to represent?

Because the people they were elected to represent should care more about it.

Well, that's pretty self-serving. What else should they care about because you say they should? :wink:

I know. I'm selfish that way.

[Anad]

Yes, I know the difference. It just struck me as funny.

Just for the record, I'm for pulling the tube, but I wish there was a quicker way to do it instead of waiting it out.

I know you are smart and have a sense of humor :lol:

[Shane W]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

Why would you want congress to be more concerned with people they were not elected to represent?

Because the people they were elected to represent should care more about it.

Well, that's pretty self-serving. What else should they care about because you say they should? :wink:

IT DOES point to the whole inconsistency to intervene in IRAQ, but not in the Sudan, which would require far less resources.

Afghanistan is different, because THEY attacked us.

Not really when you look at the overall terrorist plan. The Sudan is not part of the concern region, where Iraq is. I KNOW IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. But to put your foot down and say this has nothing to do with the overall war against terror is ridiculous.

Any time I mention this, it get's ignored, because it requires the anti-iraq war person top think outside of "I hate Bush".

Now, let's get back on topic here, this argument has been rehashed countless times.

[Shane W]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

Why would you want congress to be more concerned with people they were not elected to represent?

Because the people they were elected to represent should care more about it.

Well, that's pretty self-serving. What else should they care about because you say they should? :wink:

I know. I'm selfish that way.

I'm just busting you balls man.. It's all good.

[Thudpucker]

It really isn't the Federal Governments place to interviene here. This is a very scarry precedent.

[SolidGoldBomb]

I wish some of you guys would get this worked up by the extremist overreach that was Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court took the issue of abortion away from the states. Now *that* was revolutionary.

Yea its fucking revolutionary how the united states now owns our bodies, and will dictate what we can or cant do to ourselves. Thats the whole point of this case IMO, is to slowly chip away at Roe V Wade and repeal it soon, so you crazy christian bastards can be happy. So because of people like you the government will soon be able to tell me that I don't have the right to refuse to be microchipped.

[Bill?]

Look, it's a horrible story, but you're still off the mark. Here's why the baby died:
Texas law allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.

right. except the plug was pulled because the family couldnt pay. so they couldnt very well afford to move to another facility. they wanted the child to be kept alive. now the baby is dead.


Prior to the law that you're using as a political cudgel to beat George W. Bush over the head, the hospital wouldn't even have had to give the family the ten days. It's sleight of hand, or misdirection, to suggest that he is responsible for the boy's death because he signed the law. He tried for more comprehensive legislation which would not have allowed this to happen, and he couldn't get the votes. The current legislation, at least, is an improvement, however flawed, and he deserves credit for getting even *that* much, not to be pilloried opportunistically.
.

many staes have laws that dont allow for the hospital to pull the plug. ever. its never ever up to them. bush signed a law that allows hospitals to save costs by deciding. he could have supported a different bill, but he didnt.


I realize that's what you're hearing, and that's probably why this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. This is an issue that *should* be addressed for everyone, not just Terri Schiavo, but one thing at a time. At the moment, there isn't time to haggle -- the woman is already starving to death.

Terri Schiavo is getting what she wanted. what the courts have ruled time and time again she wanted. others are going to want the same treatment, but arent going to get it because they weren't lucky enough to have their case used as political fodder.

[sonnylarue]

Your right Kensington, I mispsoke. The Contract With America has no wording to describe the issue of state's rights vs Federal powers, however...

Anyone who raises the issue of whether or not Terri Schiavo's rights, based upon the issues raised over the last week, have been properly vetted is automatically a "right to life zealot"? This is why honest discussion is almost impossible nowadays.

Kind of like yourself describing stopping Terry Shivo's feeding tube as MURDER?

This woman has been brain dead for 15 years. This is a mercy killing, not a murder.

[Shane W]

Your right Kensington, I mispsoke. The Contract With America has no wording to describe the issue of state's rights vs Federal powers, however...

Anyone who raises the issue of whether or not Terri Schiavo's rights, based upon the issues raised over the last week, have been properly vetted is automatically a "right to life zealot"? This is why honest discussion is almost impossible nowadays.

Kind of like yourself describing stopping Terry Shivo's feeding tube as MURDER?

This woman has been brain dead for 15 years. This is a mercy killing, not a murder.

If it's letting her die naturally, why use the word "killing"?

[Kensington]

I wish some of you guys would get this worked up by the extremist overreach that was Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court took the issue of abortion away from the states. Now *that* was revolutionary.

Yea its fucking revolutionary how the united states now owns our bodies, and will dictate what we can or cant do to ourselves. Thats the whole point of this case IMO, is to slowly chip away at Roe V Wade and repeal it soon, so you crazy christian bastards can be happy. So because of people like you the government will soon be able to tell me that I don't have the right to refuse to be microchipped.
Is this a good time to point out that, after this I won't respond to anyone who posts like this? The reasonable, polite stuff is great, and many of you have been interesting, but *this* is ridiculous.

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.

[Kensington]

Kind of like yourself describing stopping Terry Shivo's feeding tube as MURDER?
Eh? Where did I do that? "Killing" is not the same as "murdering." That doesn't make "killing" a good thing, but nowhere in this discussion am I equating the two. "Killing" her is bad enough. I just think it's important to say that what is happening is more severe, more pointed, than the euphemistic "allowing her to die" which is getting bandied about quite a bit and lets the participants off the hook. I'm not even endowing Michael Schiavo with the more unfortunately conspiratorial motivations that are also circulating. But this *is* a killing, in a way that is more pungent than merely turning off a ventilator, and if that makes anyone uncomfortable, I have no problem with that.

[Thudpucker]

Your right Kensington, I mispsoke. The Contract With America has no wording to describe the issue of state's rights vs Federal powers, however...

Anyone who raises the issue of whether or not Terri Schiavo's rights, based upon the issues raised over the last week, have been properly vetted is automatically a "right to life zealot"? This is why honest discussion is almost impossible nowadays.

Kind of like yourself describing stopping Terry Shivo's feeding tube as MURDER?

This woman has been brain dead for 15 years. This is a mercy killing, not a murder.

If it's letting her die naturally, why use the word "killing"?

Because it is killing.

But sometimes that is the most mercifull thing to do.

[SolidGoldBomb]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.

Ive had this discussion at least 100 times, and probably like 5 today so I get frustrated easily about this topic, please excuse my general hatred I directed towards you.

The woman doesn't feel pain. Her brain has atrophied to the size of a walnut, and her cranium is filled with spinal fluid. She has NO CHANCE of recovery. She will never be able to have another thought, she is already dead to the world. Why cant she just get her wish and die? What is so horrible about that?

The only reason for opposition is because the bible says that suicide is a sin and your soul is sent to hell for it (if you believe that). If theres another reason other than an archaic religious belief i'd like to hear it.

[Kensington]

right. except the plug was pulled because the family couldnt pay. so they couldnt very well afford to move to another facility. they wanted the child to be kept alive. now the baby is dead.
That makes George W. Bush a hypocrite how, exactly? We're just going in circles.
many staes have laws that dont allow for the hospital to pull the plug. ever. its never ever up to them. bush signed a law that allows hospitals to save costs by deciding. he could have supported a different bill, but he didnt.
One more time: before Bush even got there Texas law allowed hospitals to do this, even more easily then than it can now. Bush tried to change that. He tried to accomplish the absolutist position you (and I) advocate. He didn't have the votes. The current law was the best he could do, and it *is* an improvement. He wasn't a one man legislature.
Terri Schiavo is getting what she wanted. what the courts have ruled time and time again she wanted. others are going to want the same treatment, but arent going to get it because they weren't lucky enough to have their case used as political fodder.
Look, you *may* be right about Terri Schiavo's desires or not. I don't know. I do find the objections raised over the weekend compelling, though, namely that the Florida court should not have allowed the same attorney to represent both Michael *and* Terri Schiavo since their interests were at odds. Maybe this time we'll get a more comprehensive look at everyone's interests. I can't respond to the rest of what you're saying because I don't know. You assume that all of these other hypothetical people aren't going to get any help. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. In any event, so what? That doesn't mean that Terri Schiavo *shouldn't* get any special attention.

[Thudpucker]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.
[/quote]

I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:

[Shane W]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.


I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:[/quote]

How can you be a Christian AND a hippie? That one's even tougher to figure out.

[Taxman]

right. except the plug was pulled because the family couldnt pay. so they couldnt very well afford to move to another facility. they wanted the child to be kept alive. now the baby is dead.
That makes George W. Bush a hypocrite how, exactly? We're just going in circles.


Had I only the inclination to answer this one.

[Thudpucker]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.


I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:

How can you be a Christian AND a hippie? That one's even tougher to figure out.[/quote]

Jesus was a Hippie.

[Kensington]

The woman doesn't feel pain. Her brain has atrophied to the size of a walnut, and her cranium is filled with spinal fluid. She has NO CHANCE of recovery. She will never be able to have another thought, she is already dead to the world.
You are putting all of these suppositions forward as facts. There are people, doctors, not just religious zealots, who have differing opinions. There's a recording of her responding to her father floating around on the Internet (I can't find a link right now, though). She doesn't sound like a dead person to me.
The only reason for opposition is because the bible says that suicide is a sin and your soul is sent to hell for it (if you believe that). If theres another reason other than an archaic religious belief i'd like to hear it.
Again, I am not a Christian, nor am I thumping a Bible. You need to consider that your understanding of what motivates the objections is a little narrow. I just don't think it's right for a man to starve his wife to death and support the current actions aimed at making sure she isn't being treated poorly. I know this has been in court before now. There are still unaddressed issues, and I'm glad that they might have a chance to be aired out. Maybe she ends up starving to death anyway, but there's no hurry.

[Shane W]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.


I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:

How can you be a Christian AND a hippie? That one's even tougher to figure out.

Jesus was a Hippie.[/quote]

But he was jewish.

[Kensington]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.
I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:
That's between you and :twisted:, Mr. gay doll collector... :P

[Thudpucker]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.


I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:

How can you be a Christian AND a hippie? That one's even tougher to figure out.

Jesus was a Hippie.

But he was jewish.[/quote]

Jews can be hippies too. All the Apostles were (except maybe Judas).

[Taxman]

Again, I am not a Christian, nor am I thumping a Bible. You need to consider that your understanding of what motivates the objections is a little narrow. I just don't think it's right for a man to starve his wife to death and support the current actions aimed at making sure she isn't being treated poorly. I know this has been in court before now. There are still unaddressed issues, and I'm glad that they might have a chance to be aired out. Maybe she ends up starving to death anyway, but there's no hurry.

Kensington, do we at least agree that eveyone should have a living will?

[Shane W]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.


I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:

How can you be a Christian AND a hippie? That one's even tougher to figure out.

Jesus was a Hippie.

But he was jewish.

Jews can be hippies too. All the Apostles were (except maybe Judas).[/quote]

I'm just saying it isn't as hard to imagine a jew being a hippie as it is a christian.

[Thudpucker]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.
I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:
That's between you and :twisted:, Mr. gay doll collector... :P

:shifty: I did't actually buy one, I just kind of like it.

[Thudpucker]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.


I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:

How can you be a Christian AND a hippie? That one's even tougher to figure out.

Jesus was a Hippie.

But he was jewish.

Jews can be hippies too. All the Apostles were (except maybe Judas).

I'm just saying it isn't as hard to imagine a jew being a hippie as it is a christian.[/quote]

Yea, that's kind of sad.

But them I'm Buddist too, it all kind of works together for me.

[Shane W]

Again, I am not a Christian, nor am I thumping a Bible. You need to consider that your understanding of what motivates the objections is a little narrow. I just don't think it's right for a man to starve his wife to death and support the current actions aimed at making sure she isn't being treated poorly. I know this has been in court before now. There are still unaddressed issues, and I'm glad that they might have a chance to be aired out. Maybe she ends up starving to death anyway, but there's no hurry.

Kensington, do we at least agree that eveyone should have a living will?

This is where my line is.. Living will? No problem at all.. Word of mouth? a little hazy.

[(akaRyanHoffman)]

Anyone else find it odd that it took months/years to form a decision on whether to even form a 9/11 committee...

...or how it took months/years to get body armor for our troops in Iraq (and elsewhere--and some still don't have any....)

but when it comes to 'smaller' matters like Steroids in baseball, a federal gay marriage ammendment, and this case here.... everything has to be done right away...?

Congress is supposed to recess for two weeks, but feel this issue is important enough to come back on monday for....

if only they were this dedicated for every issue, not just ones that involve 'right to life' cases, gay cases, or drug cases.

(or is that just the cynic in me talking? )


No no...


Politicians are great with distracting people with non-issues.

[Kensington]

Kensington, do we at least agree that eveyone should have a living will?
I dunno; does it say so in the BIBLE??? :twisted:

:wink: Yeah, of course I agree. We wouldn't even be having this debate if Terri Schiavo had prepared one... I hope that all future living wills address specifically the possibility of starvation, though...

[sonnylarue]

Kensington, do we at least agree that eveyone should have a living will?
I dunno; does it say so in the BIBLE??? :twisted:

:wink: Yeah, of course I agree. We wouldn't even be having this debate if Terri Schiavo had prepared one... I hope that all future living wills address specifically the possibility of starvation, though...

I agree too , but even living wills can be contested , so they truly aren't the final word on a person's last wishes on how to deal with this touchy PERSONAL subject.

[Kensington]

Kensington, do we at least agree that eveyone should have a living will?
I dunno; does it say so in the BIBLE??? :twisted:

:wink: Yeah, of course I agree. We wouldn't even be having this debate if Terri Schiavo had prepared one... I hope that all future living wills address specifically the possibility of starvation, though...
I agree too , but even living wills can be contested , so they truly aren't the final word on a person's last wishes on how to deal with this touchy PERSONAL subject.
Okay, but barring HIGHLY unusual mitigating circumstances, it would be more likely a final word then we have now. I think it's safe to say that if Terri Schiavo had a living will that we could hold in our hands, she would have died a long time ago.

[sonnylarue]

if Terri Schiavo had a living will that we could hold in our hands, she would have died a long time ago

If that piece of non existent paper is the only reason you are arguing for her to be kept alive, then I don't understand why you are arguing agaiunst the wishes of her legal guradian's right to end these 15 years of suffering.

This Congressional intervention will be proven unconstitutional, and she will be given peace.

That is MY biggest beef about this intervention. It will do nothing to "help" her be more than she is right now , completely functionless, without any higher brian functions.

Thanks congress for perpetuating this woman's hell on earth, how very kind of you.

[sonnylarue]

the latest

March 21 (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge declined for now to order a feeding tube reinserted in Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman who suffered brain damage 15 years ago and has become the focus of a national political debate on the right to die.

U.S. District Judge James Whittemore, after hearing arguments for about two hours in Tampa, gave no indication of how soon he may act on a request by Schiavo's parents to order the tube inserted. The tubes were removed three days ago, and medical experts, who say Schiavo is in vegetative state, may be able to survive for about two weeks without nourishment or water.

``I will not tell you when, how or how long it will take'' to rule, Whittemore said.

Today's hearing was prompted by an extraordinary post- midnight session of Congress aimed at authorizing the federal courts to intercede. President George W. Bush signed the measure early today.

Whittemore ordered lawyers for Schiavo's parents to file legal briefs in support of their claim that the new law is constitutional. ``Get it done as soon as you can,'' he said.

Tubes hydrating and feeding Schiavo, 41, were removed on orders of a Florida state judge. She suffered brain damage 15 years ago when her heart stopped because of a chemical imbalance. Michael Schiavo, her legal guardian, asked the court seven years ago to allow his wife to die after doctors told him there was no hope she would recover.

The husband's lawyer, George Felos, speaking to reporters outside the courthouse after the hearing, predicted Whittemore would reject the parents' bid to reinsert the feeding tubes.

Precious Moments

``We believe that the judge will apply his wisdom and his courage in denying this temporary restraining order which would be just a horrific intrusion on Mrs. Schiavo's liberty,'' Felos said.

David Gibbs, representing the parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, said he still holds out hope.

``What we are desperately pleading for this court to realize is that Terri is dying,'' he said. ``She does not have water. She does not have food. Every moment is precious.''

Earlier, in court, Gibbs told Whittemore: ``If Mrs. Schiavo is dead, she will have no liberty.''

``This is a complex case with serious issues,'' Bush told supporters at an appearance in Tucson, Arizona, today. ``But in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life.''

Clinton Appointee

Whittemore, a former Florida state judge who was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton, was asked to order the reinsertion of the tubes while he reviews the case.

With Whittemore's courtroom packed, about 60 people watched the proceedings on closed-circuit television in a separate room. They included people in clerical clothes, disabled people in wheelchairs, nurses in white uniforms, journalists, parents and children. Several people shouted at the television as Felos argued.

Separately, the U.S. House Government Reform Committee asked the Florida Supreme Court to order that the feeding resume so the panel can enforce subpoenas for testimony.

The Supreme Court refused last week to hear an appeal filed by Schiavo's parents and one filed by the House Committee on Government Reform. Nineteen Florida judges have heard the case over the last seven years and all sided with Michael Schiavo.

Public Opposition

Congress shouldn't have gotten involved, according to a majority of Americans polled by ABC News. The telephone survey of 501 adults found that 70 percent considered the congressional action inappropriate, while 27 percent said it was appropriate. In answer to a different question, 67 percent said politicians were interested in using the case to their advantage, rather than worrying about Terri Schiavo. The poll, taken March 20, had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.
The Washington Post reported yesterday that a memo distributed to Republican senators described the Schiavo case as ``a great political issue'' that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives in the 2006 elections.

``This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue,'' the memo said, according to the Post.
In a press conference late yesterday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said the memo only came to his attention in media reports and said it was unsigned.

Michael Schiavo said his wife, who hadn't signed an advanced directive or living will, would have preferred to have the tube pulled rather than living in her current state.

[xyzzy]

Again, I am not a Christian, nor am I thumping a Bible. You need to consider that your understanding of what motivates the objections is a little narrow. I just don't think it's right for a man to starve his wife to death and support the current actions aimed at making sure she isn't being treated poorly. I know this has been in court before now. There are still unaddressed issues, and I'm glad that they might have a chance to be aired out. Maybe she ends up starving to death anyway, but there's no hurry.

Kensington, do we at least agree that eveyone should have a living will?

This is where my line is.. Living will? No problem at all.. Word of mouth? a little hazy.

Word of mouth to her husband. If I ever end up in such a state, nobody knows better than my wife what my wishes were. Not my friends, parents, co-workers, nobody.

[Kensington]

if Terri Schiavo had a living will that we could hold in our hands, she would have died a long time ago
If that piece of non existent paper is the only reason you are arguing for her to be kept alive, then I don't understand why you are arguing agaiunst the wishes of her legal guradian's right to end these 15 years of suffering.
I'm just open the idea of making sure that everything has been properly vetted. As I wrote before, there are enough interesting issued raised, in spite of previous court rulings, including the possibility that the court erred by allowing the same attorney to represent both the husband and wife in spite of their conflicting interests, for me to support the current actions. It's a serious enough situation that a little extra attention is fine with me.
This Congressional intervention will be proven unconstitutional, and she will be given peace.
Article III of the constitution allows Congress to do this. That doesn't mean things won't go down as you predict, but it's hardly black and white...
Thanks congress for perpetuating this woman's hell on earth, how very kind of you.
So now you think she's cognizant enough to be experiencing "hell on earth"? Which is it? Is she a brain dead vegetable or is she suffering?

[sonnylarue]

So now you think she's cognizant enough to be experiencing "hell on earth"? Which is it? Is she a brain dead vegetable or is she suffering?


Both. Brain dead and suffering whether she is aware of it or not.'

What about the physical atrophy she's had from 15 years of lying prone without physical therapy or major muscle movement? If she is aware that's some powerful pain she's enduring.

And I would extend that suffering to include her husband, and her parents.

There seems to be a lack of humanity from those who claim to be doing this for the sancticty of life. (not you personally Kennsington)

[Kensington]

the latest

[b]Congress shouldn't have gotten involved, according to a majority of Americans polled by ABC News.
We talked about all this earlier today, so I don't really feel like getting into it again in any depth, but I will reiterate my general disdain for polls. Depending upon how the questions are worded, everyone knows you can manipulate the results into "proving" anything you wish. I've been trying to find the actual questions and haven't been able to find them.

Further...
[b]The Washington Post reported yesterday that a memo distributed to Republican senators described the Schiavo case as ``a great political issue'' that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives in the 2006 elections.
I'll just repeat my earlier assertion that just because some callous douchebag wrote this memo doesn't mean that it's responsible for the actions Congress has taken. Anyone can write a memo. It couldn't necessarily bind anyone who reads it, and I don't believe that it's the reason for what is happening.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

this is clearly a political ploy. the gop is using this "culture of life" crap so that they can eventually attack abortion. it's really is that simple. of course these are the same congressmen that voted to make serious cuts to medicare and other crucial medical programs (not to mention to vets... thanks for supporting the soldiers, you fucking twits.). i guess those lives aren't in the spotlight so they don't matter. :?

you people pointing out that michael Schiavo is with another woman now (so? it's been fifteen years. sorry, he's not fulfilling your bizarre moral requirements.), claiming that he poisoned her (:roll:), or any other similiar absurd claims are complete idiots. is there any actual relevance to the case in those points? or is this what hannity/rush told you was a valid argumentative tactic?

Kensington, you crack me up everytime you say "err on the side of life". didn't you support the war in iraq where thousands and thousands of innocent human beings were killed because there was a small chance that maybe... someday... iraq could possibly hurt us... or something.
that is comedic gold!

:lol:


though i'm sure you'll dismiss me pointing out your horrendous hypocrisy in this matter as merely "scoring cheap political points".

:?

[Shane W]

this is clearly a political ploy. the gop is using this "culture of life" crap so that they can eventually attack abortion. it's really is that simple. of course these are the same congressmen that voted to make serious cuts to medicare and other crucial medical programs (not to mention to vets... thanks for supporting the soldiers, you fucking twits.). i guess those lives aren't in the spotlight so they don't matter. :?

you people pointing out that michael Schiavo is with another woman now (so? it's been fifteen years. sorry, he's not fulfilling your bizarre moral requirements.), claiming that he poisoned her (:roll:), or any other similiar absurd claims are complete idiots. is there any actual relevance to the case in those points? or is this what hannity/rush told you was a valid argumentative tactic?

Kensington, you crack me up everytime you say "err on the side of life". didn't you support the war in iraq where thousands and thousands of innocent human beings were killed because there was a small chance that maybe... someday... iraq could possibly hurt us... or something.
that is comedic gold!

:lol:


though i'm sure you'll dismiss me pointing out your horrendous hypocrisy in this matter as merely "scoring cheap political points".

:?

I don't know what hannity/rush said.. Is that the argument that franken told you to use?

[Cth]

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a464/a464.gif

[sonnylarue]

this is clearly a political ploy. the gop is using this "culture of life" crap so that they can eventually attack abortion. it's really is that simple. of course these are the same congressmen that voted to make serious cuts to medicare and other crucial medical programs (not to mention to vets... thanks for supporting the soldiers, you fucking twits.). i guess those lives aren't in the spotlight so they don't matter. :?

you people pointing out that michael Schiavo is with another woman now (so? it's been fifteen years. sorry, he's not fulfilling your bizarre moral requirements.), claiming that he poisoned her (:roll:), or any other similiar absurd claims are complete idiots. is there any actual relevance to the case in those points? or is this what hannity/rush told you was a valid argumentative tactic?

Kensington, you crack me up everytime you say "err on the side of life". didn't you support the war in iraq where thousands and thousands of innocent human beings were killed because there was a small chance that maybe... someday... iraq could possibly hurt us... or something.
that is comedic gold!

:lol:


though i'm sure you'll dismiss me pointing out your horrendous hypocrisy in this matter as merely "scoring cheap political points".

:?

I don't know what hannity/rush said.. Is that the argument that franken told you to use?

Drudge was trying to give doubt about the husband's character on his radio show. They play Hannity late in Chgo, so I'll check now while I go on my dinner break.

[Kensington]

though i'm sure you'll dismiss me pointing out your horrendous hypocrisy in this matter as merely "scoring cheap political points".
I *would* dismiss you, if I even bothered reading your posts anymore. It's just that I prefer the more polite posters... :lol:

[Shane W]

this is clearly a political ploy. the gop is using this "culture of life" crap so that they can eventually attack abortion. it's really is that simple. of course these are the same congressmen that voted to make serious cuts to medicare and other crucial medical programs (not to mention to vets... thanks for supporting the soldiers, you fucking twits.). i guess those lives aren't in the spotlight so they don't matter. :?

you people pointing out that michael Schiavo is with another woman now (so? it's been fifteen years. sorry, he's not fulfilling your bizarre moral requirements.), claiming that he poisoned her (:roll:), or any other similiar absurd claims are complete idiots. is there any actual relevance to the case in those points? or is this what hannity/rush told you was a valid argumentative tactic?

Kensington, you crack me up everytime you say "err on the side of life". didn't you support the war in iraq where thousands and thousands of innocent human beings were killed because there was a small chance that maybe... someday... iraq could possibly hurt us... or something.
that is comedic gold!

:lol:


though i'm sure you'll dismiss me pointing out your horrendous hypocrisy in this matter as merely "scoring cheap political points".

:?

I don't know what hannity/rush said.. Is that the argument that franken told you to use?

Drudge was trying to give doubt about the husband's character on his radio show. They play Hannity late in Chgo, so I'll check now while I go on my dinner break.

I just get sick of his assuming that no one can have a conservative opinion without the aid of Rush or Hannity. It's silly.

How do you view Article Three of the Constitution in regards to this?

[sonnylarue]

this is clearly a political ploy. the gop is using this "culture of life" crap so that they can eventually attack abortion. it's really is that simple. of course these are the same congressmen that voted to make serious cuts to medicare and other crucial medical programs (not to mention to vets... thanks for supporting the soldiers, you fucking twits.). i guess those lives aren't in the spotlight so they don't matter. :?

you people pointing out that michael Schiavo is with another woman now (so? it's been fifteen years. sorry, he's not fulfilling your bizarre moral requirements.), claiming that he poisoned her (:roll:), or any other similiar absurd claims are complete idiots. is there any actual relevance to the case in those points? or is this what hannity/rush told you was a valid argumentative tactic?

Kensington, you crack me up everytime you say "err on the side of life". didn't you support the war in iraq where thousands and thousands of innocent human beings were killed because there was a small chance that maybe... someday... iraq could possibly hurt us... or something.
that is comedic gold!

:lol:


though i'm sure you'll dismiss me pointing out your horrendous hypocrisy in this matter as merely "scoring cheap political points".

:?

I don't know what hannity/rush said.. Is that the argument that franken told you to use?

Drudge was trying to give doubt about the husband's character on his radio show. They play Hannity late in Chgo, so I'll check now while I go on my dinner break.

I just get sick of his assuming that no one can have a conservative opinion without the aid of Rush or Hannity. It's silly.

How do you view Article Three of the Constitution in regards to this?

I think it's a shallow ploy by the religious right, that will be rejected by this federal judge.

Again a couple of Republicans like Christie Todd whitman have pointed out how wrong this move is.The others are too affriad to stand up and look like they are advocating murder, or killing. Pathetic.

What will this federal judge discover, that the Florida Judges haven't already considered for the past 7 years?

[Kensington]

I just get sick of his assuming that no one can have a conservative opinion without the aid of Rush or Hannity. It's silly.
I wish someone would starve *me* to death before I have to read more of Jamie's posts...

[sonnylarue]

I just get sick of his assuming that no one can have a conservative opinion without the aid of Rush or Hannity. It's silly.
I wish someone would starve *me* to death before I have to read more of Jamie's posts...

nice compassion.

this is an ugly issue, and while I know you're just being flippant, it shows how little regard to this sick story some have on the side fighting to keep Shiavo alive.

[Shane W]

I just get sick of his assuming that no one can have a conservative opinion without the aid of Rush or Hannity. It's silly.
I wish someone would starve *me* to death before I have to read more of Jamie's posts...

nice compassion.

this is an ugly issue, and while I know you're just being flippant, it shows how little regard to this sick story some have on the side fighting to keep Shiavo alive.

I'm actually 100% torn on this. On one hand, I see letting her go, but to starve seems so cruel. :?

And I'm concerned about pulling the tube without a written directive. What can of worms will that open?

[Kensington]

I just get sick of his assuming that no one can have a conservative opinion without the aid of Rush or Hannity. It's silly.
I wish someone would starve *me* to death before I have to read more of Jamie's posts...
nice compassion.

this is an ugly issue, and while I know you're just being flippant, it shows how little regard to this sick story some have on the side fighting to keep Shiavo alive.
Oh, for God's sake it shows nothing more than my irritation at Jamie's cliches. :roll:

[Jamie Howdeshell]

I just get sick of his assuming that no one can have a conservative opinion without the aid of Rush or Hannity. It's silly.


i never said that hannity/rush (they almost always agree.. so why bother differentiating?) is a conservative opinion. it is not. that's the problem. i actually agree with some traditional conservative viewpoints. what the GOP is pushing today is a quasireligious/neo-conservative social agenda with very little financial or governmental conservatism. and since rush/hannity are little more than mouthpieces for the gop... *shrugs*

as for al franken... i wish i could listen to him. he can be pretty funny. but alas... he doesn't seem to broadcast around here....
:(

but even if he did, i would merely view him the same way i view the daily show. very funny, but not a primary source of my opinions.

i've got comic books for that!
:shock:

[Bill?]

That makes George W. Bush a hypocrite how, exactly? We're just going in circles.

that was because of a law he signed.
now, he's stepped in to the Terri Schiavo.
thats how.




One more time: before Bush even got there Texas law allowed hospitals to do this, even more easily then than it can now. Bush tried to change that. He tried to accomplish the absolutist position you (and I) advocate. He didn't have the votes. The current law was the best he could do, and it *is* an improvement. He wasn't a one man legislature.


he signed the law. he did try to accomplish anything else except socre political points with his buddies in the medical lobby.


Look, you *may* be right about Terri Schiavo's desires or not. I don't know. I do find the objections raised over the weekend compelling, though, namely that the Florida court should not have allowed the same attorney to represent both Michael *and* Terri Schiavo since their interests were at odds. Maybe this time we'll get a more comprehensive look at everyone's interests. I can't respond to the rest of what you're saying because I don't know. You assume that all of these other hypothetical people aren't going to get any help. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. In any event, so what? That doesn't mean that Terri Schiavo *shouldn't* get any special attention.

yes. thats exactelly what it means. its not congress' place to make medical or legal desicions. they did this to score political points with the religious right. no other reason. thats why they specifically attempted to make this just about her.
this is why we have courts. and they already ruled many, many, many times that this is what she wanted.
Michael and Terri Schiavos interests were not at odds. every court case has been about her interests and her interests alone.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

And I'm concerned about pulling the tube without a written directive. What can of worms will that open?

from what i understand, there will be absolutely no pain, even if she were mentally able to feel it what with the no brainwaves thingie. she will be kept doped up the entire time. so it is humane.

i just wish we actually would address euthanasia in this country. then we wouldn't even need to use starvation.
washington (i think that is the right one... maybe it was oregon?) has done it... but the rest of us need to get going.

:?

[Jamie Howdeshell]

Oh, for God's sake it shows nothing more than my irritation at Jamie's cliches. :roll:

there's the expected dismissal of my valid points. thanks.

:roll:

[Shane W]

I just get sick of his assuming that no one can have a conservative opinion without the aid of Rush or Hannity. It's silly.


i never said that hannity/rush (they almost always agree.. so why bother differentiating?) is a conservative opinion. it is not. that's the problem. i actually agree with some traditional conservative viewpoints. what the GOP is pushing today is a quasireligious/neo-conservative social agenda with very little financial or governmental conservatism. and since rush/hannity are little more than mouthpieces for the gop... *shrugs*

as for al franken... i wish i could listen to him. he can be pretty funny. but alas... he doesn't seem to broadcast around here....
:(

but even if he did, i would merely view him the same way i view the daily show. very funny, but not a primary source of my opinions.

i've got comic books for that!
:shock:

Then do us a favor, and quit asking if that's what Rush/Hannity said, it comes accross as patronizing.

[Shane W]

And I'm concerned about pulling the tube without a written directive. What can of worms will that open?

from what i understand, there will be absolutely no pain, even if she were mentally able to feel it what with the no brainwaves thingie. she will be kept doped up the entire time. so it is humane.

i just wish we actually would address euthanasia in this country. then we wouldn't even need to use starvation.
washington (i think that is the right one... maybe it was oregon?) has done it... but the rest of us need to get going.

:?

Well, then that's the other part of the argument isn't it? If she can't feel pain, then why does she need the drugs? I don't know man, this is a tough one.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

Then do us a favor, and quit asking if that's what Rush/Hannity said, it comes accross as patronizing.

not at all. the absurd bullshit (the rumors about michael shcivao and irrelevant crap like that) i was talking about up there is the kind of stuff that hannity/rush like to spew about. (on a side note.. i was listening to NPR today and they were doing a show about this subject. a caller started to talk about how there were rumors of abuse from terry's parents, but the host immediately cut him off and said we don't need to talk about that. god, i love NPR. actual journalistic ethics is a wonderful thing.)

you're taking offense over nothing. if it doesn't apply to you, don't worry about it.
:?

[Bill?]

Well, then that's the other part of the argument isn't it? If she can't feel pain, then why does she need the drugs? I don't know man, this is a tough one.


they do that no matter what condition the person is in.

[Shane W]

Well, then that's the other part of the argument isn't it? If she can't feel pain, then why does she need the drugs? I don't know man, this is a tough one.


they do that no matter what condition the person is in.

I'm just having a hard time with the starvation thing. If it's a ventalator, fine, iron lung, fine. Food?

[Jamie Howdeshell]

Well, then that's the other part of the argument isn't it? If she can't feel pain, then why does she need the drugs? I don't know man, this is a tough one.

might as well use them. they're cheap. play it safe.

no doubt it's a tough one. that's why it's been dragging on for 7 years. but time and time again (what is it... twenty times now?) the courts have sided with mr. schivao. this cheap political manipulation and invasion of familial privacy by the federal government is outrageous.

[Bill?]

I'm just having a hard time with the starvation thing. If it's a ventalator, fine, iron lung, fine. Food?

You think it's better to suffocate to death than it is to starve to death?
Either way, she doesn't have any clue it’s going on. That’s why they have to pump nutrition directly into her stomach in the first place. that part of her brain doesn't work anymore.

[sonnylarue]

I just get sick of his assuming that no one can have a conservative opinion without the aid of Rush or Hannity. It's silly.
I wish someone would starve *me* to death before I have to read more of Jamie's posts...
nice compassion.

this is an ugly issue, and while I know you're just being flippant, it shows how little regard to this sick story some have on the side fighting to keep Shiavo alive.
Oh, for God's sake it shows nothing more than my irritation at Jamie's cliches. :roll:

try taking a look at your own cliches, within this very thread . J

Jamie is entitled to his view.

no one has said for you to stop voicing YOUR opinions.

[neophyte]

I think she should be given some rest. 14 years is a long time to wait for peace.

[David Aspmo]

The woman doesn't feel pain. Her brain has atrophied to the size of a walnut, and her cranium is filled with spinal fluid. She has NO CHANCE of recovery. She will never be able to have another thought, she is already dead to the world.
You are putting all of these suppositions forward as facts. There are people, doctors, not just religious zealots, who have differing opinions.
This brings me back to the question I asked three pages ago, why is this part of the situation in dispute? Either her brain has atrophied to the size of a walnut or it hasn't. It either is or it isn't. And, as far as I know, we have pretty definitive ways of determining whether or not this is the case.

There should be no need for supposition or opinion with regard to this aspect of the case.

There's a recording of her responding to her father floating around on the Internet (I can't find a link right now, though). She doesn't sound like a dead person to me.

What about (and this will probably sound irreverent, but I really just mean it descriptively) an un-dead person. Her autonomic functions are still operative, but if the part of her brain that allowed for cognition and sentience is indeed destroyed, then that means she's mindless. Kind of like a zombie.

.
David Aspmo

[sonnylarue]

This brings me back to the question I asked three pages ago, why is this part of the situation in dispute? Either her brain has atrophied to the size of a walnut or it hasn't. It either is or it isn't. And, as far as I know, we have pretty definitive ways of determining whether or not this is the case.

There should be no need for supposition or opinion with regard to this aspect of the case.


You're right.

all the religious right wants you to hear is, "she is alive"and should remain alive, with no follow up on the actual condition her living currently is.

[Shwicaz]

My newspaper had a big section on this issue, including a Q and A regarding the facts of the case:

requently asked questions

March 22, 2005

Q. Doctors have determined that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state. What does that mean?

A. The diagnosis of a vegetative state means a patient is physically awake but remains mentally unconscious. She has lost her ability to think and awareness of her surroundings. Although she opens her eyes, breathes on her own, and moves reflexively, patients in a vegetative state typically are incontinent and cannot feed themselves or communicate. The condition is considered ''persistent" if it lasts more than one month in patients like Schiavo whose brains were damaged from lack of oxygen.

Q. How is this different from being brain dead or being in a coma?

A. Patients who are brain dead are unconscious, cannot breathe on their own, do not respond to any stimulation, and do not show any reflexive movements, such as gagging if doctors touch the back of the throat or blinking if doctors touch the whites of their eyes. Their heart is beating, but they show no activity on an electroencephalogram, or EEG, which measures electrical impulses in the brain.

Patients in a coma can't be roused from the state of deep sleep that their brain has entered. They may breathe and show some basic reflexes, but far less than someone in a vegetative state. An EEG shows a low level of brain activity.

Q. How do doctors diagnose a vegetative state?

A. Once the patient emerges from a coma, doctors conduct a neurological examination that starts with attempts to get the patient to interact. They speak to the patient, touch the patient, and see whether there is any consistent response verbally or nonverbally. They typically ask the patient to squeeze their hand and blink a certain number of times, for example, testing to see whether they can meaningfully respond. Patients in a vegetative state will not respond in any predictable way, said Dr. Stephen Salloway, a staff neurologist at Rhode Island Hospital and professor of neurology at Brown Medical School. The tests will be repeated at regular intervals. Doctors may conduct EEGs and MRIs, although these tests are not definitive.

Q. Pictures show Schiavo with her eyes open and smiling. Do these facial expressions mean anything?

A. Patients in this state typically sleep and wake normally. But their eyes can rarely, if ever, track movement. They often make noises and may grimace or smile, but these are reflexive movements that are not consistent responses to people or the environment, according to Dr. Viken Babikian, a neurology professor at Boston University School of Medicine. The independent court-appointed guardian in Schiavo's case said videotapes show instances where she appears to respond to her mother, but ''these are not repetitive or consistent."

Q. Can a patient in a persistent vegetative state recover or gain some higher-level functioning?

A. They may make small gains early on, with the help of medications and rehabilitative therapy, but after a few months, they have almost no chance of regaining consciousness, according to Dr. Douglas Katz, associate professor of neurology at Boston University School of Medicine. The more time that elapses, the dimmer the prognosis. Schiavo has been unconscious for 15 years.

Tests of Schiavo's brain show that her cerebral cortex, which controls thinking, has softened and decayed, according to a document filed by the guardian. The guardian also said Schiavo has no reasonable medical hope of recovery.

Q. Is there another mental state between vegetative and fully conscious?

A. Some doctors distinguish a condition called minimally conscious, but the diagnosis is still controversial. These patients show intermittent awareness of themselves and others and may occasionally be able to follow a command or meaningfully track an object with their eyes. They may also occasionally communicate with gestures or with a simple yes or no. Some patients with this condition have been misdiagnosed as vegetative, and these cases have occasionally been touted as miraculous recoveries, according to Katz, medical director of the brain injury program at HealthSouth Braintree Rehabilitation Hospital.

Q. Would a patient in any of these conditions legally be able to make medical choices for themselves?

A. No. Patients must be capable of understanding their condition and treatment options. If the patient has designated a health proxy to act for them, doctors would contact that person. If the patient left written directions, those may guide doctors. But if, as in the Schiavo case, there is no proxy or directions, doctors turn to family members. If relatives can't agree, doctors then turn to a hospital ethics committee and rarely to the courts.

[Shwicaz]

Breaking News on CNN.com

>
BREAKING NEWS

AP: Federal judge refuses to order reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Details soon.

[Shwicaz]

Cnn news just confirmed it (watched tv) --

now they are going to appeal.

[DaveCummings]

You know what, I am glad they refused the reinsertion of the tube. I've been thinking and what's more cruel than her starving to death is the multiple removing the tube for a few days then reinserting the tube again.

It's cruel to her. And the times they reinserted it, it's cruel to her parents because it gives them a period of false hope, thinking that this time it's going to be for good.

I do think it is shity though that Michael now, has forbidden the parents from even seeing her. I mean, if she is going to die, at least let her parents see her to say goodbye to her.

~Dave

[Happy Time Harry]

Since its come up a few times in the thread (albeit in sarcasm) Here are a few gems from Rushbo on this situation


"It's just stunning to watch the eagerness that some people have to end this woman's life." (meaning those awful liberals)

"The Congress has full authority to do what they did last night: full authority, enumerated power in the Constitution."


"Even when the subject is life of the human being, the Democrats always seem to come down on the opposite side of life." Pot Shot at the pro-choicers...

"We're talking about the life of a woman who is not brain dead, who is not in a perpetual vegetative state who is not on life support." I think its pretty much established that her cerebral cortex is gone, so she is indeed brain dead...

"I don't happen to believe that a husband has the right to kill a wife or vice-versa, no matter how many times it may be desired." Yet if its the desire of the husband or the wife, should they become incapacitaed, its none of your buisness.

I couldn't bring myself to listen or watch Hannity, since he was so tastefully broadcasting from outside of Terri Shavo's hospice, but it was probably more of the same.

[mario]

This "starvation" angle bothers me. She's not being starved to death, she just won't be getting any nutricion to survive. There is a difference besides semantics. It's not the lack of food she'll die from but from dehydration
Take this crude comparison: she's a vegetable now. How do you kill a plant? By not feeding it. It will slowly stop functioning. When you don't have a legal way of euthanising her, this is the most humane way to terminate her "life"

[Shane W]

You know what, I am glad they refused the reinsertion of the tube. I've been thinking and what's more cruel than her starving to death is the multiple removing the tube for a few days then reinserting the tube again.

It's cruel to her. And the times they reinserted it, it's cruel to her parents because it gives them a period of false hope, thinking that this time it's going to be for good.

I do think it is shity though that Michael now, has forbidden the parents from even seeing her. I mean, if she is going to die, at least let her parents see her to say goodbye to her.

~Dave

I agree completely.

[Kensington]

try taking a look at your own cliches, within this very thread . J
For the most part, we've been having a civilised discussion all day. I wasn't running around accusing everyone who disagrees with me of being a mouthpiece for Air America, and it's irritating to have someone lower the level of discourse in the manner that Jamie did in his first post. It's amazing that you don't see this distinction.
Jamie is entitled to his view.

no one has said for you to stop voicing YOUR opinions.
No, Sonny, but I did have an idiot start belitting *my* opinions by suggesting that disagreeing with him means that you must be a Rush Limbaugh drone.

I never said he should stop voicing his opinion either. I'm just not interested in reading them, based upon his track record of being kind of a dick.

[Kensington]

That makes George W. Bush a hypocrite how, exactly? We're just going in circles.
that was because of a law he signed.
now, he's stepped in to the Terri Schiavo.
thats how.

One more time: before Bush even got there Texas law allowed hospitals to do this, even more easily then than it can now. Bush tried to change that. He tried to accomplish the absolutist position you (and I) advocate. He didn't have the votes. The current law was the best he could do, and it *is* an improvement. He wasn't a one man legislature.

he signed the law. he did try to accomplish anything else except socre political points with his buddies in the medical lobby.
And we keep hearing over and over that the right lacks nuance and only sees things in black and white. :roll:

"He signed the bill! Hypocrite!"

"Yes, but if you look at the details, you'll see that the bill improved upon the previous law."

"He signed the bill and something *bad* happened! Hypocrite!"

"Yes, that's unfortunate, but he couldn't get the votes for a better law"

"He didn't even want to! Hypocrite!"

Love that nuance...

[xyzzy]

Can Kensington or someone else point me to where there's any controversy about her medical condition? So far everything I've read indicates that she's essentially brain dead.

I'm aware of video of her moaning and smiling but that's not medical proof. My understanding is that it's just reflex actions.

[gwyllgi]

they are just reflex actions.

terri is not aware of anything.

what would be horrible is if she could still think. imagine that. it'd be like something out of metallica's 'one'.

that's pretty fucked up...

[Kensington]

...its not congress' place to make medical or legal desicions.
The United States Constitution disagrees. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
As for the rest of what you wrote:
they did this to score political points with the religious right. no other reason. thats why they specifically attempted to make this just about her.
No. Making it specifically about her was a practical choice which made it possible for the legislation to get passed so quickly. That was deemed necessary because the woman is already dying. There simply wasn't time to haggle on a larger bill.

Now, if this is the last we hear about such issues, then you'll have a point, but I'm not going to assume this or give you the benefit of the doubt on it.

[SolidGoldBomb]

You know what, I am glad they refused the reinsertion of the tube. I've been thinking and what's more cruel than her starving to death is the multiple removing the tube for a few days then reinserting the tube again.

It's cruel to her. And the times they reinserted it, it's cruel to her parents because it gives them a period of false hope, thinking that this time it's going to be for good.

I do think it is shity though that Michael now, has forbidden the parents from even seeing her. I mean, if she is going to die, at least let her parents see her to say goodbye to her.

~Dave

I agree completely.

Her parents are selfish pigs to try and hold on to her like this. If they truly loved her they wouldn't be able to bear the sight or thought of her in this state and would side with Michael and let her rest in peace.

[Kensington]

Can Kensington or someone else point me to where there's any controversy about her medical condition? So far everything I've read indicates that she's essentially brain dead.

I'm aware of video of her moaning and smiling but that's not medical proof. My understanding is that it's just reflex actions.
Here (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/johansen200503160848.asp) is an excellent rundown of the medical controversies. Read the whole thing, but here is a taste:
Terri is usually described as being in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), and indeed Judge Greer ruled as a finding of fact that she is PVS; but this diagnosis and finding were arrived at in a way that has many neurologists expressing surprise and dismay.

I have spent the past ten days recruiting and interviewing neurologists who are willing to come forward and offer affidavits or declarations concerning new testing and examinations for Terri. In addition to the 15 neurologists’ affidavits Gibbs had in time to present in court, I have commitments from over 30 others who are willing to testify that Terri should have new and additional testing, and new examinations by unbiased neurologists. Almost 50 neurologists all say the same thing: Terri should be reevaluated, Terri should be reexamined, and there are grave doubts as to the accuracy of Terri’s diagnosis of PVS. All of these neurologists are board-certified; a number of them are fellows of the prestigious American Academy of Neurology; several are professors of neurology at major medical schools.

...

...it is entirely likely that Terri has never been properly diagnosed. Terri is usually described as being in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), and indeed Judge Greer ruled as a finding of fact that she is PVS; but this diagnosis and finding were arrived at in a way that has many neurologists expressing surprise and dismay.

I have spent the past ten days recruiting and interviewing neurologists who are willing to come forward and offer affidavits or declarations concerning new testing and examinations for Terri. In addition to the 15 neurologists’ affidavits Gibbs had in time to present in court, I have commitments from over 30 others who are willing to testify that Terri should have new and additional testing, and new examinations by unbiased neurologists. Almost 50 neurologists all say the same thing: Terri should be reevaluated, Terri should be reexamined, and there are grave doubts as to the accuracy of Terri’s diagnosis of PVS. All of these neurologists are board-certified; a number of them are fellows of the prestigious American Academy of Neurology; several are professors of neurology at major medical schools.

So how can Judge Greer ignore the opinions of so many qualified neurologists, some of whom are leaders in the field? The answer is that Michael Schiavo, his attorney George Felos, and Judge Greer already have the diagnosis they want.

Terri’s diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS. One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries — but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with shock upon learning this fact. One such neurologist is Dr. Peter Morin. He is a researcher specializing in degenerative brain diseases, and has both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Boston University.

In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them.

There was a moment of dead silence.

“That’s criminal,” he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: “How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman’s life and death and there’s been no MRI or PET?” He drew a reasonable conclusion: “These people [Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer] don’t want the information.”

Dr. Morin explained that he would feel obligated to obtain the information in these tests before making a diagnosis with life and death consequences. I told him that CT (Computer-Aided Tomography) scans had been done, and were partly the basis for the finding of PVS. The doctor retorted, “Spare no expense, eh?” I asked him to explain the comment; he said that a CT scan is a much less expensive test than an MRI, but it “only gives you a tenth of the information an MRI does.” He added, “A CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases, such as trauma, and also during the few days after an anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain injury. It’s useful in an emergency-room setting. But if the question is ischemic injury [brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain] you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury, the CT is pretty useless unless there has been a massive stroke.”
It's been suggested that Terri's cerebral cortex has liquified, yet:
The problem with [this] contentions is that the available evidence can’t support [it]. Dr. Zabiega explained that “a CT scan can’t resolve the kind of detail needed” to make such a pronouncement: “A CT scan is like a blurry photograph.” Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at Wake Forest University Medical School, agrees: “A CT scan doesn’t give much detail. In order to see it on a CT, you have to have massive damage.” Is it possible that Terri has that sort of “massive” brain damage? According to Dr. Bell, that isn’t likely. Sometimes, he said, even patients who are PVS have a “normal or near normal” MRI.

[Shane W]

You know what, I am glad they refused the reinsertion of the tube. I've been thinking and what's more cruel than her starving to death is the multiple removing the tube for a few days then reinserting the tube again.

It's cruel to her. And the times they reinserted it, it's cruel to her parents because it gives them a period of false hope, thinking that this time it's going to be for good.

I do think it is shity though that Michael now, has forbidden the parents from even seeing her. I mean, if she is going to die, at least let her parents see her to say goodbye to her.

~Dave

I agree completely.

Her parents are selfish pigs to try and hold on to her like this. If they truly loved her they wouldn't be able to bear the sight or thought of her in this state and would side with Michael and let her rest in peace.

That's easy to say not being put in that position. I'm sure the parents aren't doing it because they think they're being cruel. they're doing it because they still have hope that she can regain something.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

try taking a look at your own cliches, within this very thread . J

Jamie is entitled to his view.

no one has said for you to stop voicing YOUR opinions.
I never said he should stop voicing his opinion, either, Sonny. I'm just not interested in reading them, based upon his track record of being kind of a dick.

and you're such a classy gent yourself, kenny.

:roll:

i've noticed that you still haven't addressed the truly awesome hypocrisy between your "err on the side of life" stance here and your pro-iraq war stance. i'm guessing it's proving to be too hard to weasel outta that one.
:)

[Shane W]

try taking a look at your own cliches, within this very thread . J

Jamie is entitled to his view.

no one has said for you to stop voicing YOUR opinions.
I never said he should stop voicing his opinion, either, Sonny. I'm just not interested in reading them, based upon his track record of being kind of a dick.

and you're such a classy gent yourself, kenny.

:roll:

i've noticed that you still haven't addressed the truly awesome hypocrisy between your "err on the side of life" stance here and your pro-iraq war stance. i'm guessing it's proving to be too hard to weasel outta that one.
:)

Well, you haven't explained the left's anti-death penalty stance and the hypocrisy of killing Terri and Abortion. So there. :roll:

[Bill?]

And we keep hearing over and over that the right lacks nuance and only sees things in black and white. :roll:

"He signed the bill! Hypocrite!"

"Yes, but if you look at the details, you'll see that the bill improved upon the previous law."

"He signed the bill and something *bad* happened! Hypocrite!"

"Yes, that's unfortunate, but he couldn't get the votes for a better law"

"He didn't even want to! Hypocrite!"

Love that nuance...

now your just ignoring the facts.
Bush was the first governor to put such a law into effect. he supported it to score points with the medical industry and help them save costs. he's a hypcrite because he talks about how important to err on the side of life, but more than one person has had the plug pulled on them because of this law. the law was about nothing else. he could have opted not to sign it. he could now spend his time stepping in to help all the families being affected by this law, but he doesnt. because it is not politically expedient.

[xyzzy]

try taking a look at your own cliches, within this very thread . J

Jamie is entitled to his view.

no one has said for you to stop voicing YOUR opinions.
I never said he should stop voicing his opinion, either, Sonny. I'm just not interested in reading them, based upon his track record of being kind of a dick.

and you're such a classy gent yourself, kenny.

:roll:

i've noticed that you still haven't addressed the truly awesome hypocrisy between your "err on the side of life" stance here and your pro-iraq war stance. i'm guessing it's proving to be too hard to weasel outta that one.
:)

Well, you haven't explained the left's anti-death penalty stance and the hypocrisy of killing Terri and Abortion. So there. :roll:

That's actually pretty easy. You c an justify it by saying that in neither case is a life actually ended. In abortion, the fetus is not yet a life and for Shiavo, she's already dead.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

Well, you haven't explained the left's anti-death penalty stance and the hypocrisy of killing Terri and Abortion. So there. :roll:

please don't use sweeping generalizations, shane. they only demean you.
i was talking specifically about kenny's view.

xyzzy's answer is perfect, though.

[Kensington]

Well, you haven't explained the left's anti-death penalty stance and the hypocrisy of killing Terri and Abortion. So there. :roll:
Plus, if someone can't understand elementary distinctions, I really can't help them.

There is a difference between accepting that war is sometimes necessary, and that in war people die, and opposing the starvation death of a woman in the manner that Terri Schiavo is facing.

While there might be room to consider the inconsistencies of wanting less government intrusion in general with wanting government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, attempting to blur the lines between between a soldier dying in war and a woman being starved to death in a hospice in Florida is simply too foolish to entertain seriously.

[Shane W]

Well, you haven't explained the left's anti-death penalty stance and the hypocrisy of killing Terri and Abortion. So there. :roll:

please don't use sweeping generalizations, shane. they only demean you.
i was talking specifically about kenny's view.

xyzzy's answer is perfect, though.

Toughen your skin up and get over it.

[Bill?]

The United States Constitution disagrees. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

thanks for making my point. congress MAKES laws. not interpret them and overrides the courts that have already made the decision.


As for the rest of what you wrote:
they did this to score political points with the religious right. no other reason. thats why they specifically attempted to make this just about her.
No. Making it specifically about her was a practical choice which made it possible for the legislation to get passed so quickly. That was deemed necessary because the woman is already dying. There simply wasn't time to haggle on a larger bill.

Now, if this is the last we hear about such issues, then you'll have a point, but I'm not going to assume this or give you the benefit of the doubt on it.

except they're all falling over themselves to say this is just about terri. so i guess they'll ignore anyone else who happens to appeal to them on these matters. they made a practical choice to appeal to a certain base of voters (and the poll numbers already back this up). there may have been no time to haggle over al rger bill, but there was no time to haggle over this on either. They spend no time examining the evidence or hearing testimony from experts. They just went in and made decisions on a purely political basis.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

Well, you haven't explained the left's anti-death penalty stance and the hypocrisy of killing Terri and Abortion. So there. :roll:

please don't use sweeping generalizations, shane. they only demean you.
i was talking specifically about kenny's view.

xyzzy's answer is perfect, though.

Toughen your skin up and get over it.

:?:

[xyzzy]

...its not congress' place to make medical or legal desicions.
The United States Constitution disagrees. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

thanks for making my point. congress MAKES laws. not interprets them and overrides the courts that have already made the decision.


Actually, here, Congress absolutely has the authority to do what it did. It decides what kinds of cases Federal courts have jurisdiction over. What they did here was not to overturn a decision, but to grant the federal court system the ability to hear the case.

With that said, they absolutely should have stayed the hell out of this case. The parents' case is extremely weak and all this is going to do is bring them false hope and make it that much harder for them. It's a political move and that's it.

[Shane W]

The United States Constitution disagrees. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

thanks for making my point. congress MAKES laws. not interpret them and overrides the courts that have already made the decision.

Sorry man, only the Supreme Court is immune from Congress. They are well within their rights to do this.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

Well, you haven't explained the left's anti-death penalty stance and the hypocrisy of killing Terri and Abortion. So there. :roll:
Plus, if someone can't understand elementary distinctions, I really can't help them.

There is a difference between accepting that war is sometimes necessary, and that in war people die, and opposing the starvation death of a woman in the manner that Terri Schiavo is facing.

While there might be room to consider the inconsistencies of wanting less government intrusion in general with wanting government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, attempting to blur the lines between between a soldier dying in war and a woman being starved to death in a hospice in Florida is simply too foolish to entertain seriously.

sure war is sometimes necessary. but it should only be done in the most extreme cases. we should err on life, if you'll excuse my use of your term. i'm not just talking about the soldiers' lives. i'm also talking about the thousands and thousands of dead iraiqs who died far more horribly than terri will and were just as innocent as she. that's where the hypocrisy lies. i'm glad you can just dismiss their deaths with your simple cliches... but i can't.

[Shane W]

try taking a look at your own cliches, within this very thread . J

Jamie is entitled to his view.

no one has said for you to stop voicing YOUR opinions.
I never said he should stop voicing his opinion, either, Sonny. I'm just not interested in reading them, based upon his track record of being kind of a dick.

and you're such a classy gent yourself, kenny.

:roll:

i've noticed that you still haven't addressed the truly awesome hypocrisy between your "err on the side of life" stance here and your pro-iraq war stance. i'm guessing it's proving to be too hard to weasel outta that one.
:)

Well, you haven't explained the left's anti-death penalty stance and the hypocrisy of killing Terri and Abortion. So there. :roll:

That's actually pretty easy. You c an justify it by saying that in neither case is a life actually ended. In abortion, the fetus is not yet a life and for Shiavo, she's already dead.

I guess you can justify it depending on which doctor you listen to. *shrug* If doctors disagree, it must be dead.

[Shane W]

Well, you haven't explained the left's anti-death penalty stance and the hypocrisy of killing Terri and Abortion. So there. :roll:
Plus, if someone can't understand elementary distinctions, I really can't help them.

There is a difference between accepting that war is sometimes necessary, and that in war people die, and opposing the starvation death of a woman in the manner that Terri Schiavo is facing.

While there might be room to consider the inconsistencies of wanting less government intrusion in general with wanting government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, attempting to blur the lines between between a soldier dying in war and a woman being starved to death in a hospice in Florida is simply too foolish to entertain seriously.

sure war is sometimes necessary. but it should only be done in the most extreme cases. we should err on life, if you'll excuse my use of your term. i'm not just talking about the soldiers' lives. i'm also talking about the thousands and thousands of dead iraiqs who died far more horribly than terri will and were just as innocent as she. that's where the hypocrisy lies. i'm glad you can just dismiss their deaths with your simple cliches... but i can't.

Of course not, it has nothing to do with this topic..

[Kensington]

now your just ignoring the facts.
The facts you are presenting aren't relevant, and they are surrounded by your opinions, which aren't facts. Let's go through this for a third time, I guess:
Bush was the first governor to put such a law into effect.
Fact, I guess, but completely irrelevant.
he supported it to score points with the medical industry and help them save costs.
Opinion, not fact.
he's a hypcrite because he talks about how important to err on the side of life, but more than one person has had the plug pulled on them because of this law. the law was about nothing else. he could have opted not to sign it.
Before the law, patients had less rights, less protection. After the law, they had more rights, more protection. Bush wanted a more comprehensive law that would have given patients absolute protection, but couldn't get the votes for it. It wasn't going to happen. The best option available was the current law, which improved upon the previous situation. Had he not signed the law, nothing would have changed. The patients would *still* have had less rights, *still* would have had less protections, and those who died would still have died, probably sooner than they did die.
he could now spend his time stepping in to help all the families being affected by this law, but he doesnt.
The president's job is not to micromanage the lives of every American. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with Congress intervening in *this* *particular* *case* since the Constitution of the United States gives them that authority. So, since the President can't get involved in everyone's life, he shouldn't get involved in anyone's life?
because it is not politically expedient.
Opinion, not fact. And, by the way, this has not exactly been a politically windfall for the Republicans. They've been taking it on the chin all weekend. So much for political expedience...

[xyzzy]

Well, you haven't explained the left's anti-death penalty stance and the hypocrisy of killing Terri and Abortion. So there. :roll:

That's actually pretty easy. You c an justify it by saying that in neither case is a life actually ended. In abortion, the fetus is not yet a life and for Shiavo, she's already dead.

I guess you can justify it depending on which doctor you listen to. *shrug* If doctors disagree, it must be dead.

I don't think it's unreasonable to go with the evaluation of the court appointed doctors instead of a bunch of people standing on the sidelines screaming their opinions.

[William Satterwhite]

I'm sure it would be easy to look it up myself and it's probably already been mentioned in this thread (I just feel like being lazy) but can someone tell me who is paying for her care while this woman is still "alive"? Also, if it isn't the parents who are paying the bill, have they said whether or not they would be willing to accept full responsiblity for the cost of keeping their daughter "alive"?

[Kensington]

I don't think it's unreasonable to go with the evaluation of the court appointed doctors instead of a bunch of people standing on the sidelines screaming their opinions.
You asked for information regarding the medical controversy. Have you looked at anything I posted in response. It's all about doctors, some of whom were appointed, some of whom were not, none of whom should be dismissed as "people standing on the sidelines screaming their opinions." There is more substance than that.

[xyzzy]

I don't think it's unreasonable to go with the evaluation of the court appointed doctors instead of a bunch of people standing on the sidelines screaming their opinions.
You asked for information regarding the medical controversy. Have you looked at anything I posted in response. It's all about doctors, some of whom were appointed, some of whom were not, none of whom should be dismissed as "people standing on the sidelines screaming their opinions." There is more substance than that.

Yeah, I read it. Based on that article I give some credence to a counter opinion. On the other hand, it would be nice to see an article that wasn't from the National Review, which is a highly suspect source of information.

My point is that the opinion of people who have actually examined her, to me, outweighs the opinions of people who have not.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

Well, you haven't explained the left's anti-death penalty stance and the hypocrisy of killing Terri and Abortion. So there. :roll:
Plus, if someone can't understand elementary distinctions, I really can't help them.

There is a difference between accepting that war is sometimes necessary, and that in war people die, and opposing the starvation death of a woman in the manner that Terri Schiavo is facing.

While there might be room to consider the inconsistencies of wanting less government intrusion in general with wanting government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, attempting to blur the lines between between a soldier dying in war and a woman being starved to death in a hospice in Florida is simply too foolish to entertain seriously.

sure war is sometimes necessary. but it should only be done in the most extreme cases. we should err on life, if you'll excuse my use of your term. i'm not just talking about the soldiers' lives. i'm also talking about the thousands and thousands of dead iraiqs who died far more horribly than terri will and were just as innocent as she. that's where the hypocrisy lies. i'm glad you can just dismiss their deaths with your simple cliches... but i can't.

Of course not, it has nothing to do with this topic..

i think the display of such blatant hypocrisy is very useful in determining the credibility and agenda of the person arguing. it can also maybe be used to help the person re-evaluate their viewpoint by comparing it to another of their's. such cross-referencing of one's opinions and thoughts can lead to a more consistent broad viewpoint.

but that would require a degree of introspection that ken hasn't really shown himself capable of having. so maybe you're kinda right. maybe it's is a vain attempt on my part.

[Kensington]

I'm sure it would be easy to look it up myself and it's probably already been mentioned in this thread (I just feel like being lazy) but can someone tell me who is paying for her care while this woman is still "alive"? Also, if it isn't the parents who are paying the bill, have they said whether or not they would be willing to accept full responsiblity for the cost of keeping their daughter "alive"?
The parents have pledged that they will continue to care for her. Fortunately, in a high-profile case like this, there appears to be a lot of money available for her continued medical care. Now, if a lot of the money that Michael Schiavo won in the malpractice suit that was spent on getting a court to allow Michael Schiavo to kill her had been spent on, say, therapy, which has been denied to her all this time, who knows where she might be.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

Opinion, not fact. And, by the way, this has not exactly been a politically windfall for the Republicans. They've been taking it on the chin all weekend. So much for political expedience...

but there's another politcal angle to this beside the anti-choice/judicial angle that's been mentioned before. this is also a distraction from the ethical shitstorm Delay (who by the way, is a creepy shitmonger) has been going through. so yeah, maybe they have been taking a little heat... but it's better than letting people focus on that scumbag Delay.

[Kensington]

I don't think it's unreasonable to go with the evaluation of the court appointed doctors instead of a bunch of people standing on the sidelines screaming their opinions.
You asked for information regarding the medical controversy. Have you looked at anything I posted in response. It's all about doctors, some of whom were appointed, some of whom were not, none of whom should be dismissed as "people standing on the sidelines screaming their opinions." There is more substance than that.

Yeah, I read it. Based on that article I give some credence to a counter opinion. On the other hand, it would be nice to see an article that wasn't from the National Review, which is a highly suspect source of information.

My point is that the opinion of people who have actually examined her, to me, outweighs the opinions of people who have not.
Excellent! Take a look at this (http://www.terrisfight.net/) Terri Schiavo advocacy website, then, and look at the section "myths about Terri." Here's a small sample:
MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.

Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.

[William Satterwhite]

I'm sure it would be easy to look it up myself and it's probably already been mentioned in this thread (I just feel like being lazy) but can someone tell me who is paying for her care while this woman is still "alive"? Also, if it isn't the parents who are paying the bill, have they said whether or not they would be willing to accept full responsiblity for the cost of keeping their daughter "alive"?
The parents have pledged that they will continue to care for her. Fortunately, in a high-profile case like this, there appears to be a lot of money available for her continued medical care. Now, if a lot of the money that Michael Schiavo won in the malpractice suit that was spent on getting a court to allow Michael Schiavo to kill her had been spent on, say, therapy, which has been denied to her all this time, who knows where she might be.

Thanks. I'm not sure about all the legal technical details but if her family wants to keep her alive in the condition that she is in and is willing to accept full responsibility for her care on their own, I don't see why that can't be worked out.

[Kensington]

I'm sure it would be easy to look it up myself and it's probably already been mentioned in this thread (I just feel like being lazy) but can someone tell me who is paying for her care while this woman is still "alive"? Also, if it isn't the parents who are paying the bill, have they said whether or not they would be willing to accept full responsiblity for the cost of keeping their daughter "alive"?
The parents have pledged that they will continue to care for her. Fortunately, in a high-profile case like this, there appears to be a lot of money available for her continued medical care. Now, if a lot of the money that Michael Schiavo won in the malpractice suit that was spent on getting a court to allow Michael Schiavo to kill her had been spent on, say, therapy, which has been denied to her all this time, who knows where she might be.
Thanks. I'm not sure about all the legal technical details but if her family wants to keep her alive in the condition that she is in and is willing to accept full responsibility for her care on their own, I don't see why that can't be worked out.
It's not looking good, though...

[Bill?]

The facts you are presenting aren't relevant, and they are surrounded by your opinions, which aren't facts. Let's go through this for a third time, I guess:
Bush was the first governor to put such a law into effect.
Fact, I guess, but completely irrelevant.


not really.


Opinion, not fact.

not really.



Before the law, patients had less rights, less protection. After the law, they had more rights, more protection. Bush wanted a more comprehensive law that would have given patients absolute protection, but couldn't get the votes for it. It wasn't going to happen. The best option available was the current law, which improved upon the previous situation. Had he not signed the law, nothing would have changed. The patients would *still* have had less rights, *still* would have had less protections, and those who died would still have died, probably sooner than they did die.

yes. poor families are very protected by a law that allows hospitals to pull the plug when they can no longer pay. it really makes everybodies life better. just ask the parents of that six month old boy. they were very pleased by this law.



The president's job is not to micromanage the lives of every American.


I’ll just go ahead and cut out the parts that don’t ignore the one good point you made here. there are many families like Terri Schiavos. like the familiy of the six month old boy last week. they would have welcomed his help. this is politics plain and simple. And that’s what makes it hypocritical.


Opinion, not fact. And, by the way, this has not exactly been a politically windfall for the Republicans. They've been taking it on the chin all weekend. So much for political expedience...

check the polls they scored the points among the group they wanted too.

[Bill?]

Thanks. I'm not sure about all the legal technical details but if her family wants to keep her alive in the condition that she is in and is willing to accept full responsibility for her care on their own, I don't see why that can't be worked out.

her husband claims that she wouldnt have wanted to be kept alive like that. its not about who foots the bill.

[sonnylarue]

TAMPA, Fla. — A federal judge early Tuesday morning refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's (search) feeding tube, which prompted lawyers for the severely brain-damaged woman's parents to file a notice of appeal to a higher court.

U.S. District Judge James Whittemore (search) said Bob and Mary Schindler (search) had not established a "substantial likelihood of success" at trial on the merits of their arguments.

Schiavo's tube was removed Friday after the Schindlers' appeals to keep the tube in place failed in state court. Tuesday marked the fourth day without her feeding tube.

Congress and President Bush took unprecedented action over the weekend, enacting a new law that permitted Schiavo's parents to take their case to federal court.

Rex Sparklin, an attorney with the law firm representing the Schindlers, said lawyers were appealing to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to "save Terri's life."

The Atlanta court was notified of the intent to appeal Tuesday morning, but the actual appeal had not been filed as of 10:45 a.m. EST. The court appointed a three-judge panel to review the forthcoming appeal then decide if they will hear oral arguments in the case; judges can rule without those arguments. There is no indication of what they will do or what time they will do it. Court officials said, however, that they will go late into the night if needed.

[xyzzy]

I don't think it's unreasonable to go with the evaluation of the court appointed doctors instead of a bunch of people standing on the sidelines screaming their opinions.
You asked for information regarding the medical controversy. Have you looked at anything I posted in response. It's all about doctors, some of whom were appointed, some of whom were not, none of whom should be dismissed as "people standing on the sidelines screaming their opinions." There is more substance than that.

Yeah, I read it. Based on that article I give some credence to a counter opinion. On the other hand, it would be nice to see an article that wasn't from the National Review, which is a highly suspect source of information.

My point is that the opinion of people who have actually examined her, to me, outweighs the opinions of people who have not.
Excellent! Take a look at this (http://www.terrisfight.net/) Terri Schiavo advocacy website, then, and look at the section "myths about Terri." Here's a small sample:
MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.

Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.

Can you give me a reference that is not from a right wing extremist group or advocacy site? I just don't find those to be credible sources. For example, the quote you give says that Dr. Gambone was suprised by her level of awareness in a videotape, but it doesn't say what he thought that it meant or what his diagnosis was. Or for that matter, the exact question and response that occurred. It's just not useful to me.

Then it says that there are 14 medical peopel who say that she is not in a PVS, but it doesn't say how many say that she is.

And if he's denied treatment for 10 years, that means that he pursued treatment for 5 years before giving up hope.

The information here is being carefully crafted to paint a picture that may or may not be representative of reality. This is not to say that the other side doesn't do the same thing, but it makes it difficult to figure out what the actual facts are.

[Smokinblues]

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a464/a464.gif

[xyzzy]

I'm sure it would be easy to look it up myself and it's probably already been mentioned in this thread (I just feel like being lazy) but can someone tell me who is paying for her care while this woman is still "alive"? Also, if it isn't the parents who are paying the bill, have they said whether or not they would be willing to accept full responsiblity for the cost of keeping their daughter "alive"?
The parents have pledged that they will continue to care for her. Fortunately, in a high-profile case like this, there appears to be a lot of money available for her continued medical care. Now, if a lot of the money that Michael Schiavo won in the malpractice suit that was spent on getting a court to allow Michael Schiavo to kill her had been spent on, say, therapy, which has been denied to her all this time, who knows where she might be.

Who's supposed to pay for these kinds of things when there isn't a huge amount of media publicity, though? Should we just force families into bankruptcy to keep a brain dead person's body alive?

[DaveCummings]

You know what, this may sound very odd and to some probably callous. But, I was watching the original Dawn of the Dead and I realized something about Terri's mental capacity and her looking like she recognizes her parents and the things that seem like she is trying to communicate.

According to cat scans, the cerebral cortex is gone, all that remains is essentially the most primitive part of the brain. Kinda like what they reveal about the zombies in Day of the Dead.

But, what reminds me of Dawn of the Dead is her looking like she recognizes her parents and what seems like attempts to communicate. It came when the main characters are wondering why Zombies are flocking to the shopping mall and someone mentioned that it is something that was part of thier routine or something along those lines.

Now, though essentally the most primitive part of her brain is left, perhaps why she appears to recognize her parents and what seems like attempts to communicate is because that primitive part of the brain still remembers the parents in a primitive way, though no higher brain functions remain, kinda like the zombies and the mall. She just isn't craving human flesh....yet (jk).

Just sayin'. No offense to anyone who might take offense to me making analogies to Terri and the Undead.

~Dave

[Kensington]

I'm sure it would be easy to look it up myself and it's probably already been mentioned in this thread (I just feel like being lazy) but can someone tell me who is paying for her care while this woman is still "alive"? Also, if it isn't the parents who are paying the bill, have they said whether or not they would be willing to accept full responsiblity for the cost of keeping their daughter "alive"?
The parents have pledged that they will continue to care for her. Fortunately, in a high-profile case like this, there appears to be a lot of money available for her continued medical care. Now, if a lot of the money that Michael Schiavo won in the malpractice suit that was spent on getting a court to allow Michael Schiavo to kill her had been spent on, say, therapy, which has been denied to her all this time, who knows where she might be.
Who's supposed to pay for these kinds of things when there isn't a huge amount of media publicity, though? Should we just force families into bankruptcy to keep a brain dead person's body alive?
Who's advocating keeping brain dead people alive? Terri Schiavo's advocates don't believe she's braind dead. There are doctors and neurologists who dispute it, too. Frankly, though, even though I don't think this case is going to lead to a bunch of brain dead people being forced to stay alive, nor do I think that is what is being advocated, God help us when the bottom line on whether someone who isn't braind dead gets to live or die is the size of the medical bill...

[DaveCummings]

Now that said, I am partly glad that the judge did refuse the reinsertion of the tube. Why? Because if and when she does pass away, maybe we'll see the end of the news networks going on and on about the story.

~Dave

[Kensington]

According to cat scans, the cerebral cortex is gone, all that remains is essentially the most primitive part of the brain.
There are neurologists disputing this, saying that the tests performed are not capable of conclusively determining the state of her cerebral cortex, and that she has been denied the more expensive tests that could better reveal the state of her brain.

[xyzzy]

I'm sure it would be easy to look it up myself and it's probably already been mentioned in this thread (I just feel like being lazy) but can someone tell me who is paying for her care while this woman is still "alive"? Also, if it isn't the parents who are paying the bill, have they said whether or not they would be willing to accept full responsiblity for the cost of keeping their daughter "alive"?
The parents have pledged that they will continue to care for her. Fortunately, in a high-profile case like this, there appears to be a lot of money available for her continued medical care. Now, if a lot of the money that Michael Schiavo won in the malpractice suit that was spent on getting a court to allow Michael Schiavo to kill her had been spent on, say, therapy, which has been denied to her all this time, who knows where she might be.
Who's supposed to pay for these kinds of things when there isn't a huge amount of media publicity, though? Should we just force families into bankruptcy to keep a brain dead person's body alive?
Who's advocating keeping brain dead people alive? Terri Schiavo's advocates don't believe she's braind dead. There are doctors and neurologists who dispute it, too. Frankly, though, even though I don't think this case is going to lead to a bunch of brain dead people being forced to stay alive, nor do I think that is what is being advocated, God help us when the bottom line on whether someone who isn't braind dead gets to live or die is the size of the medical bill...

There will always be questions. No matter what the case, advocates will be able to find doctors that support their side.

Money is important. Resources are limited. This already determines who lives and who dies in many, many cases.

[xyzzy]

According to cat scans, the cerebral cortex is gone, all that remains is essentially the most primitive part of the brain.
There are neurologists disputing this, saying that the tests performed are not capable of conclusively determining the state of her cerebral cortex, and that she has been denied the more expensive tests that could better reveal the state of her brain.

When a cheaper test tells you all you need to know, why spend more money on it?

[Kensington]

Now that said, I am partly glad that the judge did refuse the reinsertion of the tube. Why? Because if and when she does pass away, maybe we'll see the end of the news networks going on and on about the story.
Oh, well as long as you don't have to hear about it anymore... :roll:

[Kensington]

When a cheaper test tells you all you need to know, why spend more money on it?
The disputing neurologists say that the cheaper test *can't* tell you all you need to know. When a cheaper test doesn't pass that basic requirement, what good is it?

[xyzzy]

When a cheaper test tells you all you need to know, why spend more money on it?
The disputing neurologists say that the cheaper test *can't* tell you all you need to know. When a cheaper test doesn't pass that basic requirement, what good is it?

The court appointed doctors seem to think that it does.

If a kid comes in with a suspected broken leg and an x-ray confirms, that's all you need. Sure, you could perform more expensive diagnostic tests to find out more information about the break and get 3-d pictures of it and everything, but the x-ray tells you all you need to know to treat.

[sonnylarue]

God help us when the bottom line on whether someone who isn't braind dead gets to live or die is the size of the medical bill...


But, that isn't what's happening here, so why even suggest such a thing?

Shock value?

Many of your arguments are loaded with crass comments like "they WANT TO KILL Terry" or the comment above.

If the people who agree with Michael are "KILLING" Terry as you say, I think you need to look at the side you represent , who are in effect saying "we want to keep this BRAIN DEAD woman alive, regardless of her current non existense. ", showing an incredible lack of humanity or comapssion on their part.

it cuts both ways.

[Kensington]

If the people who agree with Michael are "KILLING" Terry as you say, I think you need to look at the side you represent , who are in effect saying "we want to keep this BRAIN DEAD woman alive", regardless of her current non existense, showing an incredible lack of humanity or comapssion on their part.
If you've read anything I've written, you have to know that I've only written about the people who are supporting her based upon the idea that she is *not* brain dead. The questions raised have struck me as substantial enough to warrant further inquiry. If you're deliberately misreading me, knock it off. If you're not, look again.

I've been very careful not to call anyone a "murderer," but she *is* going to be killed. That's what is happening. She's not dying on her own. If it's shocking, it should be. Starving someone to death is a shocking thing. I simply refuse to euphemise it. She is being killed. Her husband, his attorneys, want to kill her. They are justifying it, people are supporting them, courts are agreeing to it, and the fact of it remains. She's not going to die unless someone affirmatively deprives her of what she needs to live, and it ain't life support. If you're going to advocate it, you damn well better accept what you're advocating.

It's only crass if you insist upon sugar coating what is happening.

[William Satterwhite]

Thanks. I'm not sure about all the legal technical details but if her family wants to keep her alive in the condition that she is in and is willing to accept full responsibility for her care on their own, I don't see why that can't be worked out.

her husband claims that she wouldnt have wanted to be kept alive like that. its not about who foots the bill.

True but if I'm not mistaken there is no way to absolutely prove that and that's why this thing has been dragging on for so long. I understand where the husband is coming from but it seems as long as the parents want to make a fight out of this, it's just making things worse.

As much as Terry might not have wanted to be kept alive in a vegetative state, I'm sure she would prefer just that fate rather than ending up being caught in a political tug of war. Terry wouldn't want people who claim to be looking out for her interests attacking her husband and she wouldn't want her parents to have to go through what they're going through.

No matter what, it's safe to say things have already gone against what Terry Schiavo wanted and in a big way. I'm just saying Michael might have to go against whatever she might have told him if he really wants what's best for Terry right now. If there is a way to make that happen that can come close to satisfying everybody and being relatively fair, that's what needs to happen.

[sonnylarue]

I've been very careful not to call anyone a "murderer," but she *is* going to be killed. That's what is happening. She's not dying on her own. If it's shocking, it should be. Starving someone to death is a shocking thing. I simply refuse to euphemise it. She is being killed. Her husband, his attorneys, want to kill her. They are justifying it, people are supporting them, courts are agreeing to it, and the fact of it remains. She's not going to die unless someone affirmatively deprives her of what she needs to live, and it ain't life support. If you're going to advocate it, you damn well better accept what you're advocating.


her body lives, not HER. She is already dead, no longer aware. SHE cannot live with out a machine feeding her.

I trust 7 years of real deliberation over the medical and scientific facts, over eager legislators , pandering to a group of people who enter into the debate, with a cynicism towards science, and it's lack of a place in "God's Plan".

There is also the very real contempt the conservatives have towards the "liberal judciary" who made these decisions.

This is as much about the Religious Right tearing apart the still free thinking courts, who dare to find in favor of Gay marriage , euthenasia, abortion, etc.

This case has gone through the proper process of examining the facts and reaching a hard decision. not the cavalier attitude comments like this suggest

She is being killed. Her husband, his attorneys, want to kill her. They are justifying it, people are supporting them, courts are agreeing to it, and the fact of it remains.

Politics is the only reason it's still being debated. That's why the appeal failed, and will fail again.

And that poor woman will be at peace, cause that's what it's all about, right?

[Shane W]

I've been very careful not to call anyone a "murderer," but she *is* going to be killed. That's what is happening. She's not dying on her own. If it's shocking, it should be. Starving someone to death is a shocking thing. I simply refuse to euphemise it. She is being killed. Her husband, his attorneys, want to kill her. They are justifying it, people are supporting them, courts are agreeing to it, and the fact of it remains. She's not going to die unless someone affirmatively deprives her of what she needs to live, and it ain't life support. If you're going to advocate it, you damn well better accept what you're advocating.


her body lives, not HER. She is already dead, no longer aware. SHE cannot live with out a machine feeding her.

genuine ending her REAL non existense IS merciful.

I trust 7 years of real deliberation over the medical and scientific facts, over eager legislators , pandering to a group of people who enter into the debate, with a cynicism towards science, and it's lack of a place in "God's Plan".

There is also the very real contempt the conservatives have towards the "liberal judciary" who made these decisions.

This is as much about the Religious Right tearing apart the still free thinking courts, who dare to find in favor of Gay marriage , euthenasia, abortion, etc.

This case has gone through the proper process of examining the facts and reaching a hard decision. not the cavalier attitude comments like this suggest

She is being killed. Her husband, his attorneys, want to kill her. They are justifying it, people are supporting them, courts are agreeing to it, and the fact of it remains.

Politics is the only reason it's still being debated. That's why the appeal failed, and will fail again.

And that poor woman will be at peace, cause that's what it's all about, right?

So, if a person can't feed themselves without outside help, then they are not living?

[sonnylarue]

So, if a person can't feed themselves without outside help, then they are not living?

hey, way to pick one sentance.

she's brain dead sir.

[Disney-Owned Corpse]

All the issues have been argued in court for SEVEN YEARS.
It comes down to not whether keeping the tube in is right or wrong, but who makes that decision.
Should it be the Husband who has been caring for her day-in and day-out for more than a decade or family members who have not visted in half-a-year.

[Shane W]

So, if a person can't feed themselves without outside help, then they are not living?

hey, way to pick one sentance.

she's brain dead sir.

No sir, legaly she is not.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

So, if a person can't feed themselves without outside help, then they are not living?

hey, way to pick one sentance.

she's brain dead sir.

No sir, legaly she is not.

sigh.
let's split hairs for shane.

she's higher-brain dead.
not much of a difference, is there.

[Shane W]

All the issues have been argued in court for SEVEN YEARS.
It comes down to not whether keeping the tube in is right or wrong, but who makes that decision.
Should it be the Husband who has been caring for her day-in and day-out for more than a decade or family members who have not visted in half-a-year.

These are the accusations that are bugging me. I don't know the truth of these though.

[hide:0b26d12361] * In 1992, Michael filed and won a malpractice case in which a significant award was made for Terri’s rehabilitation and therapy. The award was based, in part, on expert testimony that she would live a normal life span.

* During the time he was seeking the malpractice award, Michael never indicated that Terri would want to die if she were severely disabled.

* Michael has refused to permit any of the money from the malpractice award to be used for Terri’s rehabilitation or therapy. Instead, most of the money was used for lawyers Michael hired to help end Terri's life.
[/hide:0b26d12361]

[Shane W]

So, if a person can't feed themselves without outside help, then they are not living?

hey, way to pick one sentance.

she's brain dead sir.

No sir, legaly she is not.

sigh.
let's split hairs for shane.

she's higher-brain dead.
not much of a difference, is there.

Sorry Jamie, you have to split hairs. If the argument is that she's brain dead, then she better damn well be brain dead. Not "higher-brain" dead, or whatever else you come up with.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

All the issues have been argued in court for SEVEN YEARS.
It comes down to not whether keeping the tube in is right or wrong, but who makes that decision.
Should it be the Husband who has been caring for her day-in and day-out for more than a decade or family members who have not visted in half-a-year.

These are the accusations that are bugging me. I don't know the truth of these though.

[hide:a608d8b669] * In 1992, Michael filed and won a malpractice case in which a significant award was made for Terri’s rehabilitation and therapy. The award was based, in part, on expert testimony that she would live a normal life span.

* During the time he was seeking the malpractice award, Michael never indicated that Terri would want to die if she were severely disabled.

* Michael has refused to permit any of the money from the malpractice award to be used for Terri’s rehabilitation or therapy. Instead, most of the money was used for lawyers Michael hired to help end Terri's life.
[/hide:a608d8b669]

probably because at that point, he was trying to honor her wishes not to live this way.

i don't understand why people are so intent on maligning the guy. we need to take him at face value. calling him a liar or second-guessing his intentions helps no one.

it's clearly not about money. he's already quashed that by refusing the money offered by those nosy rich people. it's about doing right by his wife. why else would he have pursued this for 7-8 years? just to prove a point?
:?

[Taxman]

All the issues have been argued in court for SEVEN YEARS.
It comes down to not whether keeping the tube in is right or wrong, but who makes that decision.
Should it be the Husband who has been caring for her day-in and day-out for more than a decade or family members who have not visted in half-a-year.

These are the accusations that are bugging me. I don't know the truth of these though.

[hide:0401de514f] * In 1992, Michael filed and won a malpractice case in which a significant award was made for Terri’s rehabilitation and therapy. The award was based, in part, on expert testimony that she would live a normal life span.

* During the time he was seeking the malpractice award, Michael never indicated that Terri would want to die if she were severely disabled.

* Michael has refused to permit any of the money from the malpractice award to be used for Terri’s rehabilitation or therapy. Instead, most of the money was used for lawyers Michael hired to help end Terri's life.
[/hide:0401de514f]

probably because at that point, he was trying to honor her wishes not to live this way.

i don't understand why people are so intent on maligning the guy. we need to take him at face value. calling him a liar or second-guessing his intentions helps no one.

it's clearly not about money. he's already quashed that by refusing the money offered by those nosy rich people. it's about doing right by his wife. why else would he have pursued this for 7-8 years? just to prove a point?
:?

Well, someone is lying. The amount of time that her family spends maligning him in the press will take a toll, even if the guy were a Saint.

[Shane W]

All the issues have been argued in court for SEVEN YEARS.
It comes down to not whether keeping the tube in is right or wrong, but who makes that decision.
Should it be the Husband who has been caring for her day-in and day-out for more than a decade or family members who have not visted in half-a-year.

These are the accusations that are bugging me. I don't know the truth of these though.

[hide:29c8a6a425] * In 1992, Michael filed and won a malpractice case in which a significant award was made for Terri’s rehabilitation and therapy. The award was based, in part, on expert testimony that she would live a normal life span.

* During the time he was seeking the malpractice award, Michael never indicated that Terri would want to die if she were severely disabled.

* Michael has refused to permit any of the money from the malpractice award to be used for Terri’s rehabilitation or therapy. Instead, most of the money was used for lawyers Michael hired to help end Terri's life.
[/hide:29c8a6a425]

probably because at that point, he was trying to honor her wishes not to live this way.

i don't understand why people are so intent on maligning the guy. we need to take him at face value. calling him a liar or second-guessing his intentions helps no one.

it's clearly not about money. he's already quashed that by refusing the money offered by those nosy rich people. it's about doing right by his wife. why else would he have pursued this for 7-8 years? just to prove a point?
:?

We have to question and find out. Because without an advanced directive, we may be opening a can of worms for many cases where a spouce may no longer be interested in the wife/husband's best interest. "Well, she told me this once" is not good enough.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

Sorry Jamie, you have to split hairs. If the argument is that she's brain dead, then she better damn well be brain dead. Not "higher-brain" dead, or whatever else you come up with.

she lacks the ability to use her higher brain functions. that has been established time and time again. i don't think there is any valuable difference between being totally braindead and having the crucial parts of your brain being dead. what's life without thought?

http://www.thegardenhelper.com/seed~potato.JPG

:?

[Shane W]

Sorry Jamie, you have to split hairs. If the argument is that she's brain dead, then she better damn well be brain dead. Not "higher-brain" dead, or whatever else you come up with.

she lacks the ability to use her higher brain functions. that has been established time and time again. i don't think there is any valuable difference between being totally braindead and having the crucial parts of your brain being dead. what's life without thought?
:?

I don't know Jamie, why don't you tell us? :wink:

Fine, then where does it end? With Terri here? With severely retarded children? Carrot Top? Where is the line drawn?

[Jamie Howdeshell]

We have to question and find out. Because without an advanced directive, we may be opening a can of worms for many cases where a spouce may no longer be interested in the wife/husband's best interest. "Well, she told me this once" is not good enough.

we've been questioning and finding out for 7-8 years now. time and time again, without fail, it's been decided to let her finish dying. but the parents, and now the fucking politicians, jsut keep on stalling. it's deeply disrespectful to the woman she used to be.

[xyzzy]

So, if a person can't feed themselves without outside help, then they are not living?

hey, way to pick one sentance.

she's brain dead sir.

No sir, legaly she is not.

sigh.
let's split hairs for shane.

she's higher-brain dead.
not much of a difference, is there.

Sorry Jamie, you have to split hairs. If the argument is that she's brain dead, then she better damn well be brain dead. Not "higher-brain" dead, or whatever else you come up with.

Well, I don't think anyone is saying that her brain is totally non-functional. Clearly, the parts of her brain that take care of automatic functions (breathing, swallowing, reflex, that sort of stuff) are working fine. It's the part of the brain that is responsible for conscious thought that is gone. That's what people mean when they say "higher-brain" dead.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

I don't know Jamie, why don't you tell us? :wink:

Fine, then where does it end? With Terri here? With severely retarded children? Carrot Top? Where is the line drawn?

the line is determined on a case by case basis. just as it has been determined here. time and time again. how many times do they have to make the same decision about terri? i think it's been 20+ times now...

:?


and yes. carrot top should die. no question. though that would be more of a mercy killing for our sakes.

:twisted:

[Cth]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1469&item=55678019 80&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

History in the Making, Own A Part of The Feeding Tube.

This auction is to help aid in the research of brain damage. Please read the entire description.

Let me first start with what you are bidding on and then give you an understanding of what this auction is for and why. You are bidding on an 8" piece of a feeding tube that was removed from terri schiavo. Please dont ask how why or for what reason, but the entire approach is for a good cause. The court opinion is still out but this could be the last life line that terri had. What ever side you are on, the common goal is the same, to help aid in the research of brain damage and medicine. You will receive an 8" piece of the feeding tube, along with a display case. Most important you will receive a certificate stating that a donation was made in your name in honor of terri Schiavo for research into brain damage. A part of the proceeds from this auction will be donated to Temple University for research into brain damage to better help those in the future. Again, this donation will be made in honor of terri schiavo on you or your companies behalf. The how why and who of this auction will not be disclosed, We did aquire the feeding tube from an anonymous source, and we plan to keep it that way. We are going out on a limb here for the good of everyone, that is the sole point to this auction. If you want to bid and be a part of a good cause please feel free. If you see it any other way, we apologize, because the intent is for a part of the proceeds to go to brain damage research. We are not affiliated with Temple University, Or anyone else involved in this case. We are acting only as a third party, who stumbled across a rare piece of history. Depending on the outcome of this case, this could be the last life line she had, and we want others to benefit from her fight. We have looked at the moral issues of this auction, but have determined that the good outweighs the bad, The intent is for the Good. Good luck , our thoughts are with everyone involved.

[Shane W]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1469&item=55678019 80&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

History in the Making, Own A Part of The Feeding Tube.

This auction is to help aid in the research of brain damage. Please read the entire description.

Let me first start with what you are bidding on and then give you an understanding of what this auction is for and why. You are bidding on an 8" piece of a feeding tube that was removed from terri schiavo. Please dont ask how why or for what reason, but the entire approach is for a good cause. The court opinion is still out but this could be the last life line that terri had. What ever side you are on, the common goal is the same, to help aid in the research of brain damage and medicine. You will receive an 8" piece of the feeding tube, along with a display case. Most important you will receive a certificate stating that a donation was made in your name in honor of terri Schiavo for research into brain damage. A part of the proceeds from this auction will be donated to Temple University for research into brain damage to better help those in the future. Again, this donation will be made in honor of terri schiavo on you or your companies behalf. The how why and who of this auction will not be disclosed, We did aquire the feeding tube from an anonymous source, and we plan to keep it that way. We are going out on a limb here for the good of everyone, that is the sole point to this auction. If you want to bid and be a part of a good cause please feel free. If you see it any other way, we apologize, because the intent is for a part of the proceeds to go to brain damage research. We are not affiliated with Temple University, Or anyone else involved in this case. We are acting only as a third party, who stumbled across a rare piece of history. Depending on the outcome of this case, this could be the last life line she had, and we want others to benefit from her fight. We have looked at the moral issues of this auction, but have determined that the good outweighs the bad, The intent is for the Good. Good luck , our thoughts are with everyone involved.

AWESOME!!

[Bill?]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1469&item=55678019 80&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

History in the Making, Own A Part of The Feeding Tube.

This auction is to help aid in the research of brain damage. Please read the entire description.

Let me first start with what you are bidding on and then give you an understanding of what this auction is for and why. You are bidding on an 8" piece of a feeding tube that was removed from terri schiavo. Please dont ask how why or for what reason, but the entire approach is for a good cause. The court opinion is still out but this could be the last life line that terri had. What ever side you are on, the common goal is the same, to help aid in the research of brain damage and medicine. You will receive an 8" piece of the feeding tube, along with a display case. Most important you will receive a certificate stating that a donation was made in your name in honor of terri Schiavo for research into brain damage. A part of the proceeds from this auction will be donated to Temple University for research into brain damage to better help those in the future. Again, this donation will be made in honor of terri schiavo on you or your companies behalf. The how why and who of this auction will not be disclosed, We did aquire the feeding tube from an anonymous source, and we plan to keep it that way. We are going out on a limb here for the good of everyone, that is the sole point to this auction. If you want to bid and be a part of a good cause please feel free. If you see it any other way, we apologize, because the intent is for a part of the proceeds to go to brain damage research. We are not affiliated with Temple University, Or anyone else involved in this case. We are acting only as a third party, who stumbled across a rare piece of history. Depending on the outcome of this case, this could be the last life line she had, and we want others to benefit from her fight. We have looked at the moral issues of this auction, but have determined that the good outweighs the bad, The intent is for the Good. Good luck , our thoughts are with everyone involved.


its not the feeding tube is?

[Raphael J]

Sorry Jamie, you have to split hairs. If the argument is that she's brain dead, then she better damn well be brain dead. Not "higher-brain" dead, or whatever else you come up with.

she lacks the ability to use her higher brain functions. that has been established time and time again. i don't think there is any valuable difference between being totally braindead and having the crucial parts of your brain being dead. what's life without thought?

:?

Sorry, but there is a difference between brain dead and being in a persistent vegetative state. It's not splitting hairs at all. It's you being misleading.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

Sorry Jamie, you have to split hairs. If the argument is that she's brain dead, then she better damn well be brain dead. Not "higher-brain" dead, or whatever else you come up with.

she lacks the ability to use her higher brain functions. that has been established time and time again. i don't think there is any valuable difference between being totally braindead and having the crucial parts of your brain being dead. what's life without thought?

:?

Sorry, but there is a difference between brain dead and being in a persistent vegetative state. It's not splitting hairs at all. It's you being misleading.

in this case where she's been PVS (remember.. the longer PVS lasts, the smaller and smaller the already very small chance for recovery gets) for almost 15 fucking years? yeah...it is completely a negligible difference. it is splitting hairs. it is semantical bullshit.

[sonnylarue]

the line is determined on a case by case basis. just as it has been determined here. time and time again. how many times do they have to make the same decision about terri? i think it's been 20+ times now...


exactly. which is why THIS CASE in particular, is the wrong case to argue on behalf of the larger issue.

because judges have reached this decision time and again, now the character of the husband is in debate. Because FACTS aren't supporting the parents view.

This kind of armchair quaterbacking, from those who want the suffering to continue, flies in the face of an already settled case.

[Raphael J]

Sorry Jamie, you have to split hairs. If the argument is that she's brain dead, then she better damn well be brain dead. Not "higher-brain" dead, or whatever else you come up with.

she lacks the ability to use her higher brain functions. that has been established time and time again. i don't think there is any valuable difference between being totally braindead and having the crucial parts of your brain being dead. what's life without thought?

:?

Sorry, but there is a difference between brain dead and being in a persistent vegetative state. It's not splitting hairs at all. It's you being misleading.

in this case where she's been PVS (remember.. the longer PVS lasts, the smaller and smaller the already very small chance for recovery gets) for almost 15 fucking years? yeah...it is completely a negligible difference. it is splitting hairs. it is semantical bullshit.

Sorry, but it isn't. When you get a medical degree, you can tell me I'm splitting hairs. Until then, I'll listen to the professionals, who are the only ones that matter on this opinion.

[Shane W]

the line is determined on a case by case basis. just as it has been determined here. time and time again. how many times do they have to make the same decision about terri? i think it's been 20+ times now...


exactly. which is why THIS CASE in particular, is the wrong case to argue on behalf of the larger issue.

because judges have reached this decision time and again, now the character Of the husband is in debate.

This kind of armchair quaterbacking, from those who want the suffering to continue flies in the face of an already settled case.

So, does the anti-Death Sentance argument of the courts not being infallable count here?

Just wondering. :twisted:

[Bill?]

Sorry, but there is a difference between brain dead and being in a persistent vegetative state. It's not splitting hairs at all. It's you being misleading.

"brain dead" is a subjective term. but yeah, it is being somewhat misused by the media in this case. Terri does have some brain activity, just none of the cognitive sort. she's never going to improve.

[Raphael J]

Sorry, but there is a difference between brain dead and being in a persistent vegetative state. It's not splitting hairs at all. It's you being misleading.

"brain dead" is a subjective term. but yeah, it is being somewhat misused by the media in this case. Terri does have some brain activity, just none of the cognitive sort.

Yeah, and as long as people keep misusing the word, there will be a continued passage of misinformation amongst those watching. It may just be me, but I think the truth and specificity are pretty reasonable things to ask for.

[sonnylarue]

So, does the anti-Death Sentance argument of the courts not being infallable count here?


could you expand this? I'm not following you.

too many negatives

anti death, not infallible, wha huh?

[Shane W]

So, does the anti-Death Sentance argument of the courts not being infallable count here?


could you expand this? I'm not following you.

too many negatives

anti death, not infallible, wha huh?

The anti death sentence argument is: If the courts are not perfect, and mistakes can happen, then they should not be deciding who get's put to death.

[Kensington]

The anti death sentence argument is: If the courts are not perfect, and mistakes can happen, then they should not be deciding who get's put to death.
It probably doesn't apply in this case. It's not that the courts are deciding whether Terri Schiavo should be killed. They're just saying that Michael Schiavo gets to decide.

[Cth]

I believe this thread can be summed up with the following graphic:

http://home.nc.rr.com/daveswebhome/images/doodiegun.gif

[gwyllgi]

If this is murder, then tell me, what is it when someone puts down their beloved, cancer ridden elderly dog? Is that animal abuse? Cruelty?

We talk about how wonderful it is that we can spare our pets their pain towards the end of their life, and yet we demonize this SAME MERCY towards human beings, so MUCH that we can't even bring ourselves to euthanize this woman... we have to let her body dehydrate itself. She can't feel it, she doesn't know what's going on, but I think it'd be easier for all involved if they could just give her the fucking 'pink shot'.