PDA

View Full Version : Schiavo's Parents selling names of supporters?



neophyte
03-29-2005, 10:53 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/politics/29donate.html

Not sure if folks have seen this yet....but this certainly brings issues surrounding how "awful" her husband is to light..

Jason_BANNED
03-29-2005, 11:57 AM
What's the article say? It won't let me read it without signing up for their site.

Jason

Gregory
03-29-2005, 11:58 AM
I'm seeing this too online. I wonder if the parents know about privacy issues or sharing online information. They may truly not know what this could mean.

Kensington
03-29-2005, 11:59 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/politics/29donate.html

Not sure if folks have seen this yet....but this certainly brings issues surrounding how "awful" her husband is to light..
I don't see how this says anything whatsoever about Michael Schiavo.

From the story:


Gary McCullough...a spokesman for Ms. Schiavo's parents, confirmed that Mr. Schindler had agreed to let Response Unlimited rent out the list as part of a deal for the firm to send an e-mail solicitation raising money on the family's behalf.

The family is desperate to save their daughter. They need money for their legal efforts. A company offers them money in exchange for this list. Not exactly sinister stuff, really...

neophyte
03-29-2005, 12:02 PM
I think it's not exactly a moral thing to do especially when they're preaching about immoral this and immoral that.

And what I mentioned Michael Schiavo for is to note that he's not the only one who seems to be in it for the money...

BWC Boston
03-29-2005, 12:03 PM
Maybe they'll do a "The Life of Terri Shiaco" bus tour next.

Cth
03-29-2005, 12:05 PM
List of Schiavo Donors Will Be Sold by Direct-Marketing Firm

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and JOHN SCHWARTZ

Published: March 29, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 28 - The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups.

"These compassionate pro-lifers donated toward Bob Schindler's legal battle to keep Terri's estranged husband from removing the feeding tube from Terri," says a description of the list on the Web site of the firm, Response Unlimited, which is asking $150 a month for 6,000 names and $500 a month for 4,000 e-mail addresses of people who responded last month to an e-mail plea from Ms. Schiavo's father. "These individuals are passionate about the way they value human life, adamantly oppose euthanasia and are pro-life in every sense of the word!"

Privacy experts said the sale of the list was legal and even predictable, if ghoulish.

"I think it's amusing," said Robert Gellman, a privacy and information policy consultant. "I think it's absolutely classic America. Everything is for sale in America, every type of personal information."

Executives of Response Unlimited declined to comment. Gary McCullough, director of the Christian Communication Network and a spokesman for Ms. Schiavo's parents, confirmed that Mr. Schindler had agreed to let Response Unlimited rent out the list as part of a deal for the firm to send an e-mail solicitation raising money on the family's behalf.

The Schindlers have waged a lengthy legal battle against their son-in-law Michael Schiavo to prevent the removal of the feeding tube from their daughter, who doctors say is in a persistent vegetative state.

Mr. McCullough said he was present when Mr. Schindler agreed to the arrangement in a conversation with Phil Sheldon, the co-founder of a conservative online marketing organization, RightMarch.com, who acted as a broker for Response Unlimited.

"So the Schindlers do know the details," Mr. McCullough said on Monday. How much attention they paid to the matter is hard to assess, he added. "The Schindlers right now know that their daughter is starving to death, and if I ask about anything else, they say, 'I don't want to hear about it.' "

Direct mail and mass e-mailings are ubiquitous fund-raising tools of interest groups on the left as well as the right, and others in the direct-mail business defended the sale of lists like the roster of donors to the Schindlers as a useful way for potential donors to learn of causes that might appeal to them.

Pamela Hennessy, an unpaid spokeswoman for the Schindlers, said she was initially appalled when she learned of the list's existence.

"It is possibly the most distasteful thing I have ever seen," Ms. Hennessy said. "Everybody is making a buck off of her."

Ms. Hennessy, who operates the Schindlers' Web site, www.terrisfight.org, said the family had not released any of the names or e-mail addresses gathered there. "Obviously these people are enterprising, and they are taking advantage of this very desperate father," she said.

On Sunday, as the Schindlers gave up on their legal battle and their daughter passed her 10th day without food, others continued to rally supporters and solicit money in an effort to restore the feeding tube.

"This time, we have a real chance to break through the 'roadblocks' that the enemies of life have been putting up in front of us," said a mass e-mailing from RightMarch.com, asking supporters to urge Gov. Jeb Bush to intervene somehow.

The message added: "We're asking you to give a donation to help with our activism efforts to save Terri's life. Battles cost money; resources cost money; media costs money; we could go on, but you get the picture."

Mr. Sheldon - whose father, the Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, has also sent appeals urging support for Ms. Schiavo - apparently played a dual role as a partner in RightMarch.com, which is working with the anti-abortion activist Randall Terry, and as a broker for Response Unlimited. Mr. Sheldon did not respond to phone calls yesterday.

"I think it sounds a little unusual right now because of the situation where she is in the process of dying," said Richard Viguerie, another major conservative direct-mail operator. "If you came across this information six months or a year from now, I don't think you would give it too much thought."

Kensington
03-29-2005, 12:06 PM
I think it's not exactly a moral thing to do especially when they're preaching about immoral this and immoral that.
These parents are not on a moral crusade! They're trying to save their daughter's life, for crying out loud...


And what I mentioned Michael Schiavo for is to note that he's not the only one who seems to be in it for the money...
So parents raising money to help save their daughter's life is the moral equivalence of someone fighting to end someone's life for money, now?

(Not that I'm supporting the idea that Michael Schiavo is in this for the money, although *you* appear to be, based upon your statement above...)

neophyte
03-29-2005, 12:07 PM
No, I'm not supporting either party being in it for the money. Just pointing out the fact that some folks seem to think he is...

Kensington
03-29-2005, 12:21 PM
No, I'm not supporting either party being in it for the money. Just pointing out the fact that some folks seem to think he is...
Yeah, some folks do, but even though that's so, I still dispute the contention that this article somehow suggests a moral equivalency...

MIKE D
03-29-2005, 12:30 PM
Yeah, some folks do, but even though that's so, I still dispute the contention that this article somehow suggests a moral equivalency...

I see no potential moral equivalency either, if indeed it could be proven at all that the husband is looking for a payday.

However I do see in it the possibility of a pattern where the Schindler's make the desires and wants of others a distant second to the assuaging of their own heartbreak.

Kensington
03-29-2005, 12:44 PM
I see no potential moral equivalency either, if indeed it could be proven at all that the husband is looking for a payday.

However I do see in it the possibility of a pattern where the Schindler's make the desires and wants of others a distant second to the assuaging of their own heartbreak.
I prefer to see it as the salvation of their daughter, a primal instinct that's far more significant than the sort of selfishness I think you're suggesting. That their heartbreak might be assuaged is merely coincident. I simply don't believe this is about them. They believe their daughter is still a person and still deserves to live.

uberleslie
03-29-2005, 01:06 PM
The family is desperate to save their daughter. They need money for their legal efforts. A company offers them money in exchange for this list. Not exactly sinister stuff, really...

from my understanding of this case (and i'm fairly familiar with it as it's happening locally and i've been watching it on the news for years), the schindler family is not paying their lawyers (for that matter, neither is michael schiavo). a right-to-life 'non-profit' organization is supposedly picking up the tab for terri's parents, and schiavo's attorney is doing it for free (pro-bono, whatever).

perhaps they're using the money to support them more generally, as they're constantly on the news and such...i doubt anyone of these people has been to work in months.

uberleslie
03-29-2005, 01:09 PM
my last statement sort of made me look like i was calling them media whores...which i totally didn't intend. i just mean that they've been fighting this fight 24/7 for some time now, that's all.

Balthazar
03-29-2005, 01:17 PM
just another example of thier selfishness.

sonnylarue
03-29-2005, 01:52 PM
Kensington]I prefer to see it as the salvation of their daughter, a primal instinct that's far more significant than the sort of selfishness I think you're suggesting. That their heartbreak might be assuaged is merely coincident. I simply don't believe this is about them. They believe their daughter is still a person and still deserves to live.[/B]

and how does filling suporters e-mail caches with anti abortion span directly help their daughter?

Must these suporters be subjected to unrequested spam, just because they felt moved to voice their agreement?

Why not just post the organizations on a website saying

"if you want to donate to this cause, these organizations would like your support?"

instead these people are subjected to possibly unwanted solicitation.

Kensington
03-29-2005, 02:14 PM
and how does filling suporters e-mail caches with anti abortion span directly help their daughter?
As I quoted before, from the story:

Gary McCullough...a spokesman for Ms. Schiavo's parents, confirmed that Mr. Schindler had agreed to let Response Unlimited rent out the list as part of a deal for the firm to send an e-mail solicitation raising money on the family's behalf.
You prefer to see this as somehow unseemly. I prefer to assume that the parents are doing this out of a desperate search for resources that might be used to save their daughter's life.


Must these suporters be subjected to unrequested spam, just because they felt moved to voice their agreement?

Why not just post the organizations on a website saying

"if you want to donate to this cause, these organizations would like your support?"

So now you're the great defender of the people who want Terri Schiavo to live? If you'll just read the story, it says that the Schindler's are being paid some money for the list. If they don't provide the list, they get no money. They aren't crusading for these organizations; they're trying to save their daughter's life. In service of that, they're allowing their list to be marketed by a third party in exchange for money, money to support their efforts to save Terri Schiavo's life.

instead these people are subjected to possibly unwanted solicitation.
Some potentially annoying soliciation in exchange for maybe saving a disabled woman's life? Well, God forbid. :roll: I'll tell you this: as a supporter of the Schindlers and Terri Schiavo, I don't mind a bit. Unlike the orders demanding Terri die, I can get off some group's mailing list. I don't begrudge the Schindlers in the slightest.

Shane W
03-29-2005, 02:16 PM
Some potentially annoying soliciation in exchange for maybe saving a disabled woman's life? Well, God forbid. :roll: I'll tell you this: as a supporter of the Schindlers and Terri Schiavo, I don't mind a bit. Unlike the orders demanding Terri die, I can get off some group's mailing list. I don't begrudge the Schindler's in the slightest.


Okay, you've gone over the edge. Nowhere has any order demand that she die. You can't find it, you can't defend it. The order has been who has the rights to decide her treatment. End of story.

Kensington
03-29-2005, 02:22 PM
Okay, you've gone over the edge. Nowhere has any order demand that she die. You can't find it, you can't defend it. The order has been who has the rights to decide her treatment. End of story.
I don't know *what* I was thinking. The orders, of course, *only* demand that a husband be allowed to deny his wife not only a feeding tube, but even oral nourishment, in spite of the contention that she can swallow. This essentially requires the woman to die, but I'm over the edge.

BriRedfern
03-29-2005, 02:25 PM
I don't know *what* I was thinking. The orders, of course, *only* demand that a husband be allowed to deny his wife not only a feeding tube, but even oral nourishment, in spite of the contention that she can swallow. This essentially requires the woman to die, but I'm over the edge.

Well that IS an idiotic contention. So there's that too.

sonnylarue
03-29-2005, 02:30 PM
So now you're the great defender of the people who want Terri Schiavo to live? If you'll just read the story, it says that the Schindler's are being paid some money for the list. If they don't provide the list, they get no money. They aren't crusading for these organizations; they're trying to save their daughter's life. In service of that, they're allowing their list to be marketed by a third party in exchange for money, money to support their efforts to save Terri Schiavo's life.

Thanks I read the story,YOU are missing the obvious. What gives these parents the right to sell these names ?

money to support their cause IS being provided by other organizations.

their efforts to raise money are tacky and an infringment on these people's right to privacy.

which is of course no longer an issue, in this over publicized private family matter.

the supporters names and addresses shouldn't be used in anyway without THEIR approval, mit's that simple.

Yes this practice is used by businesses all the time but the shindler's aren't a business, or an organization.

they plead thier case as simply concerened parents, this move is a contradiction to that portrayal.

Kensington
03-29-2005, 02:31 PM
Well that IS an idiotic contention. So there's that too.
Well, the contention apparently isn't idiotic enough for Michael Schiavo to ignore. I guess he must not be reading the same message boards as you...

DrMachine
03-29-2005, 02:34 PM
login:nytimessuck
password:nytimessuck

Kensington
03-29-2005, 02:37 PM
Thanks I read the story,YOU are missing the obvious. What gives these parents the right to sell these names ?
They, of course, have no "right" to sell these names. If they weren't in the middle of a desperate fight to save their daughter's life, I'd probably take umbrage. Get back to me in a year if the Schindler's are marketing their lists. Right now, I don't care.

It isn't that I "missed" the "obvious" point you think is so prescient, it's that I don't think it's terribly important right now. Rather, I think it's another opportunity for some folks to jump on top of this poor family at a terrible time. As evidence of that, again, I offer the fact that, as a supporter, I don't care if my name ends up on some lists.

which is of course no longer an issue, in this over publicized private family matter.
Right, this "private family matter" which just happens to involve someone demanding that their disabled wife be put to death whilst the rest of the world does nothing.

BriRedfern
03-29-2005, 02:38 PM
Well, the contention apparently isn't idiotic enough for Michael Schiavo to ignore. I guess he must not be reading the same message boards as you...

That is correct unless he is reading this one.

She can not eat under her own pwer. If she could, she would have been doing so for the last 15 years, yes?

The upper 80% of her cerebral cortex, which is responsibly for voluntary motor functions, does not function and is, for all intents and purposes, not there. THe woman can not swallow, she can not speak, she cannot control her bowell movements, she can not look at you (even though it might look like she is), she is in a vigilant comatose state and she will be until she dies. Be that today or next year.

The contention that she can eat for herself is totally idiotic. Whether or not the unrequested media presence has forced Michael Schiavo to address that contention does not support its validity one way or the other.

sonnylarue
03-29-2005, 02:40 PM
They, of course, have no "right" to sell these names. If they weren't in the middle of a desperate fight to save their daughter's life, I'd probably take umbrage. Get back to me in a year if the Schindler's are marketing their lists. Right now, I don't care.

It isn't that I "missed" the "obvious" point you think is so prescient, it's that I don't think it's terribly important right now. Rather, I think it's another opportunity for some folks to jump on top of this poor family at a terrible time. As evidence of that, again, I offer the fact that, as a supporter, I don't care if my name ends up on some lists.

Right, this "private family matter" which just happens to involve someone demanding that their disabled wife be put to death whilst the rest of the world does nothing.

how exactly does this move help save Terri's life ?

what money donation will stop this from happening?

there's no direct logic connection to this woman's pending death, to this defend this tacky move.

Kensington
03-29-2005, 02:45 PM
how exactly does this move help save Terri's life ?

what money donation will stop this from happening?

there's no direct logic connection to this woman's pending death, to this defend this tacky move.
So you simply assume that there can't possibly be any pertinent information that is unknown to you or me on this matter? I have no idea what their legal costs are, or what the immediate cash flow might enable. Maybe it goes to bribe somebody, who knows? I don't particularly care right now. These people are still looking for some avenue that might save their daughter. Who knows what doors money can open?

BriRedfern
03-29-2005, 02:53 PM
So you simply assume that there can't possibly be any pertinent information that is unknown to you or me on this matter?

Pertinant information does not matter when considering the appeal of a court's decision. MAtters of FACT do not come into it, only matters of LAW, and every court to look at the appeal opf this case has come to the same decision - There are no questions of LAW on which to base an appeal.

I am amazed (well, that is obviously not the right word, but you get it) that the media has not gone out of its way to point out this most basic tenant of our legal system.

Ben
03-29-2005, 03:10 PM
Right, this "private family matter" which just happens to involve someone demanding that their disabled wife be put to death whilst the rest of the world does nothing.

Well, you certainly see the world in your own special way, don't you.

Bill?
03-29-2005, 06:50 PM
Right, this "private family matter" which just happens to involve someone demanding that their disabled wife be put to death whilst the rest of the world does nothing.

thats pretty much exactelly what it is.
the "world" did everything it should have and more.
this has been one of the most litigated cases of its kind in history.

Mister Mets
03-29-2005, 07:25 PM
That's assholish.

Shane W
03-30-2005, 04:55 AM
I don't know *what* I was thinking. The orders, of course, *only* demand that a husband be allowed to deny his wife not only a feeding tube, but even oral nourishment, in spite of the contention that she can swallow. This essentially requires the woman to die, but I'm over the edge.


All she has to do is tell us that she wants the medical treatment. As all legal finding have been that she has stated the she does not want this treatment, then that's what we have to go by. End Of Story. I know that makes you feel uncomfortable, but that's the way it is.

ThisSpaceForRent
03-30-2005, 05:44 AM
I wish someone would pull the feeding tube out of this current event.
I shouldn't even know that vegetable's name.

Kensington
03-30-2005, 06:14 AM
thats pretty much exactelly what it is.
the "world" did everything it should have and more.
this has been one of the most litigated cases of its kind in history.
That is one of the most persistently brought up and yet completely unilluminating "facts" about this entire situation. It seems generally brought up to suggest that a legion of judges has assessed the facts of the case and determined that Terri Schiavo wanted to die. Unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

Greer is the only judge to assess the facts. Once he decided that Terri Schiavo wanted to die and ruled accordingly, the question became an answered fact as far as the appeals courts were concerned. The appellate judges were not allowed to reconsider this question. Their only job was to make sure that all the i's were dotted and all the t's were crossed.

So yeah, a lot of appeals courts have ruled, but that shouldn't provide any comfort whatsoever as to the correctness of the original rulings. The *quality* of the original ruling has *never* been reconsidered. It seems that nothing can be done about that, but that doesn't mean justice has been served. Even the best judges can make lousy decisions whilst following all the proper procedures, and that is how the system has failed Terri Schiavo.

Balthazar
03-30-2005, 06:21 AM
At least Jesse Jackson is trying to help. Thank God for that.

"Keep Shivo Alivo!"

Taxman
03-30-2005, 06:25 AM
That is one of the most persistently brought up and yet completely unilluminating "facts" about this entire situation. It seems generally brought up to suggest that a legion of judges has assessed the facts of the case and determined that Terri Schiavo wanted to die. Unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

Greer is the only judge to assess the facts. Once he decided that Terri Schiavo wanted to die and ruled accordingly, the question became an answered fact as far as the appeals courts were concerned. The appellate judges were not allowed to reconsider this question. Their only job was to make sure that all the i's were dotted and all the t's were crossed.

So yeah, a lot of appeals courts have ruled, but that shouldn't provide any comfort whatsoever as to the correctness of the original rulings. The *quality* of the original ruling has *never* been reconsidered. It seems that nothing can be done about that, but that doesn't mean justice has been served. Even the best judges can make lousy decisions whilst following all the proper procedures, and that is how the system has failed Terri Schiavo.

You know Kensington, I came up with a question about this whole thing that I could not answer in my own mind, so I am knda interested in you thoughts on the matter. Let us assume that Terry never told her husband that she did not want to live in a condition like this. Let us just assume that this is a fact for the sake of arguement. If that is the case, what possbile motivation would this guy have for going through all of this. I have given this quite a bit of thought, and I can't come up with anything.

Kensington
03-30-2005, 06:25 AM
All she has to do is tell us that she wants the medical treatment.
So only people with articulate voices should be protected? That should make a lot of disabled people shudder today.


As all legal finding have been that she has stated the she does not want this treatment, then that's what we have to go by. End Of Story. I know that makes you feel uncomfortable, but that's the way it is.

One legal finding from a single judge decided that she wouldn't want this treatment. A score of other judges assessed the *process* by which the first judgment was arrived. That doesn't mean the first judge was correct, or that the follow-up judges have confirmed the *substance* of the determination. That isn't what appeals courts do.

Now, if you're comfortable with what is being done to Terri Schiavo, great, but don't kid yourself with an image of multiple judges examining the underlying facts and concluding identically. That wasn't their job.

Shane W
03-30-2005, 06:39 AM
So only people with articulate voices should be protected? That should make a lot of disabled people shudder today.

One legal finding from a single judge decided that she wouldn't want this treatment. A score of other judges assessed the *process* by which the first judgment was arrived. That doesn't mean the first judge was correct, or that the follow-up judges have confirmed the *substance* of the determination. That isn't what appeals courts do.

Now, if you're comfortable with what is being done to Terri Schiavo, great, but don't kid yourself with an image of multiple judges examining the underlying facts and concluding identically. That wasn't their job.


As our legal system is set, a judges decision, unless overturned by a higher court is correct. This hasn't happened. Therefore legaly and most importantly is correct.

Kensington
03-30-2005, 06:43 AM
You know Kensington, I came up with a question about this whole thing that I could not answer in my own mind, so I am knda interested in you thoughts on the matter. Let us assume that Terry never told her husband that she did not want to live in a condition like this. Let us just assume that this is a fact for the sake of arguement. If that is the case, what possbile motivation would this guy have for going through all of this. I have given this quite a bit of thought, and I can't come up with anything.
Oh, there's a whole spectrum of possibilities, none of which I can possibly assess.

It could be as simple as the guy honestly believing that her life isn't worth anything in its current state and lying about her wishes as the quickest way to accomplish something he doesn't believe is particularly meaningful anyway.

It could be a way to get back at her parents who have said very inflammatory things about him. Again, if he doesn't believe Terri is alive, then it hardly matters what happens to her, so why not take her perminanetly away from her parents? Such things happen in divorce courts everyday, arguably over things more signifcant than a perceived lump of breathing vegetable.

Maybe he really believes that Terri would have wanted this.

Maybe he's trying to cover up his own misbehavior.

Again, I'm not saying any of these things are correct, just thinking aloud in an effort to answer your question.

xyzzy
03-30-2005, 06:44 AM
That is one of the most persistently brought up and yet completely unilluminating "facts" about this entire situation. It seems generally brought up to suggest that a legion of judges has assessed the facts of the case and determined that Terri Schiavo wanted to die. Unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

Greer is the only judge to assess the facts. Once he decided that Terri Schiavo wanted to die and ruled accordingly, the question became an answered fact as far as the appeals courts were concerned. The appellate judges were not allowed to reconsider this question. Their only job was to make sure that all the i's were dotted and all the t's were crossed.

So yeah, a lot of appeals courts have ruled, but that shouldn't provide any comfort whatsoever as to the correctness of the original rulings. The *quality* of the original ruling has *never* been reconsidered. It seems that nothing can be done about that, but that doesn't mean justice has been served. Even the best judges can make lousy decisions whilst following all the proper procedures, and that is how the system has failed Terri Schiavo.

What facts do you feel haven't been properly considered?

greg donovan
03-30-2005, 06:46 AM
i think this topic has been discussed enough here.

it is beginnig to look like kensington is getting ganged up on. i dont necesarily agree w/kensinton's POV. but that doesnt matter. neither party here is going to change the other's mind.

Kensington
03-30-2005, 06:49 AM
As our legal system is set, a judges decision, unless overturned by a higher court is correct. This hasn't happened. Therefore legaly and most importantly is correct.
Yes, but, again, appeals courts can only overturn rulings if there are procedural errors. That there may not have been any procedural errors in Judge Greer's courtroom is no reflection, one way or another, on the quality of his judgment.

I'm not disputing the legal position on the Terri Schiavo case. I'm disputing the conclusion and it's consequences.

McAfee
03-30-2005, 06:55 AM
Can anyone here honestly say they would want to "live" the way Terri is living--that being in a vegitative/semi-vegitative/bedridden/non-communicative state?

??????????????????????????????

Shane W
03-30-2005, 06:56 AM
Can anyone here honestly say they would want to "live" the way Terri is living--that being in a vegitative/semi-vegitative/bedridden/non-communicative state?

??????????????????????????????

What *WE* want is not the issue and doesn't matter. I wouldn't, but that's not saying *she* would or would not.

Balthazar
03-30-2005, 07:01 AM
i think this topic has been discussed enough here.

it is beginnig to look like kensington is getting ganged up on. i dont necesarily agree w/kensinton's POV. but that doesnt matter. neither party here is going to change the other's mind.


He doesn't seem to have a problem fanning the fires, or defending his position. If people didn't want to discuss it the subject would whither away and die.

McAfee
03-30-2005, 07:02 AM
What *WE* want is not the issue and doesn't matter. I wouldn't, but that's not saying *she* would or would not.


EXACTLY!!!

But I know (of) some pretty sick people, and NONE of them are this masochistic. All those little clicks and rattles she's putting out there could be screams of "Somebody please fucking shoot me already!" not "Mommy, I love my bedsores, and this is exactly how I wanted my life to turn out. Long live my Vegetable Circus!"

:Punch:

Shane W
03-30-2005, 07:03 AM
EXACTLY!!!

But I know (of) some pretty sick people, and NONE of them are this masochistic. All those little clicks and rattles she's putting out there could be screams of "Somebody please fucking shoot me already!" not "Mommy, I love my bedsores, and this is exactly how I wanted my life to turn out. Long live my Vegetable Circus!"

:Punch:

Could very well be.

Fourthman
03-30-2005, 07:05 AM
He doesn't seem to have a problem fanning the fires, or defending his position. If people didn't want to discuss it the subject would whither away and die.

Seriously Greg, Kensington (and Brendan, to the credit of their beliefs) have continually taken the fight to the board, not the other way around. They know they're fighting an uphill battle, but I'd hardly call it "being ganged up on."

TyPierce
03-30-2005, 07:12 AM
These parents are not on a moral crusade! They're trying to save their daughter's life, for crying out loud...

So parents raising money to help save their daughter's life is the moral equivalence of someone fighting to end someone's life for money, now?

(Not that I'm supporting the idea that Michael Schiavo is in this for the money, although *you* appear to be, based upon your statement above...)

No, but they're using a 'moral crusade' to try and persuade politicians to intervene with the whole thing. They might be trying to save their daughter, but they're taking full advantage of the Christian Conservative craziness to do it with.

And whether or not the money is actually going to the legal battle, it's shady. If they were putting the money toward a "Terri Schiavo Foundation" or some other such thing, maybe, but putting it in their own pockets - even to pay the legal bills - is shady.

Not to mention the fact that, depending on the verbage/terms of agreement on the donation website, they could end up in some serious shit.

Kensington
03-30-2005, 07:12 AM
Can anyone here honestly say they would want to "live" the way Terri is living--that being in a vegitative/semi-vegitative/bedridden/non-communicative state?

??????????????????????????????
I wonder how people might respond to the following scenario:

Something terrible happens, and you become seriously disabled. Severe brain damage results, disconnecting you forever from who you were, your intellect and reason, someone capable of only the most primary forms of interaction. Your consciousness is reduced to something akin to an infant. You will be forever dependent but loved and cared for the rest of your life by your parents and siblings. You will not feel any loss, for you will have no intellectual connection to your life before the accident. Your continued existence will bring joy and comfort to those who love you. You will laugh. You will cry. You will be capable of response. Your body will be more or less healthy, but you will probably need someone to feed you. As long as nourishment is provided, you will live your full life expectancy, surrounded by people who love you and take joy in your existence.

Would you rather live or be put to death? Would you want someone to starve you to death or dehydrate you over the strenuous objection of your parents? Me? I hope I'd be willing to give my family what they need. Under the scenario described above, which seem to describe Terri Schiavo's circumstances, it would cost me nothing.

I don't think it's a slam dunk that no one could ever choose likewise. We tend to look at things through the prism of our perspective today. That cannot take into account how we might feel differently if circumstances suddenly took away the level of intellect we enjoy today.

Raphael J
03-30-2005, 07:17 AM
I wonder how people might respond to the following scenario:

Something terrible happens, and you become seriously disabled. Severe brain damage results, disconnecting you forever from who you were, your intellect and reason, someone capable of only the most primary forms of interaction. Your consciousness is reduced to something akin to an infant. You will be forever dependent but loved and cared for the rest of your life by your parents and siblings. You will not feel any loss, for you will have no intellectual connection to your life before the accident. Your continued existence will bring joy and comfort to those who love you. You will laugh. You will cry. You will be capable of response. Your body will be more or less healthy, but you will probably need someone to feed you. As long as nourishment is provided, you will live your full life expectancy, surrounded by people who love you and take joy in your existence.

Would you rather live or be put to death? Me? I hope I'd be willing to give my family what they need. Under the scenario described above, which seem to describe Terri Schiavo's circumstances, it would cost me nothing.

I don't think it's a slam dunk that no one could ever choose likewise. We tend to look at things through the prism of our perspective today. That cannot take into account how we might feel differently if circumstances suddenly took away the level of intellect we enjoy today.

While it would be nice to give the family what they needed, it would be awful selfish of them to expect you to do so, especially if you did not want to be allowed to remain in that state.

Also saying you will laugh and cry is misleading. You may do those, but there is no emotional backing to it.

Kensington
03-30-2005, 07:21 AM
No, but they're using a 'moral crusade' to try and persuade politicians to intervene with the whole thing. They might be trying to save their daughter, but they're taking full advantage of the Christian Conservative craziness to do it with.
Recent Christian Conservative crazies to enter the fray include such notorious rightwingers as Jesse Jackson, Lanny Davis, Nat Hentoff and Ralph Nader.

Seriously, I don't see what your beef is in the statement above. Parents *shouldn't* turn to politicians if they believe it's their last chance to save a daughter's life? Accepting support from Christians is unnacceptable? You are treating the Schindlers like politicians, and I'm treating them like despearate parents. I think my perspective is more appropriate to the situation than yours.

And whether or not the money is actually going to the legal battle, it's shady. If they were putting the money toward a "Terri Schiavo Foundation" or some other such thing, maybe, but putting it in their own pockets - even to pay the legal bills - is shady.
But that's the whole point: they aren't trying to build a "Terri Schiavo Foundation," they're trying to save her life! They aren't lobbyists, they're parents. The chagrin over this seems wildly insensitive to what they're going through.

Balthazar
03-30-2005, 07:27 AM
I wonder how people might respond to the following scenario:

Something terrible happens, and you become seriously disabled. Severe brain damage results, disconnecting you forever from who you were, your intellect and reason, someone capable of only the most primary forms of interaction. Your consciousness is reduced to something akin to an infant. You will be forever dependent but loved and cared for the rest of your life by your parents and siblings. You will not feel any loss, for you will have no intellectual connection to your life before the accident. Your continued existence will bring joy and comfort to those who love you. You will laugh. You will cry. You will be capable of response. Your body will be more or less healthy, but you will probably need someone to feed you. As long as nourishment is provided, you will live your full life expectancy, surrounded by people who love you and take joy in your existence.

Would you rather live or be put to death? Would you want someone to starve you to death or dehydrate you over the strenuous objection of your parents? Me? I hope I'd be willing to give my family what they need. Under the scenario described above, which seem to describe Terri Schiavo's circumstances, it would cost me nothing.

I don't think it's a slam dunk that no one could ever choose likewise. We tend to look at things through the prism of our perspective today. That cannot take into account how we might feel differently if circumstances suddenly took away the level of intellect we enjoy today.

That's a terrific story, except it has nothing to do with Terry Shivo. You have no way of knowing what she is feeling or if she is at all so while your scenario paints her state of being in a beutiful, innocent light, it is in no way representative of what she is experiencing.

Kensington
03-30-2005, 07:28 AM
While it would be nice to give the family what they needed, it would be awful selfish of them to expect you to do so, especially if you did not want to be allowed to remain in that state.
But the family's experience of Terri Schiavo is of a woman who laughs, cries and has responded to them with smiles and attempts at speech. One point I was trying to make in my previous post is that we shouldn't dismiss the possibility that our feelings can change. Who in their right mind would ever want to live as a severely disabled person, yet how many severely disabled people are yearning for death, much less death by starvation/dehydration?

Also saying you will laugh and cry is misleading. You may do those, but there is no emotional backing to it.
That once again gets down to the root of things. There are people involved in the case, learned people, doctors, neurologists, nurses, who say otherwise. There are reports of Terri responding, on a primary level, in *context* to what is happening around her.

Raphael J
03-30-2005, 07:34 AM
But the family's experience of Terri Schiavo is of a woman who laughs, cries and has responded to them with smiles and attempts at speech. One point I was trying to make in my previous post is that we shouldn't dismiss the possibility that our feelings can change. Who in their right mind would ever want to live as a severely disabled person, yet how many severely disabled people are yearning for death, much less death by starvation/dehydration?

But the family is holding onto something that isn't there. For all intents and purposes, those are nothing more than reactions to visual stimuli.



That once again gets down to the root of things. There are people involved in the case, learned people, doctors, neurologists, nurses, who say otherwise. There are reports of Terri responding, on a primary level, in *context* to what is happening around her.

And those learned people are going against what the majority of other people in the field are saying. Unfortunately, they are in the minority and are reaching in most of their claims. She is responding, but that is only because it is stimulating her at a very basic level. She doesn't understand what the stimulus is, other than colors, shapes, and light increase/decrease. Her auditory system, once again, only repsonds to noise without understanding what it is.

Kensington
03-30-2005, 07:38 AM
That's a terrific story, except it has nothing to do with Terry Shivo. You have no way of knowing what she is feeling or if she is at all so while your scenario paints her state of being in a beutiful, innocent light, it is in no way representative of what she is experiencing.
And you're so sure of this how, exactly? What special insight do you have into her condition that makes you so sure the scenario I posit is incorrect? Given the lack of documentation with regard to her wishes, under the circumstances, including the experience of many people with regard to how she interacts with her environment and with people, the scenario I suggested isn't implausible at all. I didn't make this up; I based that upon the experiences of the people who interact with her and the neurologists who assess her capabilities. One could as easily guess she's screaming "I want to live" as "I want to die." Given her lack of definitively expressed will, that then opens up the question of what our society should do in cases like this. Some of us don't think it's a good development for people to start judging disabled people's lives as unworthy of continuance.

I realize, again, that this might boil down to your faith in the ruling of Judge Greer. I have none, and that is why I've continued this point.

Balthazar
03-30-2005, 07:43 AM
And you're so sure of this how, exactly? What special insight do you have into her condition that makes you so sure the scenario I posit is incorrect? Given the lack of documentation with regard to her wishes, under the circumstances, including the experience of many people with regard to how she interacts with her environment and with people, the scenario I suggested isn't implausible at all. I didn't make this up; I based that upon the experiences of the people who interact with her and the neurologists who assess her capabilities. One could as easily guess she's screaming "I want to live" as "I want to die." Given her lack of definitively expressed will, that then opens up the question of what our society should do in cases like this. Some of us don't think it's a good development for people to start judging disabled people's lives as unworthy of continuance.

I realize, again, that this might boil down to your faith in the ruling of Judge Greer. I have none, and that is why I continue this point.


I don't know what her feelings are and neither do you. To try and say one fictional scenario is more accurate than another is rediculous. As far as your abstraction to an emotional level as to what we should do, my answer is exactly what I am doing about it *NOTHING*.

Kensington
03-30-2005, 07:45 AM
I don't know what her feelings are and neither do you. To try and say one fictional scenario is more accurate than another is rediculous. As far as your abstraction to an emotional level as to what we should do, my answer is exactly what I am doing about it *NOTHING*.
...and meanwhile, whilst a bunch of people opine that her life is meaningless, a disabled woman gets put to death in spite of the fact that no documentation exists as to her wishes, a fate that would never be accorded a capital criminal.

Some of you may think it's fine. I think it's incredibly disturbing and at odds with the fundamental right of people to due process.

Balthazar
03-30-2005, 07:49 AM
...and meanwhile, whilst a bunch of people opine that her life is meaningless, a disabled woman gets put to death in spite of the fact that no documentation exists as to her wishes, a fate that would never be accorded a capital criminal.

Some of you may think it's fine. I think it's incredibly disturbing and at odds with the fundamental right of people to due process.


...and 200,000 people around the world have starved to death in the last twelve days. Most of which actually can ask for and chew food and in turn contribute something to this world.

Shane W
03-30-2005, 07:49 AM
...and meanwhilse, whilst a bunch of people opine that her life is meaningless, a disabled woman gets put to death in spite of the fact that no documentation exists as to her wishes, a fate that would never be accorded a capital criminal.

Some of you may think it's fine. I think it's incredibly disturbing and at odds with the fundamental right of people to due process.

Due process? If anything she's had an over abundance of sue process. If you are trying to justify the state decide what is right for her, I want you to turn in your republican card right now.

McAfee
03-30-2005, 07:50 AM
I'd rather be stuffed and mounted over the fireplace than go through what Terri is. So many people are saying, "how do you know she doesn't know what's going on?" I hope, for her sake, that she doesn't. Fifteen years in solitary confinement is a hell of a sentence. The worst of prisoners don't do time that long/hard.

Kensington
03-30-2005, 07:55 AM
...and 200,000 people around the world have starved to death in the last twelve days. Most of which actually can ask for and chew food and in turn contribute something to this world.
This, again, crystallizes a fundamental difference. I don't think anyone should be quick to judge the quality of a disabled person's "contribution" to the world.

McAfee
03-30-2005, 07:58 AM
This, again, crystallizes a fundamental difference. I don't think anyone should be quick to judge the quality of a disabled person's "contribution" to the world.


Disabled is one thing...Terri Schiavo is another.

And you're right, her contribution to the world is just another thing dividing people. Judge the quality of that as you will.

xyzzy
03-30-2005, 08:05 AM
i think this topic has been discussed enough here.

it is beginnig to look like kensington is getting ganged up on. i dont necesarily agree w/kensinton's POV. but that doesnt matter. neither party here is going to change the other's mind.

By and large, this discussion has been very mature. I don't know why it bothers you so much. Changing minds isn't the only reason to talk about stuff.

sonnylarue
03-30-2005, 08:29 AM
neither party here is going to change the other's mind.

THAT'S RIGHT. Which means that you must lean on THE LAW to determine which way to go.

The ethical-scientific questions of this procedure were argued about for DECADES, and have been settled for 20 yearts. IT'S A COMMON PRACTICE.

Those who oppose it, oppose the process itself.

However, when they can't win under LEGAL terms, that's when the talk of "Terri is only serverly DISABLED", "Her husband hasn't been acting properly by finding a new love (though the parents supported the realtionship until the last couple of years) " "She's communicatinbg to us, she doesn't want this"

No real proof of these miracolous outbursts, but they sure tug on the undecided's heart strings.

If you want to change THE LAW, there is a procedure to do so, but obviously those who see this as a cruel act wouldn't be satisfied, because that still means THIS WOMAN will die.

The fact that the husband is willing to have an autopsy for this woman, will hopefully provide the factual information that will support one side, or the other.

Regardless I resent the non-stop coverage this single family matter has eclipsed real news events that require attention and impact our lives

(save the Jacko jokes Shecky , we're all ahead of you)

Balthazar
03-30-2005, 08:32 AM
This, again, crystallizes a fundamental difference. I don't think anyone should be quick to judge the quality of a disabled person's "contribution" to the world.


And I am of the mind that there are more important issues regarding starving people than this one. All the time, energy, media exposure, political positioning and money wasted on this one person could have really done a lot of good in the world if used correctly.

Bill?
03-30-2005, 10:19 PM
That is one of the most persistently brought up and yet completely unilluminating "facts" about this entire situation. It seems generally brought up to suggest that a legion of judges has assessed the facts of the case and determined that Terri Schiavo wanted to die. Unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

Greer is the only judge to assess the facts. Once he decided that Terri Schiavo wanted to die and ruled accordingly, the question became an answered fact as far as the appeals courts were concerned. The appellate judges were not allowed to reconsider this question. Their only job was to make sure that all the i's were dotted and all the t's were crossed.

So yeah, a lot of appeals courts have ruled, but that shouldn't provide any comfort whatsoever as to the correctness of the original rulings. The *quality* of the original ruling has *never* been reconsidered. It seems that nothing can be done about that, but that doesn't mean justice has been served. Even the best judges can make lousy decisions whilst following all the proper procedures, and that is how the system has failed Terri Schiavo.

You can believe what you want, and I know it fits right into the current right wing narrative of bad judges, but that fact is that the law was followed to the letter here. A man made a completely legal decision, and the judges upheld it. And to think that all the facts weren’t looked over time and time again is too completely ignore the facts of what happened.

David Aspmo
03-31-2005, 12:45 AM
Who in their right mind would ever want to live as a severely disabled person, yet how many severely disabled people are yearning for death, much less death by starvation/dehydration?
You gotta stop using the word "disabled" here. I know it's the knew deceptive word of choice that comes out of the various irresponsible mouthpieces in the media, but when you use it to describe Terri Shiavo's condition, you just look like you don't understand english. Or rudimentary biology.


That once again gets down to the root of things. There are people involved in the case, learned people, doctors, neurologists, nurses, who say otherwise.
Nobody respectable and/or qualified is saying that. The only neurologist who has actually examined her and said she could possibly be helped is an absolute charlatan. This would be Dr. Hammesfahr (who was brought in by the parents), a man who claims to have been nominated for a Nobel prize, when, in fact, he was not. This is a man who has been disciplined by the Florida Board of Medicine for charging a patient for services that were not provided. Those services being treatment for a stroke victim using a procedure that the Board of Medicine called "not within the generally accepted standard of care" - the same procedure he claims could help Shiavo.

.
David Aspmo

Taxman
03-31-2005, 03:42 PM
You gotta stop using the word "disabled" here.

They can't stop using that word because then their argument would lose all of it's power. We cannot take a balanced view on something like a gaurdian deciding when the life of a loved one has gone be on the point where that life has lost it's value. You have to see it as the helpless being savaged upon by heartless, godless people who lack compassion.

Jonny Z
03-31-2005, 03:45 PM
i cant believe were so many posts in and no one's made a joke about schindler's list... im dissapointed

MIKE D
03-31-2005, 04:04 PM
i cant believe were so many posts in and no one's made a joke about schindler's list... im dissapointed

http://img121.exs.cx/img121/3070/korman3uo.jpg