Terri Schiavo

[Zebra 3]

This is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life.
- US Pres. Moron

- What the fuck happen to shoot first, ask questions later!?

[ziggytrix]

[dissent]
I was hoping someone would mention that. By extraordinary circumstances, he doesn't mean like when someone scheduled for execution has new evidence that may prove his innocence or when you're planning an invasion of a country. He means when it looks like he has a chance to solidify his righteousness in the minds of the people, that's when you err on the side of (pro)life (voters). :froth
[/dissent]

[kellychaos]

She, truly, has no impact on my life and I can't say that I have any true empathy for her ... sympathy perhaps. I don't know her. Other than the fact that politicians are trying to encroach upon her life and has made her their political platform (which pisses me off) and this, subsequently, may concern me in other matters where MY privacy may be at risk, I can hardly say that this concerns me. They need to back away from her, stop telling ME about her and let at least a little bit of laissez faire back into the American way of life.

[Zebra 3]

[center:c9f64dfd46]- Download: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart -[/center:c9f64dfd46]

[Big Papa Goat]

What's so bad about the politicization of a personal situation/tragedy anyway?

[ziggytrix]

i think you are missing the point goat.

[Big Papa Goat]

I was really just responding to what Kelly said, and something that a lot of people seem to say about a lot of things that I really don't get.

[Drev]

Just end her. You can't kill someone when they're already dead, so why should people waste their money on keeping a corpse alive? She is suffering, trying to make contact with the outside world when she can't do a thing about it. She is secluded in here own little Hell where is is the only one there. Just kill the body so she can escape from there.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

One thing tho, Kev, you said yourself there's a lot of hearsay in this case, so do you mind if I ask for your source for the statment that her husband has blocked attempts at MRIs and PETs?

The report above says extensive testing, but it doesn't list what tests were performed.

Rather than me doing this for you, go to google news, and type in "Schiavo, no MRI, no PET."

The extensive testing, to my knowledge, consisted of a CT test. This, from what I've read, is standard for cases like hers, but doesn't relay nearly as much info as a full MRI would.

The reason an MRI and PET were never conducted is because her diagnosis was clinical. There's no blood test or anything that really says "yup, this one is in persistent (or permanent) vegetation."

Originally Posted by AChimp

There was a doctor on the radio this morning that said that several experts say that her cerebral cortex has turned to mush, and she is completely incapable of any thought.

Who conducted these "expert" examinations? I've read the statements of several other neurologists who have stated that it's crazy that she has never even had an MRI to measure her brain activity.

Were she actually brain dead, she'd be dead, and they'd pull the tube. This woman breaths on her own, and lives off the same stuff we do.

Her family is being retarded and need a reality check. This woman essentially died long ago and they need to let go. It's pathetic.

And hopefully you'll never be placed in the same "retarded" position they're in.

I also have to note how humorous it is that this issue has turned everyone on the board into strict constructionalists screaming about states rights. James Madison would be proud, except I somehow doubt this argument will remain consistent depending on other issues (i.e. guns, gay marriage, capital punishment, voting regulations, education, etc.).

Some states have far more liberal laws concerning who can decide termination, some even more so than Florida. In Florida, you need to present ''clear and convincing evidence" that the person would want to die. Thus far, the courts in Florida have found Michael Schiavo's word, as well as the word of friends, to be convincing enough. Yet the words of her devoutly faithful Roman Catholic family, which Terri herself also was, seem to be moot.

I think her family deserves a fresh judicial perspective on this case.

Originally Posted by Max

Sincere or not, impassioned or not, for members of congress to see the life of a single individual, the status of which is debatable by people of good will, as grounds for circumventing a court decision they do not like is a HUGE abbregation of responsability.

They have not changed anything. Her tube is still out, and she still may very well die. What Congress did was vote to allow her case to be appealed beyond the state courts. This is unheard of in such cases, since this stuff is normally a private matter. But the differences between the family members is bringing the state's law into question, and Congress allowed a federal court to decide whether or not this woman's constitutional rights were being harmed.

Saying that this is simply about one woman is sort of like saying the Dred Scott ruling was just about a guy named Dred Scott. Obviously the Schiavo Bill has raised some dust on important relationships between our state and federal government, but why not debate it out in a federal court? The states clearly have massive grey areas when it comes to these substitute decision laws.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Drev

She is suffering, trying to make contact with the outside world when she can't do a thing about it. She is secluded in here own little Hell where is is the only one there. Just kill the body so she can escape from there.

Er, um, but if she's aware of this situation she's in, the she's aware of her surroundings, then she isn't brain dead, thus negating the argument that she's in a persistent vegetative state, no....?

[Drev]

I'm just saying that one's own conciousness is not restricted to just the actions of the brain. I'm theink of a "when you die does your soul go to heaven or hell" scenario, and that she can't go anywhere since the body isn't dead.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Um, so your argument is that her soul seems to be trapped in a fleshy, earthly vessel, and were we to kill her, she'd be free to go to heaven or hell....?

If she isn't dead, then she isn't dead. If you believe in the "heaven or hell" scenario, then you'd believe that God has a plan for us on his own time, not ours.

[Big Papa Goat]

For the record, the catholic church is not opposed to this ;(

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The Roman Catholic Church is opposed to euthenasia, and the Florida Catholic Conference is among many Catholic groups opposed to this.

On March 20, 2004, Pope John Paul II delivered an address on Life Sustaining treatment and the Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas, in which he declared, “The obligation to provide the ‘normal care due to the sick in such cases’ (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iura et Bona, p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration.”

Furthermore, “Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.”

Agree or disagree, the Church's stance is pretty clear.

[Big Papa Goat]

I just heard it on the radio from some crackpot

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Rather than me doing this for you, go to google news, and type in "Schiavo, no MRI, no PET."

Sadly, the most credible source this turned up was an Op-ed in USA Today by Tom Delay. At any rate, I can tell you why there was no PET. Five years ago NO ONE was getting PETs unless they were part of a federally funded research experiement, it's new technology, and Mrs. Schiavo's guardian gave up on her recovery long before they became available.

I think her family deserves a fresh judicial perspective on this case.

Yeah, tenth time's the charm huh?

If you believe in the "heaven or hell" scenario, then you'd believe that God has a plan for us on his own time, not ours.

Seems to me like if God had a plan for Terry, we've been interfering with it for 15 years already. Not that I buy that whole "God's plan" business, just speaking hypothetically.

You know what I don't get? Since when do we cherish life as a state of simply breathing and digesting? I mean, hypothetically, do we keep someone alive as a brain in a jar, if we have the technology, just because we can, even if we still don't know enough about the working of said brain to know if it's functioning at whatever arbitrary level it needs to be classified as "human life"?

PS, FUCK the Roman Catholic Church's stance on this. For one, not all Catholics agree with the vatican on every issue, thank GOD. For another there's a difference between caring for the sick and mechanically extending the life of a braindead person. Let's be clear, whatever Terry's wishes actually were is NOT even part of her parents, or Rome's stance on this.

[Ninjavenom]

You know what I don't get? Since when do we cherish life as a state of simply breathing and digesting? I mean, hypothetically, do we keep someone alive as a brain in a jar, if we have the technology, just because we can, even if we still don't know enough about the working of said brain to know if it's functioning at whatever arbitrary level it needs to be classified as "human life"?

Excellent point.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Sadly, the most credible source this turned up was an Op-ed in USA Today by Tom Delay.

Huh? Okay, since it seems that your scope on what classifies as "credible" is a bit warped, later on I'll have to provide the links for you.......

At any rate, I can tell you why there was no PET. Five years ago NO ONE was getting PETs unless they were part of a federally funded research experiement, it's new technology, and Mrs. Schiavo's guardian gave up on her recovery long before they became available.

Right, which doesn't excuse the lack of an MRI at all.

Yeah, tenth time's the charm huh?

What the fuck in hell do you think is the point of appealing a case to the federal courts? What's sad is that were this an abortion case, or a gay marriage case, you guys would be all for this.

PS, FUCK the Roman Catholic Church's stance on this. For one, not all Catholics agree with the vatican on every issue, thank GOD. For another there's a difference between caring for the sick and mechanically extending the life of a braindead person. Let's be clear, whatever Terry's wishes actually were is NOT even part of her parents, or Rome's stance on this.

PS you're a petulant child. Goat made a claim about where the Church stood on this, and I corrected him on it. I don't particularly care if anybody agrees with it, but to say "wah wah fuck the church, they suck" isn't entirely accurate. Terri WAS a Catholic, and the Church's opinion on these matters might be relevant on deciding whether to kill her (they should be just as relevant as the "he said, she said" testimony of her "husband").

[ziggytrix]

I have a warped sense of credibility because I don't just accept every word from the Republican House Majority Leader's pen as gospel truth? That's rich.

As for the relative value of the Church's opinon and Mr. Schiavo's, I call Bullshit. The Catholic Church isn't her legal guardian, he is. We aren't in Rome, we're in America - get over it. Also, the "he said, she said" testimony was a statement of no less than three people in court, which state and now federal courts found no reason to doubt.

I'm really disappointed that you didn't take my bait that Ninjavenom quoted. Seems to me the heart of the controversy here is a fundamental disagreement of whether or not it is humane to end a suffering or wrecked "life". I would think you are old enough that you have witnessed a friend or family member die of a degenerative disease. If that person decided they could not bear any more, would you say "too bad, God wants you live, so we're keeping you plugged into the machines that'd you naturally die without"? The parents have testified in court that EVEN IF Terri had made the wish to not be kept alive like this, they'd do it anyway. Your merciful Church has made that their policy as well. So pardon me for being a "petulant child" when I express my DISGUST for the "holy" verdict of your religious institution.

[ziggytrix]

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#qanda

As for who actually is making the decision to keep Terri on life support:

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

[FS]

I keep trying to form a reply to this topic and I get stuck in my own words. At any rate I think that debating whether or not Terry Schiavo's life is worth being continued is not nearly as important as the fact that lawmakers interfered with a fairly private matter and created a new law proposal, prompted pretty much by one person's case that they read about in the newspaper. It ranks inbetween insane populism and abuse of the judicial system to satisfy your personal morals, it's pretty creepy, and I don't think a euthanasia debate should distract you from that.

[mburbank]

What FS said.

" They have not changed anything. Her tube is still out, and she still may very well die."

Which any member of congress even remotely familliar with the law knew would be the outcome, judges being less willing to throw away thr role of the judicial branch than congress. What more proof could you want that this is cynical grandstanding?AND they changed plenty, just not for Ms. Schiavo. They threw red meat to thier base while establishing the precedent that when motivted Congress may interfere in individual speciffic lives even after the court system has obeyed the existing laws of the land. They also have peformed at test on the degree to which the fundamental structure of government can be manipulated if you use an emotional enough issue.

What Congress did was vote to allow her case to be appealed beyond the state courts. This is unheard of in such cases, since this stuff is normally a private matter. But the differences between the family members is bringing the state's law into question, and Congress allowed a federal court to decide whether or not this woman's constitutional rights were being harmed.

Which they did by legislative fiat after the state courts had spent seven years making a decision that as the law stood until congress intervened, and STILL STANDS RIGHT NOW for everyone in america except Terry Schiavo.

Saying that this is simply about one woman is sort of like saying the Dred Scott ruling was just about a guy named Dred Scott. "

My history isn't good enough to tell me the lengths the writers of Dread Scott went to to say that the law did not constitute precedent and was meant only for the speciffic case of the speciffic individual, something the authors of this bill have done.

My point has nothing to do with wether the tube should stay in or out, and since I'm not a neurologist or an ethicist, I refuse to weigh in. My point is the R's used this families misery as a football, and I'm revolted, and the D's were too scared to say so and I'm disgusted.

Many members of congress may have deeply held personal beliefs about this case. But they also know the law, the constitution and the horrific load of suffering that goes on in our country and the world every day that they don't hold special sessions over and tat the President doesn't cut short his precious vacation for.

They've DONE a lot. Just nothing about Terry Schiavo. They've ACHIEVED a lot. Just nothing for Tery Schiavo or her family and they never intended to. This is all about political gain and showmanship and if Ms. Schiavo's parents were well versed in the law they might well be sickened by how they were used.

IF this was some truly sincere legislative initiative, in the days to come you will see congress working dilligently to craft new and speciffic federal laws about people in distress and living wills. You'll see an urgent government sponsored campaign to get people to make living wills so that this sort of tragedy can be avoided. The work will carry the passionate intensity that called for special sessions and missed vcations, because for thousands of people in similar condfitions, time is of the essence. But I'll bet you dollars to donuts you don't see much of any of that. Because I don't think this was ever about tht in the first place.

[ziggytrix]

That's not entirely fair, FS. While I am simultaneously sickened and fascinated by the spectacle this has turned into, it was Mr. Schiavo who turned this over to the courts and brought the government into his family's affair (see last post).

If we're going to ditch the euthanasia debate then I wanna address this:

What the fuck in hell do you think is the point of appealing a case to the federal courts? What's sad is that were this an abortion case, or a gay marriage case, you guys would be all for this.

If Congress had an emergency session to force a women who wanted an abortion, in a state where abortion is legal, to delay the abortion til a Federal Court could hear it because her parents wanted her to keep the baby, I'd be pretty appalled. If Congress had an emergency session to keep two gay people from getting married I'd just be baffled.

[ziggytrix]

also regarding how this is bullshit Texas Republican grandstanding, see: "Texas Futile Care Law"

[kellychaos]

The husband kind of reminds me of the brother of the pro football Ranger who died in Afghanistan. When all the grandstanders went to his funeral to praise and well-wish his brother whom they felt "was with God" now. If you remember, and I'm paraphrasing here, the brother basically told them that they were full of shit and, if they knew his brother AT ALL, they would know that they were full of shit. Sweet, n'est-ce pas?