Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Mar 23rd, 2005, 07:48 PM       
It went to the lawmakers, and became a public matter because the families involved took it in that direction. It's not like Jed jumps into every Floridian's breathing tube disputes.

As I understand it, the husband does have some motivation for her to die, above and beyond his claims regarding her final wishes. If he wasn't so creepy, this wouldn't be taking the place of the Scott Peterson case in the news.

I've also read that she's showed some response, so she's not a vegetable. There have been extreme cases of people coming out of comas after years.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Crash Crash is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Old Mar 23rd, 2005, 08:16 PM       
Yeah, it just a response though. Almost all living things do that. Can she hold a coherent conversation? Can she wipe herself? She sure as hell can't feed herself. Some parts of her brain may not be damaged, but some of the important ones, ones we take for granted to carry out a normal life, are mush, as someone said earlier. If she came out it wouldn't mean much.

And yeah, this wouldn't have reached this level of popularity without the people involved pushing it that way. But i'm starting to wonder what the media considers "news" to be these days...
Reply With Quote
  #53  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
Old Mar 23rd, 2005, 08:24 PM       
Quote:
Is Michael really just looking for money?

I have no way to know. I know what the Schindlers say to reporters, but then I know that the Second District's first decision in the case used these words to describe Michael's care for Terri:


Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband. Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment.
Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri's parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer.
Yeah this guy's SUCH a ghoul.

Quote:
What about the Schindlers' claims that Terri is conscious and responds to stimulation?

When the Second District first reviewed the trial court's decision that Terri would chose not to live under her present circumstances, the appellate court expressed no reservations when it explained that Terri was and "will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others…" In October, 2002, as a result of Terri's parents' claims that treatment options offered promise to restore some of Terri's cognitive functioning, the Second District ordered the trial court to hold a trial on that issue. The trial court did so, and in the course of that trial the parties litigated whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state.

The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:


At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.
The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature."

Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri's brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court.


Were the Schindlers' doctors given an opportunity to examine Terri?

Yes. As the Second District explained:


Through the assistance of Mrs. Schiavo's treating physician, Dr. Victor Gambone, the physicians obtained current medical information about Theresa Schiavo including high-quality brain scans. Each physician reviewed her medical records and personally conducted a neurological examination of Mrs. Schiavo. Lengthy videotapes of some of the medical examinations were created and introduced into evidence. Thus, the quality of the evidence presented to the guardianship court was very high, and each side had ample opportunity to present detailed medical evidence, all of which was subjected to thorough cross-examination. It is likely that no guardianship court has ever received as much high-quality medical evidence in such a proceeding.
What about the video clips that show Terri reacting to her mother?

The court opinions indicate that similar videos were viewed in their entirety by the trial court, which found that Terri's actions were no more than reflexive and could not be reproduced with any consistency. The Second District affirmed that decision.
source: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#qanda (again)

I'm glad all you crusaders for Terry know so much more about this case than the courts who obviously just want to kill her off so they can move onto other cases.
__________________
BOYCOTT SIGNATURES!
Reply With Quote
  #54  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Mar 23rd, 2005, 09:02 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
No, you're sense is warped because you looked at the very first thing that popped up in the search and then called it a day:

http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/230925-3972-021.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentar...20050323e.html

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...642884,00.html

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/vi...18harmon.shtml

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...2257-1519r.htm

http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/bates032305.htm



Quote:
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.
Look, whatever your deal is, maybe mom and dad forced you to go to Church on Sunday's instead of watching cartoons, whatever it may be, I don't care. I never argued that the Church's stance had any bearing on this case. You should probably calm down and re-read it after you take a time out.


Quote:
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.
You're right. And if the appeals court decides against her again (which will probably be moot anyway because she'll be dead by then), I'll respect that verdict. But she's entitled to that verdict, just like a death row inmate is entitled to appeal his/her case to a higher court.

Quote:
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 issue is consent. Was it given, and how much proof is needed in any given state to prove it. She didn't have a living will. She was a young woman. She wasn't expecting a heart attack at such a young age. For all we know, like many of us flippantly say at random moments, she may have meant she wouldn't want to be kept alive by tubes and machines were she EIGHTY and in this state.

I know of a person who always said they never wanted kemotherapy if they got that sick. Eventually they did get that sick, and they got the kemo, and fought until their dying day.

Terri Schiavo doesn't need tubes to breath. She needs hydration and food, the same things we all need. According to people like you, who seem to feel comfortable deciding what life is worthy and unworthy, she's a vegetable. I think she at least deserves an MRI to determine how true that really is, no?


Quote:
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.
Because they're her parents and they love her. The bottom line is that she didn't clearly leave these intentions. Her intentions have instead been decided by a man who stopped being her husband over a decade ago, a man who won a medical malpractice case worth more than $1 million, and claimed that he intended to use the cash to rehabilitate Terri.

Quote:
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.
Wah wah, do you feel better sniffles? You're the one who made this about the Church. I simply clarrified a point for Goat, and also explained how Terri's own faith should/would have a deciding factor in what maybe would've been her own intentions. If a Quaker dodged the draft on religious grounds, would you dismiss his faith as irrelevant.....?

Quote:
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.
Yeah, take your logic, and flip it. Eleven gay marriage bans were approved by states in the 2004 election. Do you think gay marriage should be a national entitlement, or are you cool with the state's right to bar such practices...?

The federal government made federal cases out of integration, and sent federal forces to enforce integration, ignoring the will of the states.

There are times when the civil and constitutional rights of a citizen are brought into question, and the federal government has, and SHOULD act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
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.
I'll have to respectfully disagree. If anything, the GOP is taking a hit from this. It's hard to find a public opinion poll that supports what Congress did on Sunday. Bill Frist will see his stupid "well as a physician" comments thrown back in his face in 2008.

The Democrats who were opposed to this bill were quite vocal, and some made very eloquent arguments. I don't know how many of the critics on this boardactually watched the debate on the House floor, but the arguments made for both sides were some of the best I've seen from these typically dull and dry opportunists. If anything, the quiet Democrats were the Harold Ford, Jr.'s of the House, those who truly supported this bill (as did I), but are routinely too scared to say anything that might upset Pelosi.

And why would any Republican, PARTICULARLY Tom DeLay (who you should all know I don't care for) need to throw a bone to his base....? Did you follow his Fall race in Sugar Land???? Tom DeLay doesn't need to impress his base any further.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Mar 23rd, 2005, 09:20 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash
Can she hold a coherent conversation? Can she wipe herself? She sure as hell can't feed herself. Some parts of her brain may not be damaged, but some of the important ones, ones we take for granted to carry out a normal life, are mush, as someone said earlier. If she came out it wouldn't mean much.
An MRI has never been conducted, so once again, nobody (yes, including ME) really knows how much is going on up there.

Furthermore, the description you just provided of what I guess is an unworthy life also describes many people in adult care and nursing homes. Should we start bumping these people off too???
Reply With Quote
  #56  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
Old Mar 23rd, 2005, 10:36 PM       
I think someone needs to take a chill pill.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
Old Mar 23rd, 2005, 11:29 PM       
Quote:
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?
(emphasis added)

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
No, you're sense is warped because you looked at the very first thing that popped up in the search and then called it a day:
I feel I've earned the right to call you a presumptuous cockbite.

Editorial with no sources.

Contains statements directly contradictory to court documents. "Terri Schiavo has always been able to swallow but her "husband" denied her the therapy that would allow her to re-learn how to eat even though the therapy is considered mandatory by Florida Statute 744.3215, even to those diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state."

She has failed the swallow test on every occasion. If you'd check either of the links I posted, you'd see that Terri underwent extensive documented physical therapy, with no favorable outcome.


BINGO! Finally a source for the claim: "A column on National Review Online (nationalreview.com) by Robert Johansen, a Catholic priest and leading advocate for Schiavo's survival, explains:
...
"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. ""

This seems plausible enough. Unfortunately, it is incorrect. Michael objected, but it was the court that refused.

Quotes the same priest incorrectly stating that Terri has had no physical therapy when that is simply NOT TRUE.

OK, I FUCKED UP, the Washington Times comes thru (I didn't see this one earlier, my bad). They correctly state that the judge blocked new tests... Ya know, I can understand Mikey's objections, since I imagine objection is his knee-jerk response to what his in-laws have put him and his wife thru for the past 7 years. Of course that is being sympathetic to his point of view, and assuming he is not, in fact, a gholish monster, which I think is consistent with his actions for the first 8 years of this ordeal. What I don't understand is why the judge would refuse to allow the MRI, but I don't have access to the whole procedings, and I'm not trained in adjudication, so I just have to take it on faith that he is making the right call or that his decision would be overturned on appeal.


Quote:
Look, whatever your deal is, maybe mom and dad forced you to go to Church on Sunday's instead of watching cartoons
PRESUMPTOUS COCKBITE! (damn I hate using that up already) I'll have you know the day I turned 16 was a Sunday, and guess where the first place I ever drove by myself was? My parents were not church goers, but I was. But you didn't know and didn't care, so you should've kept your damn mouth shut.

Quote:
I never argued that the Church's stance had any bearing on this case.
but in the original post...

Quote:
Her husband, btw, has since remarried, and has children. Schiavo never stated what her wishes would be under such circumstances, but her husband claims "sending her to be with God" would be her wish (even though Terri was a devout Roman Catholic, and this very practice has been denounced by her Church).
then later

Quote:
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'm not trying to put words into your mouth Kev, explain it if I'm misunderstanding.


Quote:
According to people like you, who seem to feel comfortable deciding what life is worthy and unworthy, she's a vegetable. I think she at least deserves an MRI to determine how true that really is, no?
Fuck you. I am not the one saying she's a vegetable. I've never met her. I've not seen the (carefully edited) videos, and I CERTAINLY don't think I'm qualified to decide what life is (un)worthy. I just respect the rulings of every judge who's spent (I would HOPE) more time reviewing this case and with access to more relevant facts than I.

Quote:
Wah wah, do you feel better sniffles? You're the one who made this about the Church. I simply clarrified a point for Goat, and also explained how Terri's own faith should/would have a deciding factor in what maybe would've been her own intentions.
The fact that you cannot see that official dogma of the Vatican and the beliefs of an individual Catholic may not be entirely congruent baffles me. (also, I think we're about even on namecalling at this point, so can we attempt to go back to marginally civil discourse or are you going to call me a crybaby every time I utilize the CAPSlock for emphasis?)

Quote:
Quote:
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.
Because they're her parents and they love her. The bottom line is that she didn't clearly leave these intentions. Her intentions have instead been decided by a man who stopped being her husband over a decade ago, a man who won a medical malpractice case worth more than $1 million, and claimed that he intended to use the cash to rehabilitate Terri.
The bottom line is that she didn't clearly leave these intentions and the fact that her parents said in court that they would not have repsected those intentions had she clearly left them should not influence my opinion on this one bit...

I disagree.

Also, it wasn't until May 98 that Mikey filed petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed, so I disagree with your remark that he stopped being her husband over a decade ago. I don't know what he did with the $1 million, but is it inconceivable that $1 million was exhausted between 1990 and 1998 on the care and experimental therapy Terri received? That's the thing that bothers me most about this issue really - the villification of Mike and anyone who sympathizes with his viewpoint.

I guess all us devaluers of the sanctity of of life gotta stick together. Fuckin Bill Frist *grumble*


Quote:
Do you think gay marriage should be a national entitlement, or are you cool with the state's right to bar such practices...?
I think it should not be a national ban, and if California wants to let gays get married, fine by me. Wow, what a refreshing tangent.


Quote:
There are times when the civil and constitutional rights of a citizen are brought into question, and the federal government has, and SHOULD act.
January 24, 2005 the US Supreme Court declined review in the Terri's Law case. I'm not sure why they declined. Personally, I think they should have taken it up, but I'm not on the US Supreme Court.

Quote:
Furthermore, the description [Crash] just provided of what I guess is an unworthy life also describes many people in adult care and nursing homes. Should we start bumping these people off too???
Nice slippery slope. But it's irrelevant - as Crash is not a Judge, and his opinion on what should be done with someone who has not left a living will matters as little as mine or yours, especially when said person isn't even someone any of us personally know.

I won't be offended if you don't read all this, I think I'm about exhausted with this issue myself.
__________________
BOYCOTT SIGNATURES!
Reply With Quote
  #58  
thebiggameover thebiggameover is offline
Mocker
thebiggameover's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: GCRT J1745-3009
Old Mar 23rd, 2005, 11:55 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Furthermore, the description you just provided of what I guess is an unworthy life also describes many people in adult care and nursing homes. Should we start bumping these people off too???
yes...
:/
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juttin
LOL BACON FOOD FATASS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yggdrasill
The same reason I don't hit kids, i'm not 100% sure thier mine.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 12:56 AM       
You can then go find something supporting that she in fact did receive an MRI, which she hasn't. Bottom line. If Michael Schiavo wanted to allow more extensive testing, he could. He instead wants the plug pulled. He wants the woman dead, he wants to move on. Not necessarily an entirely selfish impulse, but still a selfish one at that.

Furthermore, when was the last time she received rehab? How much was permitted at the hospice? When was the last time she was even brought outside for that matter? Her teeth brushed?

You say she got it. The Schindlers began raising questions over her therapy back in 1993, after Michael had won the malpractice suit. So what did this extensive rehab consist of?


Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Ya know, I can understand Mikey's objections, since I imagine objection is his knee-jerk response to what his in-laws have put him and his wife thru for the past 7 years. Of course that is being sympathetic to his point of view, and assuming he is not, in fact, a gholish monster, which I think is consistent with his actions for the first 8 years of this ordeal.
He would object to an MRI out of spite? That's a reasonable argument to you?


Quote:
Quote:
Look, whatever your deal is, maybe mom and dad forced you to go to Church on Sunday's instead of watching cartoons
PRESUMPTOUS COCKBITE! (damn I hate using that up already) I'll have you know the day I turned 16 was a Sunday, and guess where the first place I ever drove by myself was? My parents were not church goers, but I was. But you didn't know and didn't care, so you should've kept your damn mouth shut.
You're the one who went off on my "merciful church," or whatever. You clearly hate religion, hate Christianity, and don't even want to see her faith, or her family's faith brought into the discussion, right?

You're right, I don't care.

Quote:
Quote:
I never argued that the Church's stance had any bearing on this case.
but in the original post...

Quote:
Her husband, btw, has since remarried, and has children. Schiavo never stated what her wishes would be under such circumstances, but her husband claims "sending her to be with God" would be her wish (even though Terri was a devout Roman Catholic, and this very practice has been denounced by her Church).
then later

Quote:
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'm not trying to put words into your mouth Kev, explain it if I'm misunderstanding.
I never implied that the Pope's opinion, or the Church's opinion on the matter should hold weight over the law. You knew that too, but you wanted to be a little cockbite yourself.

I only mentioned the Church's stance in order to clarify what Goat had said. What the Church says shouldn't have a bearing on the case, and the Church's position on euthanasia, persistent vegetative state, etc. can't hold the same weight as neurological study and expertise.

However, if you're going to analyze what the living intentions of Terri Schiavo may have been, I think her personal belief system would be pretty relevant, no? Whether she be a jew, a quaker, a muslim, a Budhist, whatever.


Quote:
Quote:
According to people like you, who seem to feel comfortable deciding what life is worthy and unworthy, she's a vegetable. I think she at least deserves an MRI to determine how true that really is, no?
Fuck you. I am not the one saying she's a vegetable. I've never met her. I've not seen the (carefully edited) videos, and I CERTAINLY don't think I'm qualified to decide what life is (un)worthy.
"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"?"

It sounds to me like life only means life when it produces some kind of contribution to society. This, IMO, IS in fact a slippery slope. I'm not going to go down the Nazi Germany hyperbole crap that some of the Right-to-lifers are pulling, but I believe that one of the crucial roles of government is to protect those who are inable to protect themselves, those who are not being properly protected by the system as is. Like Hubert Humphrey said, " It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

This is what essentially makes me a liberal, what can be done with government of the people being used for the people. I know that's a bit sappy and preachy, but it's the truth for me.


Quote:
I just respect the rulings of every judge who's spent (I would HOPE) more time reviewing this case and with access to more relevant facts than I.
And what of the judges and juries that denied civil rights to African Americans in the south throughout the 19th and 20th centuries....?


Quote:
Quote:
Wah wah, do you feel better sniffles? You're the one who made this about the Church. I simply clarrified a point for Goat, and also explained how Terri's own faith should/would have a deciding factor in what maybe would've been her own intentions.
The fact that you cannot see that official dogma of the Vatican and the beliefs of an individual may not be entirely congruent baffles me.
Nor did I say they should be. All I was saying was that her faith, as well as her family's faith, might be relevant. I know it would be relevant for me and my family.


Quote:
Also, it wasn't until May 98 that Mikey filed petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed, so I disagree with your remark that he stopped being her husband over a decade ago. I don't know what he did with the $1 million, but is it inconceivable that $1 million was exhausted between 1990 and 1998 on the care and experimental therapy Terri received? That's the thing that bothers me most about this issue really - the villification of Mike and anyone who sympathizes with his viewpoint.
To my understanding, he spent much of the money on legal fees. He has a new family, and two new children. He has lived with that woman for ten years. I'm gonna assume some courtship went on, no? To me, he revoked his vows. But that's me.

Quote:
Quote:
Do you think gay marriage should be a national entitlement, or are you cool with the state's right to bar such practices...?
I think it should not be a national ban, and if California wants to let gays get married, fine by me. Wow, what a refreshing tangent.
It would be even more refreshing if you answered the question.


Quote:
Quote:
There are times when the civil and constitutional rights of a citizen are brought into question, and the federal government has, and SHOULD act.
January 24, 2005 the US Supreme Court declined review in the Terri's Law case. I'm not sure why they declined. Personally, I think they should have taken it up, but I'm not on the US Supreme Court.
The Schindlers and their representatives would argue that there is a fair amount of evidence that has never been truly evaluated. I think it's fair to say that judges may have passed on this in the past due to the controversial nature (see every headline everywhere) of what has traditionally been a very private family matter.

Also, two days after that denial in 2001, another judge ordered that Terri's feeding tube be reinserted. The courts have flopped around on this matter, too. We can agree on one thing, that the Supreme Court should've heard the case.

Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, the description [Crash] just provided of what I guess is an unworthy life also describes many people in adult care and nursing homes. Should we start bumping these people off too???
Nice slippery slope. But it's irrelevant - as Crash is not a Judge, and his opinion on what should be done with someone who has not left a living will matters as little as mine or yours, especially when said person isn't even someone any of us personally know.
I think the overall public's perspective on what constitutes a valuable life is important. Legislatures pass right to die laws, and governors sign them, no? None of these people are judges, but they can all effect how we value the young, elderly, disabled, and weak in our society.

It's also quite possible (gasp! No way!) for judges to capitulate to popular pressure, btw.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 12:58 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebiggameover
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Furthermore, the description you just provided of what I guess is an unworthy life also describes many people in adult care and nursing homes. Should we start bumping these people off too???
yes...
:/
I hope you keep commenting on this matter.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 01:20 AM       
Reply With Quote
  #62  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 01:34 AM       
Look, I know you don't give a fuck about this subject, so why don't you refrain from commenting....?
Reply With Quote
  #63  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 02:22 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
He would object to an MRI out of spite? That's a reasonable argument to you?
Not out of spite. Out of exhaustion.


Quote:
You're the one who went off on my "merciful church," or whatever. You clearly hate religion, hate Christianity, and don't even want to see her faith, or her family's faith brought into the discussion, right?
I hate the pushing of the dogma of institutionalized Christianity onto others. I don't hate religion in general, or even Christianity in specific. I AM sick of vocal Christians screaming about activist judges and the modern persecution of Christians in America, and so that may be coming thru in my choice of words. But, no, I don't think it's right that because she was a Catholic, that means she couldn't have REALLY meant it when she said she wouldn't want to live in a vegetative state or whatever.

Quote:
I never implied that the Pope's opinion, or the Church's opinion on the matter should hold weight over the law. You knew that too, but you wanted to be a little cockbite yourself.

However, if you're going to analyze what the living intentions of Terri Schiavo may have been, I think her personal belief system would be pretty relevant, no? Whether she be a jew, a quaker, a muslim, a Budhist, whatever.
Yes, yes, and YES! But saying she was a devout Catholic does not mean she couldn't have REALLY meant it when she said she wouldn't want to live in a vegetative state or whatever.

Quote:
"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"?"

It sounds to me like life only means life when it produces some kind of contribution to society.
Thanks for continuing to put words in my mouth. There is a whole fucking universe between "simply breathing and digesting" and "contributing to society" - and surely there is a point where even you think that doing everything within the bounds of medical science to keep that heart beating is neither wise, nor merciful.

Quote:
And what of the judges and juries that denied civil rights to African Americans in the south throughout the 19th and 20th centuries....?
Your analogy is flawed unless you mean to suggest the judges who've overseen Terri's case are somehow prejudiced against invalids in the same way a racist is predjudiced against someone of a different skin color. I'm not saying the courts are infallible. But the judges in this case have ALL ruled the same verdict, they ALL know MUCH more about BOTH sides of this than you or I.


Quote:
Nor did I say they should be. All I was saying was that her faith, as well as her family's faith, might be relevant. I know it would be relevant for me and my family.
It would be relevant for any family. My aunt's Catholic, as my grandparents raised her. She also has a Living Will that says something to the effect of "unplug me if there's no hope for recovery". So you see, I'm sure my grandparents would resist it if she were to wind up in a coma for however long her will says she can go. But ultimately, it's HER decision, not theirs or the Chruch's. And that's what the courts have supposedly been trying to determine, what Terri would have wanted, and have decided each time that Terri would not have chosen to go on like this. Except when they decided, "maybe we need to wait and make sure" - but how long does the waiting go on? If you're 99% sure, there's still that 1% chance. Do you Keep someone plugged in for 10, 20, 30 years because there was a slight chance they didn't really mean it when they said they'd never want to be kept alive hooked up to machines for the rest of their life?

Quote:
He has lived with that woman for ten years. I'm gonna assume some courtship went on, no? To me, he revoked his vows. But that's me.
Less than 8 actually, but that isn't as relevant as "til Death Do Us Part" and she is clearly dead to him (unless you wanna come out and say you think he's doing this for monetary gain) and he is just trying to see that she be given the final peace he believes she wants. Fuck I'm getting sick of defending this guy's potential integrity, when I know fuck all about him other than what I've read. Point blank: do you think this guy is just a sleazebag or what, Kevin?

Quote:
Quote:
I think it should not be a national ban, and if California wants to let gays get married, fine by me. Wow, what a refreshing tangent.
It would be even more refreshing if you answered the question.
Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. The answers were "no" and "yes" in that order (if you'll note you did ask TWO questions).

Fuck it's late - I'm through with this discussion. Someone needs to euthanize this thread.
__________________
BOYCOTT SIGNATURES!
Reply With Quote
  #64  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 02:26 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Look, I know you don't give a fuck about this subject, so why don't you refrain from commenting....?
Whoa, dude.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Big Papa Goat Big Papa Goat is offline
Mocker
Big Papa Goat's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Missouri
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 03:30 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-Jacque Rosseau
When I say that the object of laws is always general, I mean that law considers subjects en masse and actions in the abstract, and never a particular person or action. Thus the law may indeed decree that there shall be privileges, but cannot confer them on anybody by name
I don't really know much about the US system of government I guess, but isn't Congress a law making body? And wasn't this a law? Regarding one of the things Kevin said in the initial post, I think the saving of the life of this individual is much less appropriate than 'setting a precedent' for future similar circumstances.
On the other hand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat
What's so bad about the politicization of a personal situation/tragedy anyway?
But on the other hand,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Mullen
Force fed immobilization
Man made liquid controlling my limbs
I want to die, no reason for living
Dealing with complications life brings
A corpse with no thoughts
No feelings or perceptions of life
The pleasures of death I foresee
Nightmares and day mares combining
To torture my being - This torture inhibits my life

The world is a graveyard of fools left to cope
With the torment and regret of man now deceased
Ghouls are released to destroy the race
Which we call human beings

Existence is torn from my soul
Perdition is what is believed to be seen
Suffering from the inside
Nefarious is the way
You choose to be - Left with no will to live
My intestinal wall begins to cave in
Trapped as they say
I begin to rot here as I lay

Time to take a look
At what has begun to pass before me
Die a slow death
It now begins to take it's toll
__________________
Ibid
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 03:51 AM       
Another point that hasn't been brought up yet, is how scary it is to give a spouse total power like that, while the actual blood family are cut off from the process.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Cosmo Electrolux Cosmo Electrolux is offline
Stone Pants Rabbit
Cosmo Electrolux's Avatar
Join Date: May 2001
Location: In your distant memory
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 09:02 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
I remember that....I laughed out loud when I read that...than I had a beer and raised a toast for his brother.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 12:59 PM       
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...oyd.55ae8.html

Jacquielynn Floyd
Schiavo outcry speaks volumes about us

08:43 PM CST on Wednesday, March 23, 2005

No commentator, columnist or talk show host in the land has had to cast topical chum upon the waters this week. The outpouring of opinion in the accelerating drama of Terri Schiavo's right-to-live-or-die case has drowned out pretty much everything else.

There's an emotional exhaustion setting in about this case, as if people are bone-tired of hearing about it, but can't quite bring themselves to stop paying attention until the final legal step is exhausted.

This is not a bad thing, for two reasons: First, as many have pointed out, Mrs. Schiavo's wrenching and infinitely publicized case is lighting a fire under millions of people to prepare physician's directives, or "living wills," so there will never be any questions about medical maintenance should they become severely incapacitated.

And second, it suggests that our culture is not, after all, as shallow and frivolous as some critics make us out to be. Millions of Americans have torn themselves away from celebrity gossip and game shows in the last few days to consider the complex issues of medicine, law, bioethics and mortality that this case poses.

Since writing about Mrs. Schiavo's case in Tuesday's paper, I have received a deluge of mail, much of it emotionally affecting, some of it insulting, all of it compelling.

In a brief capsule, I wrote that elected officials had no business interfering in this case; that due legal process has been exhaustively afforded; that Mrs. Schiavo should be allowed a dignified death in accordance with the wishes of her legal guardian, her husband.

I also characterized some of those campaigning for the re-attachment of Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube as non-medical "amateurs" and "meddlers" – words to which some correspondents took strong offense.

"Exactly what do you mean by 'amateurs'?" one irate reader asked. "Most of your columns are light reading and you should stick to what you know."

But my mail ran, by a nearly 3-to-1 margin, in favor of allowing Mrs. Schiavo to die without further intervention from politicians.

Interestingly, many of the writers who expressed this view felt that their sentiments have been largely ignored by a media they see as too preoccupied by protesters and activists.

"I thought I must be about the only person in the country who was appalled by the outside meddling in a private and personal family tragedy," said one writer.

"I am just fed up with the politicians and the strangers who intrude in this private matter," said another.

I heard from health-care professionals who said powerful emotion in this case has obscured medical and biological reality.

"There truly are things worse than death," wrote one doctor whose patients include terminally ill AIDS sufferers. "I have seen them."

"I have seen this scenario play itself out many times in my career," wrote a registered nurse. "This is a tragic case of irrational, selfish emotion overshadowing evidence-based medical practice and what the patient would have wanted."

But many of those who took me to task expressed deeply held beliefs not only about the inherent value of life but also about parental love:

"Why don't you come up with a scenario where one of your children is in the same situation?" asked a reader in Richardson. "I would believe that you would like to have your child at home, without amateur and medical meddling, and feed him, and keep him alive to love him 24 hours a day."

Readers' responses also suggested that it's an inaccurate oversimplification to try to align this debate along political lines.

"I am a native Texan and a lifelong Republican; however, I am embarrassed," said one writer – who was echoed by quite a few others.

"I'm embarrassed with the actions of several people I helped get elected," said another reader, who was generous enough to point out that this is a rare occasion on which she and I agree.

Another writer, though, who described himself as a liberal Democrat, said he cannot reconcile himself to the notion of withholding food and water from a disabled patient.

"How can you stand by while somebody starves to death?" he asked. "I can't believe this is 'medicine.'"

Most affecting, though, were messages from families who have faced the agony of end-of-life decisions themselves:

"It hits home," said a writer related to a severely incapacitated Alzheimer's patient who recently died of pneumonia.

"Luckily, she had signed a 'no feeding tube, no heroics' form so we were able to proceed with her wishes," this writer said. "But what if someone had contested this? Our family could have ended up in the media circus, just like the folks in the Schiavo case. The thought of this gives me cold chills."

And a lot of people, regardless of political affiliation, seem concerned about the possible legal precedent established with the congressional intervention in this case.

"What must I do to keep the government out of my deathbed?" one writer asked. "How can I be assured ... I am granted a right to die? Is it still my choice?"

A good question. I heard a lot of good questions, to which there are no easy answers. These are painful issues involving deeply held beliefs to which there are no simple or universally acceptable answers.

At least we're talking about them.

E-mail jfloyd@dallasnews.com
__________________
BOYCOTT SIGNATURES!
Reply With Quote
  #69  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 12:59 PM       
Kev: Just because the R's were totally wrong about which way the wind was blowing doesn't mean using this as a juicy wedge issue wasn't what they had in mind. I'll dig up some quotes to show you what I mean.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Zebra 3 Zebra 3 is offline
Striped Tomato
Zebra 3's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bay City
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 03:21 PM       
Quote:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...oyd.55ae8.html

Jacquielynn Floyd
Schiavo outcry speaks volumes about us

08:43 PM CST on Wednesday, March 23, 2005



...And second, it suggests that our culture is not, after all, as shallow and frivolous as some critics make us out to be. Millions of Americans have torn themselves away from celebrity gossip and game shows in the last few days to consider the complex issues of medicine, law, bioethics and mortality that this case poses....
- Thanks to "The world's #1 source for news on celebrities, show business, and Hollywood happenings!" TV's Entertainment Tonight I can learn more on our sweet dear Terri.
__________________
'Huuutch!' - Starsky
Reply With Quote
  #71  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 05:12 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
As I understand it, the husband does have some motivation for her to die, above and beyond his claims regarding her final wishes.
He has guardianship as the law now stands. He has nothing really to gain financially as almost all of it has been eaten up in medical bills. It pays not to go on hearsay anyway. Did it ever occur to you that he has stayed married in order to ensure that her final wishes were met? So what that he did move on with another woman with children. We have to move on. That's human nature. It doesn't mean that he doesn't sincerely care for her welfare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
I've also read that she's showed some response, so she's not a vegetable. There have been extreme cases of people coming out of comas after years.
Up until this point, the case was won by the husband because he is in the right by standing Florida law, despite repeated appeals by the parents by this technicality or that. This is just an eleventh hour appeal hinging on the definition of "vegetative state". And guess who introduced the new evaluations of her condition ... endorsed, right wing conservative physicians under the employ of the parents. Suprise! Suprise!

P.S. I'm glad that a federal judge had the conjones to keep the executive branch from showboating and trying to bully the excutive branch. Checks and balances, ya know?
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 05:38 PM       
There must be a medical name for someone who perceives everything as an act of partisin politics.

It's not about Republican's nearly as much as it is with our personal perceptions of life and death. Some of us think the ability to wipe ourselves supercedes a pulse. Some of us think her life should depend on wether or not her husband is ready to "move on with his life". That's insane. Now to me Hospice is an evil fucking organization, but I know plenty of people who are grateful for their help. I see them as morphine pushers personally, and their "angel of mercy" speeches to be grim reaper bullshit. THAT'S what's coming from the religious Right. Liberals second guessing medical science because of their own lazy ethics isn't much better.

I can tell you this much. Everything about the husband creeps me out, so when I read the hearsay that there's a life policy in her name, or that there's future litigation he stands to gain from, I tend to buy into it. At the core, this is a landmark case in terms of power of attorney, and if her Parents want to resume care for her, they should have the ability to fight for that, and pursue the same options available to their daughter for the past ten years or whatever it's been. I mean, the truth is he wouldn't have ever even put her on life support AT ALL if her wishes were so strong.

Edit: Why is it a negative thing that our nation has taken up this story? Aren't these issues more important then who stole Paris Hilton's password ?
Reply With Quote
  #73  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 07:05 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
I can tell you this much. Everything about the husband creeps me out, so when I read the hearsay that there's a life policy in her name, or that there's future litigation he stands to gain from, I tend to buy into it.
Without ever meeting the guy, you've determined that he is untrustworthy at best and more likley, a monster. What the hell is wrong with all these judges that they can't see this guy is clearly CREEPY.

Quote:
if her Parents want to resume care for her, they should have the ability to fight for that, and pursue the same options available to their daughter for the past ten years or whatever it's been. I mean, the truth is he wouldn't have ever even put her on life support AT ALL if her wishes were so strong.
They certainly do that have that right, and they've excercised it for nearly a decade. Your second point compeletely lost me. He wouldn't have put her on life support before he knew the extent of the damage, before years of failed therapy and treatment?? No one is saying she would have rather died than recieve ANY medical treatment. They are saying she would not have wanted her body to be kept alive indefinitely after her brain had turned to mush.

Quote:
Edit: Why is it a negative thing that our nation has taken up this story? Aren't these issues more important then who stole Paris Hilton's password ?
It's not especially negative, but it is certainly morbid. As much as some of us want to look away, we can't help coming back to it, it strikes that strong a personal chord. This is someone's most private affair, and here we are debating like we know what this woman that none of us have met would have wanted. We are imagining ourselves and our own loved ones in this horrible position. Hopefully, some good will come of all this.
__________________
BOYCOTT SIGNATURES!
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Mar 24th, 2005, 10:46 PM       
Did you get confused and think you're signing on to Judge Chat? Put down the toy gavel, take off the Polyphinic Spree souvineer robe.

The parents haven't excersised any rights. They haven't had power of attorney, and that's everything. Otherwise, once a spouse takes control, the family can't decide if a patient gets Jello or Popsicles. They have no rights.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Mar 25th, 2005, 12:54 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
I mean, the truth is he wouldn't have ever even put her on life support AT ALL if her wishes were so strong.
He may simply have been holding out hope for the first few years.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:23 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.