Terri Schiavo

[Kodos]

Curious to see the breakdown here. I believe she should be allowed to die.

[SackAttack]

It's not that I have an issue with her being allowed to die, so much as that something smells fishy about the husband's behavior in all of this, and I'm not terribly keen on him being the one to make this decision.

[Franklinnoble]

I think she should have the tube inserted until all legal options are exhausted.

We don't start lethal injection drips on convicts until their appeals are done...

[Chubby]

I think she should have the tube inserted until all legal options are exhausted.

We don't start lethal injection drips on convicts until their appeals are done...
How many times does the attempts to put the tube back in have to get shot down? The Supreme Court refused to take the case yet politicians are still going strong trying to save her when it's none of their business.

[CraigSca]

It's just weird to me....the husband wants the tube removed....it's not like she's on a ventilator or anything...all she needs is food and water and she continues to live.

I don't know...I'm glad I don't have to make decisions like this.

[Franklinnoble]

How many times does the attempts to put the tube back in have to get shot down? The Supreme Court refused to take the case yet politicians are still going strong trying to save her when it's none of their business.

Actually, if it were my wife, I'd let her go, and I know that's what she'd want at this point.

However, I think it's best to err on the side of caution here. Death isn't reversible. This has been going on for years - there's no harm in feeding her for another week or two while the remaining legal options are exhausted.

[Loki]

At this point, I wish they'd hurry it along.

I feel bad saying that, but it's true.

:(

[Chubby]

Actually, if it were my wife, I'd let her go, and I know that's what she'd want at this point.

However, I think it's best to err on the side of caution here. Death isn't reversible. This has been going on for years - there's no harm in feeding her for another week or two while the remaining legal options are exhausted.
What remaining legal options? Let congress or the Fla state government create unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law til the end of time? It's been 8 years of appeal after appeal getting shot down. It's time to move on.

[ISiddiqui]

Allowed to die.

[Huckleberry]

However, I think it's best to err on the side of caution here. Death isn't reversible. This has been going on for years - there's no harm in feeding her for another week or two while the remaining legal options are exhausted.
In case you haven't noticed, and judging by the attendance you haven't, Congress is doing their best to invent new legal options. The "remaining legal options" might not ever be exhausted now that they decided to involve themselves.

There's lots of interesting information out there on this case. At first I was wary of the husband. Now I believe him and am wary of the parents.

http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/a/caiman04/Schindlers.JPG

The parents admit that they wouldn't respect her wishes to have it removed even if they admitted full awareness of those wishes. A court-appointed guardian ad litem stated that Michael Schiavo was extremely attentive to his wife's care and appeared to genuinely believe these were his wife's wishes. Furthermore, he believed at first that progress was possible, but when he decided that it wasn't, he chose to honor her wishes.

Finally, it makes me furious that the possibility exists that I could tell my wife that I wanted to be let go in this situation, which I have, and then my parents could force me to live like that for several years. And then allow politicians to make a national spectacle out of me in my reduced condition.

The parents, it turns out, are nothing but selfish.

[ISiddiqui]

What remaining legal options? Let congress or the Fla state government create unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law til the end of time? It's been 8 years of appeal after appeal getting shot down. It's time to move on.
Bingo! There are no legal options anymore. If you say we have to suspend the removal until the law is dealt with what is stopping Congress from passing another law if that one gets struck down to delay the death again?

[cartman]

I just find idiotic the hyprocrisy in this situation. Back in the 2000 election, these very same politicians were castigating Gore for trying to exhaust every available legal channel for a recount, saying he should just let it be. Now, they are fighting tooth and nail, exhausting every legal avenue, and passing constitutionally questionable laws to try and create new legal avenues in this situation. Imagine the uproar if a law was passed that forced Florida to delay certifying the vote until every possible chad in the entire state had been analyzed.

To me, a legal ruling impacting who is going to be President of the US would be much more important and relevant that a legal ruling on a private medical matter between differing views inside a family.

[Franklinnoble]

To me, a legal ruling impacting who is going to be President of the US would be much more important and relevant that a legal ruling on a private medical matter between differing views inside a family.

I think one life is a lot more important than a Presidential election.

But that's just me.

[Loren]

well unfortunetly im siding with pro-lifers on this one:(... I just think it's kindve sad that all this time he has refused her getting therapy, who knows how much better she could have gotten in all these years with it, with ANY form of stimulation really... He's fought her parents on just about any form of it over the years, she's not completely brain dead though, or she wouldnt be able to breathe and follow the people around her with her eyes the way she does, its really just sad he never gave her a chance at living though. Finally, as a parent, umm yeah if my kid never truly expressed their wishes on what they wanted you bet id fight an in law on it..especially one who's so obviously been able to move on with HIS life the way the one in this case has.

[Chubby]

I think one life is a lot more important than a Presidential election.

But that's just me.
Only when it's a "great political issue" tho right? I mean, that baby in Texas that was allowed to die because there wasn't enough money to pay was AOK evidentally.

[Bomber]

For all the Bush Supporters who think Terri should be saved, what do you have to say to this?

http://news.google.com/news?q=%20Sun%20Hudson&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&sa=N&tab=wn

[Franklinnoble]

Only when it's a "great political issue" tho right? I mean, that baby in Texas that was allowed to die because there wasn't enough money to pay was AOK evidentally.


Apples and oranges.

[dawgfan]

Oh jeebus - are we going to start a whole new thread on this now?

well unfortunetly im siding with pro-lifers on this one... I just think it's kindve sad that all this time he has refused her getting therapy, who knows how much better she could have gotten in all these years with it, with ANY form of stimulation really... He's fought her parents on just about any form of it over the years, she's not completely brain dead though, or she wouldnt be able to breathe and follow the people around her with her eyes the way she does, its really just sad he never gave her a chance at living though. Finally, as a parent, umm yeah if my kid never truly expressed their wishes on what they wanted you bet id fight an in law on it..especially one who's so obviously been able to move on with HIS life the way the one in this case has.

Loren, please see this thread (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=37102) for a complete discussion of this case. You'll find that all of the concerns and misconceptions you have about this case are addressed. I don't want to re-hash old arguments, but the justifications you're using are based on false or misleading info.

You might also want to check out this webblog (http://www.abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html) for a clear, level-headed review of the entire history of this case.

[Chubby]

Apples and oranges.
One had the entire family wanting to save the person where the person was killed after 6 months.

The other has the guardian speaking for the person's wishes to die and is being kept alive with no improvment for 15 years.

It is apples and oranges isn't it.

[Loren]

Oh jeebus - are we going to start a whole new thread on this now?this webblog (http://www.abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html) for a clear, level-headed review of the entire history of this case.

God forbid i read THIS thread first, holy crap :rolleyes: and yeah when i have time to read more than one page ill get right on that....still going to think he's an ass and she shouldnt be starved:) and im so not a Bush supporter

[bosshogg23]

Im really suprised by the numbers on this. I had assumed it would be 2/3 against removing the tube. I guess the people I have talked to represent the minority.

I think she should be allowed to die if her physical condition is as the court doctor ruled.

[VPI97]

I just think it's kindve sad that all this time he has refused her getting therapy, who knows how much better she could have gotten in all these years with it, with ANY form of stimulation really... He's fought her parents on just about any form of it over the years, she's not completely brain dead though, or she wouldnt be able to breathe and follow the people around her with her eyes the way she does, its really just sad he never gave her a chance at living though.Wow...just wow

[dawgfan]

God forbid i read THIS thread first, holy crap :rolleyes: and yeah when i have time to read more than one page ill get right on that....still going to think he's an ass and she shouldnt be starved:) and im so not a Bush supporter

Yeah it's a long thread, but pretty much every angle of the case has been debated there.

If you want a quicker read, check out the webblog I linked to.

[Tekneek]

Good thing it takes a little more than emotional outpourings in a court of law to win your arguments. That must be why they keep losing, because they've got nothing except 'feelings' to support their position.

[yabanci]

This is pretty consistent with the latest national poll.

Re-insert tube
27%

Do not re-insert
66%

Poll: Keep Feeding Tube Out

NEW YORK, March 23, 2005

(CBS) Americans have strong feelings about the Terri Schiavo case, and a majority says the feeding tube should not now be re-inserted. This view is shared by Americans of all political persuasions. Most think the feeding tube should have been removed, and most also do not think the U.S. Supreme Court should hear the case.

An overwhelming 82 percent of the public believes the Congress and President should stay out of the matter. There is widespread cynicism about Congress' motives for getting involved: 74 percent say Congress intervened to advance a political agenda, not because they cared what happened to Terri Schiavo. Public approval of Congress has suffered as a result; at 34 percent, it is the lowest it has been since 1997, dropping from 41 percent last month. Now at 43 percent, President Bush’s approval rating is also lower than it was a month ago.

detailed results: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/opinion/polls/main682674.shtml

[SFL Cat]

I just find idiotic the hyprocrisy in this situation. Back in the 2000 election, these very same politicians were castigating Gore for trying to exhaust every available legal channel for a recount, saying he should just let it be. Now, they are fighting tooth and nail, exhausting every legal avenue, and passing constitutionally questionable laws to try and create new legal avenues in this situation.

It is interesting in many ways....a lot of the same people here who still like to rant about how "Bush stole the election" are hot to trot for Schiavo to starve to death, legal manuevering be damned.

[CamEdwards]

For all the Bush Supporters who think Terri should be saved, what do you have to say to this?

http://news.google.com/news?q=%20Sun%20Hudson&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&sa=N&tab=wn


Umm, I'd say that the Bush-bashing op/ed writer needs to go back and look at the legislation in question.

Prior to 1999 in Texas, patients families had NO option to find alternative services. This legislation actually provided some limited protection where none had previously existed. Is it perfect? No. Then again, (then) Governor Bush wasn't writing legislation, he was just signing bills into law.

You can disagree with the President and Congress on this (and I'm pretty mixed about it, even though I voted to keep T.S. alive) without having to misrepresent the facts.

[cartman]

It is interesting in many ways....a lot of the same people here who still like to rant about how "Bush stole the election" are hot to trot for Schiavo to starve to death, legal manuevering be damned.

And I think you will find quite a large number of people who voted for Bush also are, as you so eloquently and dispassionately put it, "hot to trot to see her starved to death".

[Bomber]

Umm, I'd say that the Bush-bashing op/ed writer needs to go back and look at the legislation in question.

Prior to 1999 in Texas, patients families had NO option to find alternative services. This legislation actually provided some limited protection where none had previously existed. Is it perfect? No. Then again, (then) Governor Bush wasn't writing legislation, he was just signing bills into law.

You can disagree with the President and Congress on this (and I'm pretty mixed about it, even though I voted to keep T.S. alive) without having to misrepresent the facts.

Not all those articles are from biased sources. Sun Hudson was 5 months old and had much more of a chance for recovery than Terri does. Why is the outrage so selective? Where were the Right to Live people then? Why don't they donate for this? The point is this sort of thing happens everyday. Michael is the legal guardian for Terri and has the legal right to do this. That's it end of story.

[CamEdwards]

Not all those articles are from biased sources. Sun Hudson was 5 months old and had much more of a chance for recovery than Terri does. Why is the outrage so selective? Where were the Right to Live people then? Why don't they donate for this? The point is this sort of thing happens everyday. Michael is the legal guardian for Terri and has the legal right to do this. That's it end of story.

I'm not sure the outrage is selective. I think it's all a matter of publicity. But if you want a crass comparison, I'm sure there were plenty of people who decided not to move to the back of the bus. Most of them were probably just thrown off the bus. I know Jackie Robinson refused to sit in the back when he was in the Army, yet that incident was never publicized. Somehow when Rosa Parks did it, it caught the public attention. Does that mean that what happened to her was any less real? I don't think so. Nor does the fact that Terry Schiavo is the case that has been most and best publicized make her death any less of a real experience. Nor does it make the grief of her parents any less genuine. Nor does it make the grief of her husband any less genuine. (I'm trying to be as equal as possible to all sides here).

But the point you were trying to make is not that this happens every day. The point you were trying to make is "Bush supporters, your man's a hypocrite." I'm simply pointing out that you're wrong. Non-biased or not, these op/ed pieces and the original article in the Houston paper leave out the fact that before (then) Governor Bush signed this legislation into law, there were NO protections for the family. Now there are at least SOME protections. Big difference than the picture that's painted of Bush signing Sun Hudson's death warrant.

[Klinglerware]

Not all those articles are from biased sources. Sun Hudson was 5 months old and had much more of a chance for recovery than Terri does. Why is the outrage so selective? Where were the Right to Live people then? Why don't they donate for this? The point is this sort of thing happens everyday. Michael is the legal guardian for Terri and has the legal right to do this. That's it end of story.

The selectivity stems from the fact that cases like Terri Schiavo and Sun Hudson conflict with basic conservative principles when it comes to health care. Because of the publicity, donations are now likely to allow for the continuing care of Schiavo in the event the parents actually win custody of her. Sun Hudson's care would likely have had to be paid for by the state. That's the only difference.

In the other thread, a couple of people siding with the parents of Schiavo have admitted that they would be less likely to support keeping the feeding tube in if medicaid had to pay for it...

[Dutch]

I'm not qualified to answer the poll either way...and I'm truly torn between answering either way.

I will say this, without knowing all the specifics, it looks like one of those catch-22 situations where all the answers are right and wrong.

What a horrible situation.

[Tekneek]

It is interesting in many ways....a lot of the same people here who still like to rant about how "Bush stole the election" are hot to trot for Schiavo to starve to death, legal manuevering be damned.

If there was a quicker remedy allowed by the law, I'm sure they would consider it.

Legal manuevering be damned? How much of that should be allowed to stop the world? Her parents lose constantly. Are they allowed to stall the process forever with more demonstrations on how to lose court battles?

[sterlingice]

Kodos, where's the "I don't give a flying fuck" poll option or at least "trout"? It's cases like this which make me long for the election day squabbles of oh so trifling matters like war, fiscal policy, and social programs.

SI

[Tekneek]

Big difference than the picture that's painted of Bush signing Sun Hudson's death warrant.

Since the other side has been painting Terri Schiavo's husband as a cruel man who simply wants to "finish the job" by starving her to death, I hope you can understand why someone might paint Bush with the same sort of brush.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Then again, (then) Governor Bush wasn't writing legislation, he was just signing bills into law.
:eek:

I don't know about the details history of this bill, but as an excuse this is as thin as they come! If a man signs a bill into law, I reckon we have to hold him responsible for everything in there whether he wrote it or not. He's a freakin' governor/president, he has a responsibility to know what he's signing.

It'd be like someone saying "Hey! I might have signed this contract, but I didn't write it, what do you mean I'm liable for this?!"

[Axxon]

God forbid i read THIS thread first, holy crap :rolleyes: and yeah when i have time to read more than one page ill get right on that....still going to feel he's an ass and she shouldnt be starved:) and im so not a Bush supporter

Fixed it for you. If you have premade up your mind without knowing the facts and the facts have no chance to alter your opinion you can't be thinking. You are reacting on feeling.

Not to say that people who are on the other side of the fence aren't doing the same thing more or less but all the credible facts, you know, the ones that legal decisions are based on, are on our side in this one and 8 years hasn't changed that one bit. :)

Now, on the issue of "she shouldn't be starved" I'm with you 100% but the fact is, people in this country have decided that quicker, more humane methods of ending a life are more cruel and this is the only method legally available to honor her wishes.

But that's a topic for another thread. ;)

[rkmsuf]

Hope everyone is proud of themselves dignity wise. If they are trying to make a circus out of a sad situation I think we're there.

The husband is the only sane one in this whole thing I believe.

[Arles]

I just find idiotic the hyprocrisy in this situation. Back in the 2000 election, these very same politicians were castigating Gore for trying to exhaust every available legal channel for a recount, saying he should just let it be. Now, they are fighting tooth and nail, exhausting every legal avenue, and passing constitutionally questionable laws to try and create new legal avenues in this situation. Imagine the uproar if a law was passed that forced Florida to delay certifying the vote until every possible chad in the entire state had been analyzed.
I disagree completely. The Florida legislature had a process for deciding the recount of elections, agreed upon by all parties prior and that had been used successfully for decades. The courts then stepped in and said all that was wrong and we needed to change these laws after the fact. The best parallel to a Schiavo-type case would be if Terry had provided a living will and trust to both the parents and her husband prior to the incident stating she would would not want to be kept alive by any type of life support (breathing, feeding, etc).

Then, if the family kept pursuing this and wanted to keep her alive in spite of what both parties had priorly agreed to on paper, I could certainly see the hypocrisy. Of course, that isn't the situation here.

To me, a legal ruling impacting who is going to be President of the US would be much more important and relevant that a legal ruling on a private medical matter between differing views inside a family.
I don't know, from a courts and legal standpoint, I would feel better having more time and effort devoted to making sure (as close to 100% as possible) we don't kill a death row inmate or person on life support when it should not have happened than I would about one political party panhandling for more votes when the law was pretty clear prior to the election on this issue.

If you want to see some hyporcrisy, imagine a situation where Terry was put in this situation because of a corporation giving her a faulty product. And, in order to help the case against that corporation, they would need a sample of her living tissue to help show that indeed that corporation had provided the product (ie, a prescription drug) that did this to her. Then, the family and the husband said that her wishes were not to be kept on life support and feel the plug should be removed ASAP (before the trial starts and evidence could be taken).

I wonder what the anti-corporation crowd would be thinking then and if they would be so supportive of pulling the plug on her now or waiting a few weeks for more evidence to be obtained that could be used against the "evil corporation".

[Huckleberry]

That's the longest and most roundabout way of reaching a strawman I've ever seen.

As for a long time and a lot of effort, this woman has been like this for nearly 15 years. The legal battle has been going on for 7 years. Goodness, due process was satisfied a longass time ago with the first trial court result.

And the Florida law already had a process for dealing with situations like this. Then the US Congress decided to interject and change jurisdictions, etc. This circus is a joke, and it's ridiculous.

By the way, did you see what I posted above? I'm pretty damn sure the husband is in the right here after learning that the parents admitted they wouldn't respect Terri's wishes if given the chance anyway.

[Tekneek]

I wonder what the anti-corporation crowd would be thinking then and if they would be so supportive of pulling the plug on her now or waiting a few weeks for more evidence to be obtained that could be used against the "evil corporation".

I can't speak for the anti-corporation crowd, but if there were prosecutors interested in proceeding against that corporation I know they would try to convince the family to help them out. If the legally recognized decision-maker on the matter decided pulling the plug today, as opposed to a month from now, was the right thing to do then they should go ahead and do it. I tend to champion the rights of individuals first.

[Anthony]

why is this even anyone's business? who care's about Terri? look outside your window - we're still in a fucking war with Iraqi insurgents.

this is like 2001 all over again, where the nation concerned itself with that ugly whore Chandra Levi. if she wasn't jewish no one would have cared. but since we like to live in a cacoon with these phony "important issues" while God knows who is out plotting to knock down another national landmark, we're dooming ourselves to repeat history.

this is a non-issue. why is this even in the press? these decisions are made every day. this is just a case of parents not wanting to move on and deal with the negativities of life.

sometimes i really hate humans.

[Anthony]

for the record, i officially want Terri Schiavo to die.

not have her feeding tube removed - but to fucking die so this nation can get back to important issues. i don't believe this much attention has been paid to this worthless human. this country just loves to jump around from hot-issue to hot-issue. we go from Iraq to steroids to this fucking lump of shit. the problem is the press is run by people with ADD with no ability to prioritize important issues. i wish someone would just hold her nostrils closed so this unnecessary debate can end.

[Raiders Army]

why is this even anyone's business? who care's about Terri? look outside your window - we're still in a fucking war with Iraqi insurgents.

this is like 2001 all over again, where the nation concerned itself with that ugly whore Chandra Levi. if she wasn't jewish no one would have cared. but since we like to live in a cacoon with these phony "important issues" while God knows who is out plotting to knock down another national landmark, we're dooming ourselves to repeat history.

this is a non-issue. why is this even in the press? these decisions are made every day. this is just a case of parents not wanting to move on and deal with the negativities of life.

sometimes i really hate humans.

What's hilarious to me is that she's more famous than 99% of the people out there and she doesn't even know it.

[st.cronin]

Sometimes I listen to ... I can't remember what it's called, the liberal talk radio station featuring Al Franken ... anyway, one of the hosts yesterday was just repulsive going on about Schiavo, making disgusting jokes and just in general making me want to throw up.

This is a classic example of a situation where reasonable people can come to opposite conclusions; making it seem like that's not the case, or painting the other side as vile, is just dumb - it doesn't help anyone, and makes you look bad.

[Tekneek]

but since we like to live in a cacoon with these phony "important issues" while God knows who is out plotting to knock down another national landmark, we're dooming ourselves to repeat history.

Maybe if they save Terri's life, God won't let the terrorists attack us again. Now that society has taken steps to stamp down Gay rights, and saves a high profile life, God will bless us again and protect us from terrorism. At least that is what I have learned from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

:confused:

[Anthony]

What's hilarious to me is that she's more famous than 99% of the people out there and she doesn't even know it.

exactly. she wakes up (well, how do you wake up if you barely have consciousness, but that's for another topic) and the important items of the day is not having her eyes roll up in her head or drool on herself, meanwhile half (or more) of the country is starting this damn vigil putting their noses in another families business.

these things are easy to do when you own loved one isn't suddenly in a vegetative state with no ability to survive on their own without machines. very easy to have these vigils. meanwhile troops are STILL dying over in Iraq and everyone is now "ho-hum...that's so 2004 :rolleyes: ".

beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent lifeforms down here.

[Tekneek]

I can't remember what it's called, the liberal talk radio station featuring Al Franken

Must be...Air America?

[st.cronin]

Must be...Air America?

Bingo. I think it was Stephanie Miller I was listening to ... well, I'll never make that mistake again. :rolleyes:

[Honolulu_Blue]

if she wasn't jewish no one would have cared.
You ignorant sandwich fucker, you really say some of the dumbest things. Ever.

The only reason anyone cared was because of the Condit connection. That's it. It didn't matter if she were Hindu, Catholic, Potestant, Muslim, atheist, black, or whatever...

[Flasch186]

I think Tom De Lay has truly risen above the fray on this one....I mean he was secretly taped in his office comparing his ethics investigations to this. Saying that its the same when people want to investigate him as them wanting to let her die. Honestly, Republicans everywhere should toss this guy, he is embarassing. At Least I believe that Bush and the admin believe what they're doing is right. This guy is just a con artist.

[Tekneek]

these things are easy to do when you own loved one isn't suddenly in a vegetative state with no ability to survive on their own without machines. very easy to have these vigils. meanwhile troops are STILL dying over in Iraq and everyone is now "ho-hum...that's so 2004 :rolleyes: ".

I am thinking the Republicans love the idea of society being distracted by this. Maybe that is why they are feeding the frenzy? It helps them to distract people away from the Social Security debate that is losing traction and the situation in Iraq that is still a bit of a blackeye.

[Tekneek]

Bingo. I think it was Stephanie Miller I was listening to ... well, I'll never make that mistake again. :rolleyes:

Stephanie Miller? Is that the woman who once had her own TV talk show? If it is who I am thinking of, she was a cute one.

[jerem77]

Parents want to keep her alive-End of story.
If it were a case of "Family v Pro-Lifers" it would be different, but this is "Family v Family" and "Life v Death." If the husband wants her dead than remove him from all financial and legal responsibility. Let the parents take care of her. He wants her dead to cover up something he has done.

[Tekneek]

Parents want to keep her alive-End of story.
If it were a case of "Family v Pro-Lifers" it would be different, but this is "Family v Family" and "Life v Death." If the husband wants her dead than remove him from all financial and legal responsibility. Let the parents take care of her. He wants her dead to cover up something he has done.

And after all this time...nobody has found any evidence of that and no court has removed that authority from him. If you have such definitive information and legal standing, why aren't you down there resolving this situation for everyone? Clearly you know more about it than the legal authorities that have been involved for years at this point.

[Anthony]

Maybe if they save Terri's life, God won't let the terrorists attack us again. Now that society has taken steps to stamp down Gay rights, and saves a high profile life, God will bless us again and protect us from terrorism. At least that is what I have learned from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

:confused:

i mean, i really like how an issue such as a FUCKING WAR makes the transition from front page news to page 4 filler. when did us being involved in a war suddenly get removed off the list of national agenda? i understand items such as, oh i don't know, a country identified as part of an axis of evil refusing to halt its nuclear weapons program is hard to sell newspapers, but does this Schiavo nonsense really need this much attention.

i hate knowing Terri Schiavo's name. i hate having to force myself to not think about it. i hate how we spend a week on one issue (either real issue or otherwise) and move on to something else, with no closure from the first issue.

did Congress decide what they accomplished with their steoird hearings? with all the oom-pa-pa last week you'd think there'd be an end-result. how could something that, in the loosely paraphrased words of one of the politicians, would be a national tragedy if the problem wasn't fixed, now all of a sudden not even show up in the papers? is it just me, or is anyone else seeing the ADD here?

throw Terri Schiavo in the same room as Chandra Levi, Gary Condit and Elian Gonzalez and any other make-believe issue and blow them up.

watch, when this Schiavo thing dies down (no pun intended, wocka wocka) another Kennedy will do something stupid for us to keep ourselves occupied with until the next "hot-topic".

[Klinglerware]

I am thinking the Republicans love the idea of society being distracted by this. Maybe that is why they are feeding the frenzy? It helps them to distract people away from the Social Security debate that is losing traction and the situation in Iraq that is still a bit of a blackeye.

Ding Ding Ding... I think we may have a winner!

[rkmsuf]

He wants her dead to cover up something he has done.

uh ok.

[Anthony]

I am thinking the Republicans love the idea of society being distracted by this. Maybe that is why they are feeding the frenzy? It helps them to distract people away from the Social Security debate that is losing traction and the situation in Iraq that is still a bit of a blackeye.

i'm hitting the gong - DING DING DING, Tekneek.

i forgot the SS thing. you see, it fucking worked. when did we decide we didn't have to talk about SS anymore, as if this issue has been resolved or something...?

good example.

[Anthony]

Parents want to keep her alive-End of story.
If it were a case of "Family v Pro-Lifers" it would be different, but this is "Family v Family" and "Life v Death." If the husband wants her dead than remove him from all financial and legal responsibility. Let the parents take care of her. He wants her dead to cover up something he has done.

you've seen too many movies.

[Masked]

I believe Terri's wishes should be honoured and the feeding tube should be removed. Based on what I know from media reports of her condition, I strongly believe that she has no chance of recovery. Her condition got steadily worse despite a variety of therapies in the years after her collapse.

One thing about this case that I find interesting is how little the public understands about the brain. The brain is very fragile and has a very limited ability to repair itself. Recovery from a trauma is generally best described as compensation rather than a true healing. Finally, life is much more than a beating heart and breathing.

[KWhit]

HA, you certainly have a way with words. Although I do agree with your assessment that there are certainly more important things for us to be debating.

[hhiipp]

I'm on the HA bandwagon. Bury her and her non-issue.

[Flasch186]

you've seen too many movies.

i agree....he waits 7 years and turns over all medical records to hide something. nice.

[hhiipp]

Saving Terri
Featuring Hatcher Flaschen as Michael Shiavo

[jerem77]

And after all this time...nobody has found any evidence of that and no court has removed that authority from him. If you have such definitive information and legal standing, why aren't you down there resolving this situation for everyone? Clearly you know more about it than the legal authorities that have been involved for years at this point.

My stance has nothing to do with "Know the Legal system." The husband doesn't want to be removed as guardian because he wants her dead. Almost every case like this that I have seen involved the family wanting to let a family member die vs. those in society who want to fight for life. In this case there are parents who don't want to give up hope vs. a husband who got excited everytime he thought she was getting sick and might die.

I have read people on here say that the parents need to let go and that they are the selfish ones. I think that it is incredibly arrogant of anyone to tell a parent they should let their child die. We can all sit back and say we would let her go, but you never know untill you are in that situation. Most parents would do anything for a dying child , including giving their own life to save them. If the parents want to keep her alive that should be their right. They should be applauded for fighting for their daugters life not scorned.

[Flasch186]

Saving Terri
Featuring Hatcher Flaschen as Michael Shiavo

boy talk about miscast - i dont look anything like him....plus how can i work in an underpants line in this?

[Flasch186]

My stance has nothing to do with "Know the Legal system." The husband doesn't want to be removed as guardian because he wants her dead. Almost every case like this that I have seen involved the family wanting to let a family member die vs. those in society who want to fight for life. In this case there are parents who don't want to give up hope vs. a husband who got excited everytime he thought she was getting sick and might die.

I have read people on here say that the parents need to let go and that they are the selfish ones. I think that it is incredibly arrogant of anyone to tell a parent they should let their child die. We can all sit back and say we would let her go, but you never know untill you are in that situation. Most parents would do anything for a dying child , including giving their own life to save them. If the parents want to keep her alive that should be their right. They should be applauded for fighting for their daugters life not scorned.

but what about what Terri said she wanted to michale AND family members...does that count?

[Klinglerware]

Almost every case like this that I have seen involved the family wanting to let a family member die vs. those in society who want to fight for life.

Then you haven't been reading the Schiavo threads carefully enough. There are several cases where the opposite is going on--the family wants to extend the care of a loved one. The difference in these other cases is that these families lack the means to pay the medical costs associated with keeping their loved one alive.

It is difficult for the conservatives to credibly argue the Schiavo case since, in similar cases, the conundrum (for Republicans, anyway) of "choosing life" versus "government subsidizing health care" often arises. The fact that the Republican distaste of the latter has usually trumped the former in other cases, the new-found conservative support of Schiavo's parents rests on shaky ground.

[Tekneek]

In this case there are parents who don't want to give up hope vs. a husband who got excited everytime he thought she was getting sick and might die.

Do more than make a baseless accusation, please. I would like to see this evidence that has you convinced. Maybe it will convince me that you are right.

[rkmsuf]

Do more than make a baseless accusation, please. I would like to see this evidence that has you convinced. Maybe it will convince me that you are right.

There's hope. I was close to having you believe Dan Marino sucks.

[duckman]

sometimes i really hate humans.
You stole my life slogan!

[Tigercat]

I think Tom De Lay has truly risen above the fray on this one....I mean he was secretly taped in his office comparing his ethics investigations to this. Saying that its the same when people want to investigate him as them wanting to let her die. Honestly, Republicans everywhere should toss this guy, he is embarassing. At Least I believe that Bush and the admin believe what they're doing is right. This guy is just a con artist.

Unforunately in a bi-polar nation where each side believes in its own flavor of self-righteousness, a man like Tom Delay finds a comfy home. I always enjoyed the mental image of him as a former pest control man, when in reality he seems to be the unkillable cockroach.

[VPI97]

In this case there are parents who don't want to give up hope vs. a husband who got excited everytime he thought she was getting sick and might die.
No, you have that wrong. In this case, there are media whore parents who want the husband out of the way in order to collect on their daughter's money when she eventually passes away vs. a saint of a husband who only wants to respect his wife's wishes.


(Wow...It's fun making over-sensationalized statements that barely resemble fact!!)


If the parents want to keep her alive that should be their right. It would be more respectful to Terri if they followed their daughter's wishes.

[Tekneek]

There's hope. I was close to having you believe Dan Marino sucks.

You provided such wonderful evidence to back up your claim, too. When you do find the evidence, I'm still willing to give it a chance.

[rkmsuf]

You provided such wonderful evidence to back up your claim, too. When you do find the evidence, I'm still willing to give it a chance.

I felt like I made a very strong case. At least as strong as Cochrane and F.Lee Bailey.

[Huckleberry]

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal of Michael as Guardian Further, it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as "a nursing home administrator's nightmare". It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore.

[Radii]

It is not easy to look at the case from a legal side instead of an emotional side, but legally it seems very very clear to me that the correct answer is to let her die. Numerous appeals courts have now found that there is no merit to any claims the parents are making to keep her alive and remove the husband from custody. Case closed. Anything else IMO is trying to make up the laws as you go and is not the way this works...

[Ksyrup]

It is not easy to look at the case from a legal side instead of an emotional side, but legally it seems very very clear to me that the correct answer is to let her die. Numerous appeals courts have now found that there is no merit to any claims the parents are making to keep her alive and remove the husband from custody. Case closed. Anything else IMO is trying to make up the laws as you go and is not the way this works...
This is where I fall in all of this. I don't support any of the legislative/executive attempts to circumvent the judicial process. If my party wants to make the ethical/moral issues involving "right to life" a concern that overrides any and all legal issues, then they should no longer be in favor of the death penalty. At least be consistent.

It's a damn good thing for the Republicans that I don't vote for or against candidates based on social issues...

[chinaski]

Anyone watch Scarborough Country last night (there were only 240K of you)...?

Anyways, one of the leaders of a group whos attached itself to the Parents side of the story was on. She actaully said the following...from the transcript...

DOROTHY TIMBS, NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE: Well, first, we don’t take any position on marriage. We only defend innocent human life from conception to natural death.

And this certainly is not a natural death. Clearly, no matter what you say, no matter what the legal arguments come down to, the average American realizes that this is nothing less than starvation and dehydration of a woman who is otherwise healthy. I mean, I don’t even know if I could have lasted as long as she’s lasted. She’s very healthy to last 6 days without water...

AL FRANKEN: Oh, my lord.


hahahaahahahaahahahaha, i cant believe the complete ignorance this situation has revealed.

[SFL Cat]

Unforunately in a bi-polar nation where each side believes in its own flavor of self-righteousness, a man like Tom Delay finds a comfy home. I always enjoyed the mental image of him as a former pest control man, when in reality he seems to be the unkillable cockroach.

Up...sorry....got a little excited until I realized you weren't talking about Teddy Kennedy.

[Glengoyne]

I disagree completely. The Florida legislature had a process for deciding the recount of elections, agreed upon by all parties prior and that had been used successfully for decades. The courts then stepped in and said all that was wrong and we needed to change these laws after the fact. ...

This is not at all the way I recall it. There were laws on the books in Florida to handle recounts, but there were no specifics regarding the "counting" of improperly cast ballots. There was a law addressing how to deal with ballots damaged during the counting process, that said the vote(s) should be manually registered if someone could divine the intent of the voter. Over the years, Florida courts had applied that standard "divine the intent of the voter" to the manual recounting of improperly cast and/or non-machine countable ballots. This led to a variety of defacto standards that were applied across the various counties involved in the recount.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a seven to two decision, that these disparate standards equated to an equal protections violation.

[Flasch186]

The husband doesn't want to be removed as guardian because he wants her dead.

or perhaps he wants his Wife's wishes carried out. Its as good a theory as yours.

[Flasch186]

DOLA: the supreme court rejected it...again. May she be able to pass with dignity and peace.

[Klinglerware]

The husband doesn't want to be removed as guardian because he wants her dead.

There sure are a lot of posters spewing over-the-top venom, yet when others here respond by raising serious points and offering debate on the issues, the over-the-top posters seem to disappear or start talking about Ted Kennedy...

I for one think that this is a "teachable moment" that is an opening for debate on general societal issues affecting this case. It would seem that some posters would much rather spout one-liners than seriously tackle the issues involved.

But that's just me, carry on...

[Mr. Wednesday]

What remaining legal options? Let congress or the Fla state government create unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law til the end of time? It's been 8 years of appeal after appeal getting shot down. It's time to move on.Five years -- the original court decision was entered in 2000. Or if you count from the beginning of the legal wrangling, it's 11 years since the first petition from the Schindlers to remove Michael as Terri's guardian.

[Axxon]

why is this even anyone's business? who care's about Terri? look outside your window - we're still in a fucking war with Iraqi insurgents.

Where the fuck do you live, Baghdad? I haven't seen a fucking Iraqi insurgent outside my window, well, ever.


this is like 2001 all over again, where the nation concerned itself with that ugly whore Chandra Levi. if she wasn't jewish no one would have cared. but since we like to live in a cacoon with these phony "important issues" while God knows who is out plotting to knock down another national landmark, we're dooming ourselves to repeat history.


Thanks for tellign me why I concerned myself with the Levi case. Of course, as always you couldn't buy a clue if you won a lottery. Next time you waste time vomitting out garbage, don't implicate others in your stupidity.


sometimes i really hate humans.

Well, you are a compelling argument for such hatred.

[Anthony]

nice axxon. i love the people who take the time out to write a response to every sentence in a post and try to make believe they're engaging in a debate. you made no statement. you took some of my opinions where i said the sky was blue and you simply called it black. i also love people who can't comprehend figurative speech and take it literally. yes, indeed, if you were to open your window you'd see tanks and Blackhawks and Iraqi rebels. *sigh*

come back to me when you can formulate your own ideas and arguements rather than sit back comfortably in you chair and pick random statements to be contrary to.

this is not an arguement:

HA: "the sky is blue"
Axxon: "no it's not".
HA: "dogs are better than cats"
Axxon: "no, actually they aren't"

you see the point. you are just writing contrary statements, not elaborating on any opinion (or lack theroeof) of your own.

[Cringer]

Here is my main problem with this whole thing. I HATE how she has to die. To let someone starve to death over a 1-2 week period blows, and is pretty damn cruel to me.

If they had not made assisted suicide illegal...........there is a humane way of letting her go.

[Bomber]

Here is my main problem with this whole thing. I HATE how she has to die. To let someone starve to death over a 1-2 week period blows, and is pretty damn cruel to me.

If they had not made assisted suicide illegal...........there is a humane way of letting her go.

She doesn't even know its happening.

[Mac Howard]

Here is my main problem with this whole thing. I HATE how she has to die. To let someone starve to death over a 1-2 week period blows, and is pretty damn cruel to me.

If they had not made assisted suicide illegal...........there is a humane way of letting her go.

Now that's the debate everyone's been avoiding ;)

[Cringer]

She doesn't even know its happening.

Yeah, did she tell you that?

I have a hard time believing she feels no pain at all, that is just my opinion.

[chinaski]

Here is my main problem with this whole thing. I HATE how she has to die. To let someone starve to death over a 1-2 week period blows, and is pretty damn cruel to me.

If they had not made assisted suicide illegal...........there is a humane way of letting her go.

You know thats the way its done in hospices all across this world? I actually know 2 people who in the last 3 months have had their fathers pass, in a hospice, exactly like Terry Shiavo. It was their wish to die once they were not able to take care of themselves any further, they removed the feeding tube and 9 days later they passed on. There isnt a single doctor that will tell you its cruel, while in fact its actually the complete opposite of how bad you think it is..

[yabanci]

Yeah, did she tell you that?

I have a hard time believing she feels no pain at all, that is just my opinion.

We used to have armchair quarterbacks.

Now we have armchair neurologists.

[Franklinnoble]

I'm an armchair porn star.

[Cringer]

We used to have armchair quarterbacks.

Now we have armchair neurologists.

I am not an armchair neurologist. I just believe that doctors do not know everything about the human body, and what some people call the soul. (And trust me I am pretty far from a religious guy)

**I just deleted a ton more, I am tired and started rambling.... :rolleyes:

[RendeR]

I'm hoping that the people arguing about keeping her alive realize that the videos and statements of "following us with her eyes" and any other notation that she is cognizant at any time right now is utterly false. A news report just this past tuesday (CBS news channel 4 boston) stated that all the video clips and comments regarding this were at the least 4 years old and most of the video was almost 7 years old. The woman hasn't been responsive to anything in any way in well over 4 years. She is not concious.

This is no way for ANY human to live or be forced to live by peole who have no legal right to make such decisions.

The husband does have that right, and I believe him when he says he is following her wishes. The man's record in caring for his wife is untouchable. At this point the financial burden is far more than the family or the husband can or want to bear.

Let her pass in peace, lets think about the real victim and let her go.

[Dutch]

Let her pass in peace, lets think about the real victim and let her go.

I say we apply this to murderers as well. :)

[RendeR]

I say we apply this to murderers as well. :)


Trust me, I'm all for captiol Punishment.

Frankly I'd love to bring the death penalty all teh way down to cover things like armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.

You want to threaten someone's life? you forfiet your own.

[clintl]

I am not an armchair neurologist. I just believe that doctors do not know everything about the human body,

They certainly know more than anyone else, since it is their professional specialty.

On another board, I read a post from someone who works in a hospice and has seen many people die, and who corroborated that this is a peaceful, painless death. I have yet to see any associated with medicine argue otherwise.

[SunDancer]

They certainly know more than anyone else, since it is their professional specialty.

On another board, I read a post from someone who works in a hospice and has seen many people die, and who corroborated that this is a peaceful, painless death. I have yet to see any associated with medicine argue otherwise.

Yeap. They actually do due it with cancer patients as well, who have the tubes remove, and they actually can relate what they are feeling. It's pretty peaceful and painless, and that after the first day or so, the hunger and thrist feelings become non-existent.

[yabanci]

Geniuses.

Man Trys Steal Gun to 'Rescue Schiavo'

Friday March 25, 2005 8:31 AM

SEMINOLE, Fla. (AP) - A man was arrested after trying to steal a weapon from a gun shop so he could ``take some action and rescue Terri Schiavo,'' authorities said.

Michael W. Mitchell, of Rockford, Ill., entered Randall's Firearms Inc. in Seminole just before 6 p.m. Thursday with a box cutter and tried to steal a gun, said Marianne Pasha, a spokeswoman for the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.

Mitchell, 50, told deputies he wanted to ``take some action and rescue Terri Schiavo'' after he visited the Pinellas Park hospice where she lives, Pasha said.

The feeding tube that has kept Schiavo alive for more than a decade was removed March 18 over objections from her parents. Schiavo's husband has said his wife would not want to be kept alive artificially.

Doctors have said she would probably die within a week or two of the tube being pulled.

Randy McKenzie, the owner of Randall's Firearms, said Mitchell pulled out the box cutter and broke the glass on a couple of display cases.

``He told me if I wasn't on Terri's side then I wasn't on God's side, either,'' McKenzie told The Associated Press.

McKenzie said he then pointed his own gun at Mitchell and ordered him to lie on the ground. But Mitchell fled out the store's back door before police arrived, he said.

Mitchell was later arrested in a parking lot and was scheduled to appear in court Friday. He was being held on $125,000 bond on charges of attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault and criminal mischief, officials said.

It was not known if he had a lawyer.

Seminole is about 5 miles west of Pinellas Park.

[Tekneek]

And so this is what happens when you, without any basis at all, demonize the husband. You incite a kook to go out and commit a crime. Apparently, he values life so much that he would take more lives to save Terri Schiavo, who would remain oblivious to the whole thing.

[SFL Cat]

And so this is what happens when you, without any basis at all, demonize the husband. You incite a kook to go out and commit a crime. Apparently, he values life so much that he would take more lives to save Terri Schiavo, who would remain oblivious to the whole thing.

Well, the guy is living with another woman and has had two children with her even though he is still legally married to Terri...As far as I'm concerned, he has no moral authority to continue as either her husband or her legal guardian since what he is doing is grounds for divorce in any state I know about. Also, if Florida hadn't repealed its common law marriage statutes, he'd be practicing bigamy at this point.

What is really troubling is that without any documentation, audiotape or videotape, a judge basically made a life-and-death decision based on which side's hear-say evidence about her wishes he chose to believe.

And the kicker....I can't think of anybody who would want to be allowed to die or watch a loved one die via starvation.

[Tekneek]

Well, the guy is living with another woman and has had two children with her even though he is still legally married to Terri...As far as I'm concerned, he has no moral authority to continue as either her husband or her legal guardian since what he is doing is grounds for divorce in any state I know about. Also, if Florida hadn't repealed its common law marriage statutes, he'd be practicing bigamy at this point.

Curious how after years of court battles, no Judge at any level has agreed with you. It would seem that you are wrong.

What is really troubling is that without any documentation, audiotape or videotape, a judge basically made a life-and-death decision based on which side's hear-say evidence about her wishes he chose to believe.

What is even more troubling is how you display a complete ignorance of this matter. The courts have seen lots and lots of documentation over the years. They've seen a lot more than you have.

And the kicker....I can't think of anybody who would want to be allowed to die or watch a loved one die via starvation.

But you can think of a lot of people who have lost their cerebral cortex that want to live as a lump in a chair with reflexive reactions and nothing more? As far as watching a loved one die that way, what about people who watch their loved ones asphyxiate? Is that better? What if the law allowed that as an option? After all of the discussion here, and elsewhere, you still do not realize that starvation was the only option offered?

[Flasch186]

Well, the guy is living with another woman and has had two children with her even though he is still legally married to Terri...As far as I'm concerned, he has no moral authority to continue as either her husband or her legal guardian since what he is doing is grounds for divorce in any state I know about. Also, if Florida hadn't repealed its common law marriage statutes, he'd be practicing bigamy at this point.

What is really troubling is that without any documentation, audiotape or videotape, a judge basically made a life-and-death decision based on which side's hear-say evidence about her wishes he chose to believe.

And the kicker....I can't think of anybody who would want to be allowed to die or watch a loved one die via starvation.

Unfortunately, I believe that your religious faith, which can be a wonderful thing, has blinded you to the evidence(s) that don't agree with your mantra to start. Thus, its pointless, in your world, to have courts, to have doctors, to have evidence, becuase the only one's that should exist are those that are devout in their way of thinking such that all results and thoughts and deeds agree with those that you agree with.

This is one of the things that many people fear...that people like you will push their "beliefs" on others...I echo the sentiments when someone said, thank god for the courts.

[SFL Cat]

Please refute my arguments based on the arguments themselves rather than your obvious distaste about my religious and moral convictions.

[SFL Cat]

What is even more troubling is how you display a complete ignorance of this matter. The courts have seen lots and lots of documentation over the years. They've seen a lot more than you have.


I guess that means OJ Simpson IS innocent.

[Raiders Army]

Please refute my arguments based on the arguments themselves rather than your obvious distaste about my religious and moral convictions.

And the kicker....I can't think of anybody who would want to be allowed to die or watch a loved one die via starvation.
Well, obviously you aren't a good thinker. I can think of one off the top of my head...hmmmm.....Michael Shiavo? Have you heard of him?

[Raiders Army]

I guess that means OJ Simpson IS innocent.
No, but he is not guilty of the crime he was accused of. There is a difference between being innocent and not guilty. Ensure you have your facts straight. :)

[hhiipp]

The really ironic thing is people are fighting to feed someone who had an eating disorder.

[Tekneek]

I guess that means OJ Simpson IS innocent.

No, but it means he WAS found to be not guilty (beyond any reasonable doubt) of the crimes he was charged with.

[Flasch186]

Please refute my arguments based on the arguments themselves rather than your obvious distaste about my religious and moral convictions.

Considering I do not have distaste for your religious beliefs there is no where to go with that.

The evidence is mountainous, in this particular situation, for the judges to base their decisions on, from scientific to Terri's wishes vocalized to more than one person when she was lucid.

I think your faith, in your religion, can be a wonderful thing...when you realize that it is ok, for some people to not have the same beliefs as yours and to consider that the law of our land not be based on one person's beliefs over anothers.

[Flasch186]

No, but it means he WAS found to be not guilty (beyond any reasonable doubt) of the crimes he was charged with.

And he was found to be responsible in civil court...which leads one to believe while the jury couldnt decide beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution may have done a terrible job. Regardless, the jury court is a beautiful thing at times of comparable enlightenment when compared to the days before the civil rights movement, etc.

[ISiddiqui]

And he was found to be responsible in civil court...which leads one to believe while the jury couldnt decide beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution may have done a terrible job.
Well there are different standards in criminal and civil court. You are talking 'beyond a reasonable doubt' compared with 'a preponderance of evidence'. In criminal cases you gotta be 100% sure. In civil cases, you just have to be 51% sure (basically).

[Flasch186]

Well there are different standards in criminal and civil court. You are talking 'beyond a reasonable doubt' compared with 'a preponderance of evidence'. In criminal cases you gotta be 100% sure. In civil cases, you just have to be 51% sure (basically).

right

[SFL Cat]

Well, obviously you aren't a good thinker. I can think of one off the top of my head...hmmmm.....Michael Shiavo? Have you heard of him?

Big difference being taken off complete life support and simply being allowed to starve to death. I wouldn't let a dog eaten up with cancer die that way.

[Tekneek]

Big difference being taken off complete life support and simply being allowed to starve to death. I wouldn't let a dog eaten up with cancer die that way.

You do realize there is no other legal choice other than going against her legally recognized wish to not be forced to stay alive in that state, right? This is a point you continue to dodge.

[SFL Cat]

Don't dodge it...it's not right, inhumane. We wouldn't let the worst criminal on the planet die that way.

[Tekneek]

Don't dodge it...it's not right, inhumane. We wouldn't let the worst criminal on the planet die that way.

How many of them do you think we would keep alive with a feeding tube while they had no cerebral cortex?

[Blackadar]

Big difference being taken off complete life support and simply being allowed to starve to death. I wouldn't let a dog eaten up with cancer die that way.

The problem, SFL, is that you have a moral objection to a private, family, medical issue. You're grasping at straws. The only leg you have to stand on is a religious one, but that doesn't apply here - it's not for your religion to decide what happens to someone else. It doesn't mean your beliefs are wrong in a moral sense - after all, that's a personal choice. It means they don't apply here in a legal sense.

Everyone bemoans the lack of alternatives in this case. No one is hoping that Terri dies a horrible, painful death. But all the scientific and medical proof we have at this point says that Terri cannot and won't feel a thing. There's no awareness at all.

As an aside, I'd also say that your willingness to assassinate Michael's character, post rumor and innunendo and make outright false claims should encourage you to re-examine your own moral belief system. You've come off rather hypocritical in this entire discussion.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I just find idiotic the hyprocrisy in this situation. Back in the 2000 election, these very same politicians were castigating Gore for trying to exhaust every available legal channel for a recount, saying he should just let it be. Now, they are fighting tooth and nail, exhausting every legal avenue, and passing constitutionally questionable laws to try and create new legal avenues in this situation. Imagine the uproar if a law was passed that forced Florida to delay certifying the vote until every possible chad in the entire state had been analyzed.

To me, a legal ruling impacting who is going to be President of the US would be much more important and relevant that a legal ruling on a private medical matter between differing views inside a family.
I was just talking to my brother about this yesterday on the way back from Death Valley. We also talked about how it seemed that the feds send out a message that Floridians and their courts arent good enough to make their own decisions.

[Tekneek]

I was just talking to my brother about this yesterday on the way back from Death Valley. We also talked about how it seemed that the feds send out a message that Floridians and their courts arent good enough to make their own decisions.

Uncle Sam decided they needed to be shown the light and the error of their ways. Uncle Sam knows better than everyone.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

DOLA: I think at this point the family should just spend the last few hours and days with their daughter instead of continuing the circus.

[SFL Cat]

And again Blackie, you're full of sh*t. No one can say with any certainty whether or not she is experiencing pain or discomfort. There have been criminals given stays of executions over issues of whether or not the form of execution being used might cause undo pain and suffering (i.e. cruel or unusual punishment). Don't you think a handicapped innocent deserves the same consideration?

And again, it's not really a religious issue for me. If there were a document, video or audio tape with Terri Schiavo's wishes innumerated, then I wouldn't even be involved in this discussion other than arguing for some form of quick euthanasia. If this were the case, then more than likely, the Schiavo case would never have made the national news like it has and she would have been allowed to die years ago (I believe this is the third time her feeding tube has been removed). However, I have a problem with a judge making a life-and-death decision based sole on what can only be described as "hear-say" evidence -- "Well, Terry told me once about 10 years ago that if she were ever a vegetable, she wouldn't want to live."

[SFL Cat]

I was just talking to my brother about this yesterday on the way back from Death Valley. We also talked about how it seemed that the feds send out a message that Floridians and their courts arent good enough to make their own decisions.

Well, according to the rest of you, we shouldn't be allowed to vote, either.
:p

[Arles]

While I'm not thrilled about the way she will die, I do think that enough vetting has been done on this process to make me feel that this is more of a trajedy than some sinister plot. And, given I don't know of a better (and legal) way for her to die, I think that there really isn't any other option if it is deemed (as it has been) that she did not want to stay alive.

All that said, this is an interesting bill in theory. In practice, I don't know how valid (ie, enforceable) it would be. Still, I have to admit the spirit of it is appealing:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0503/23/01-125334.htm

"A Michigan lawmaker is working on legislation that would prohibit a spouse having an affair from denying food, fluids or medical treatment to a wife or husband who cannot make such decisions."

[Axxon]

nice axxon. i love the people who take the time out to write a response to every sentence in a post and try to make believe they're engaging in a debate. you made no statement. you took some of my opinions where i said the sky was blue and you simply called it black. i also love people who can't comprehend figurative speech and take it literally. yes, indeed, if you were to open your window you'd see tanks and Blackhawks and Iraqi rebels. *sigh*

come back to me when you can formulate your own ideas and arguements rather than sit back comfortably in you chair and pick random statements to be contrary to.

this is not an arguement:

HA: "the sky is blue"
Axxon: "no it's not".
HA: "dogs are better than cats"
Axxon: "no, actually they aren't"

you see the point. you are just writing contrary statements, not elaborating on any opinion (or lack theroeof) of your own.

Well, if I was indeed engaged in an argument you'd have a point. Of course, I wasn't.

I said my piece on this months ago when I started a topic that went mostly ignored because Terri wasn't the superstar she is today. I've been following her case for years; no bandwagoner here.

Also, like I said here, this topic is mostly emotion driven, not logic driven so discussing it doesn't help much.

No, what I was doing was expressing my feelings. My feelings are that your posts in this thread make me ill. I don't normally have a problem with you but I feel you're way out of line here and I indeed, quite strongly I think, expressed my opinion.

If you still don't get it, your way of expressing your opinion on this subject sickens me and indeed provides a great reason to hate people because as long as people can act as miserably as you have here then hating them becomes incredibly easy.

[Munsonian]

I'm surprised more people aren't deeply conflicted about this, as I am.

From a sentimental point of view, I wish that there was a more definitive answer on things like whether or not she feels pain and other issues like that. Frankly, the whole process troubles me, and I'm sure that perhaps my stance on the issue would be very much towards keeping her alive if it were one of my loved ones.

However, as far as I can tell (and I don't claim to be a lawyer), the Constitutional and legal sides of this issue clearly point towards allowing her to die "in peace", and the string of rulings against the parents reflects that.

I don't have a horse in this race, and it's been a weird experience seeing so many people with so much passion on each side while I'm sitting here, unable to make up my mind.

In this case, I followed the majority in the poll due to the fact that I have learned to ignore my sentimental side; it shows up in too many of these arguments that should be based in law and reason. I suppose I'm something of a bleeding heart, but there you go.

Just my .02

[Anthony]

Well, the guy is living with another woman and has had two children with her even though he is still legally married to Terri...As far as I'm concerned, he has no moral authority to continue as either her husband or her legal guardian since what he is doing is grounds for divorce in any state I know about. Also, if Florida hadn't repealed its common law marriage statutes, he'd be practicing bigamy at this point.

What is really troubling is that without any documentation, audiotape or videotape, a judge basically made a life-and-death decision based on which side's hear-say evidence about her wishes he chose to believe.

And the kicker....I can't think of anybody who would want to be allowed to die or watch a loved one die via starvation.

you can have your opinion, but you don't have any right to judge this person.

[larrymcg421]

Here's how I feel on the situation. I would want my spouse to do everything in their power to make sure my dying wishes were granted, and that includes taking crap from people that would question her motives. I don't care if others would want to keep me alive. I don't care if my spouse had moved on with a new family (Which I would support.) I'd want her to fight for my wishes just as hard as Michael Schiavo is fighting right now.

[Blackadar]

And again Blackie, you're full of sh*t. No one can say with any certainty whether or not she is experiencing pain or discomfort. There have been criminals given stays of executions over issues of whether or not the form of execution being used might cause undo pain and suffering (i.e. cruel or unusual punishment). Don't you think a handicapped innocent deserves the same consideration?

And again, it's not really a religious issue for me. If there were a document, video or audio tape with Terri Schiavo's wishes innumerated, then I wouldn't even be involved in this discussion other than arguing for some form of quick euthanasia. If this were the case, then more than likely, the Schiavo case would never have made the national news like it has and she would have been allowed to die years ago (I believe this is the third time her feeding tube has been removed). However, I have a problem with a judge making a life-and-death decision based sole on what can only be described as "hear-say" evidence -- "Well, Terry told me once about 10 years ago that if she were ever a vegetable, she wouldn't want to live."

I'm full of shit? I'm not the moralist here who has absolutely no proof or evidence...you are. You've tried to support your position with half-truths (and some outright lies), exaggerated examples, moralistic views and innuendo.

No one can say with certainty she's not feeling pain? Well, they have said it - with conviction. The parts of her brain that supposedly recognize pain stimuli aren't there. Now I've even admitted there is the miniscule chance they're wrong...but it's about the same chance of an asteroid destroying the earth today.

She's not the same as a living, breathing, conscious person with an intact brain. So your comparision to a "convicted criminal" and pain and suffering is total hyperbole - it's a BS comparision. A more appropriate question would be more along the lines of "does an amoeba feel pain?"

For comparision's sake, she has less of a brain than JFK after he got shot.

Your problem is you don't like the law. And it's not a judge who has made these decisions, so stop with the "liberal court" angle. Her husband gets to make these decisions. The court believes him (and many of her friends) over her family (who have admitted they wouldn't abide by her wishes anyway) regarding her choices in this matter. That's the way the law works. It's not perfect, but it beats mob rule.

[SFL Cat]

No one can say with certainty she's not feeling pain? Well, they have said it - with conviction.
Only three of the five doctors who testified even agreed that she was in a "persistant vegetative state." -- and we won't even count the doctor the Schindlers asked to testify, since he was probably slanting things in their favor.

[Blackadar]

Only three of the five doctors who testified even agreed that she was in a "persistant vegetative state." -- and we won't even count the doctor the Schindlers asked to testify, since he was probably slanting things in their favor.

The other two were the doctors the Schindlers asked/paid to testify.

[SFL Cat]

How many of them do you think we would keep alive with a feeding tube while they had no cerebral cortex?

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me to see a big stink made over it.

[Bomber]

The other two were the doctors the Schindlers asked/paid to testify.

Exactly, 2 of the 3 who said she was in a persistent vegetative state were brought in by Michael and the other one was state appointed. Only the 2 doctors the Schindlers brought in said she wasn't. Shocking.

[Tekneek]

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me to see a big stink made over it.

I would. You would never hear about a situation like that unless you were involved.

[miked]

They also carry very little credibility in their field as well. I've heard them referred to as quacks by very prominent neurosurgeons. When you are looking for an answer, it's not hard to find a hired gun that will give it to you.

[SFL Cat]

Exactly, 2 of the 3 who said she was in a persistent vegetative state were brought in by Michael and the other one was state appointed. Only the 2 doctors the Schindlers brought in said she wasn't. Shocking.

Okay, my bad.

court doc (http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/order_nov_22_2002.html)

[miked]

Okay, my bad.

court doc (http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/order_nov_22_2002.html)

Thank you for posting that, was an interesting read. So basically, none of the docs that her parents hired could show credible proof that their experimental therapies would actually improve her quality of life and reverse a nearly irreversible condition. Additionally, one of them is a cash-only doctor who seems more interested in his image than anything. It's amazing that courts didn't reverse the order based on the testimony of quacks.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Your problem is you don't like the law. And it's not a judge who has made these decisions, so stop with the "liberal court" angle. Her husband gets to make these decisions. The court believes him (and many of her friends) over her family (who have admitted they wouldn't abide by her wishes anyway) regarding her choices in this matter. That's the way the law works. It's not perfect, but it beats mob rule.The court did not consider his testimony due to the obvious bias. The corroborating evidence in his favor was offered by his brother and sister-in-law, and it was found by judge Greer to be credible. The evidence offered by the family was found to be not credible, because of issues with changing recollection between the deposition and testimony and factual inconsistencies.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Looks like more pokitical fodder for 06 and 08.

[Kodos]

This whole thing is such a sad situation. And it's only made worse by the fact that the only way she is allowed to die is by starvation, when it seems like a shot or something of the like could end the whole thing much quicker and ensure no extended pain for her. I know some would cry murder at such an option, but I would consider it mercy, and would want the quick end for myself if ever I was unfortunate enough to end up in her position.

[Blackadar]

I am really beginning to dislike these people:

(excerpt from CNN)

"Schiavo's parents have said that in the 23 decisions against them, judges have not considered all the facts and, in fact, are joining forces in what Bob Schindler called a "crusade to kill" his daughter."

[cartman]

Here's a link to a video showing the Daily Show's take on the media frenzy surrounding this case.

hxxp://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/03/25.html#a2137

[SFL Cat]

You're quick to castigate those who you say unfairly villify Michael Schiavo, yet you make no effort to understand, the anger frustration, grief and perhaps desperation of a man about to lose one of his children.

[Kodos]

I think a lot of us feel that he lost his daughter 15 years ago. Obviously the parents are in a horrific situation, but I have to wonder if they are doing all this for her, or for themselves.

[Blackadar]

You're quick to castigate those who you say unfairly villify Michael Schiavo, yet you make no effort to understand, the anger, frustration and grief of a man about to lose one of his children.

He lost his daughter 15 years ago.

Anyway, I didn't say anything bad about them except that I was beginning to dislike them. Other than that, I passed no opinions about their character, their motives or anything else. Big difference, buckaroo.

[Raiders Army]

Maybe we should send this poll to the Supreme Court.

Justice Rehnquist: "We have received an official poll from the Front Office Football Central. The ayes have it. Let's let her die in peace."


DISCLAIMER: This is just a joke.

[cartman]

You're quick to castigate those who you say unfairly villify Michael Schiavo, yet you make no effort to understand, the anger frustration, grief and perhaps desperation of a man about to lose one of his children.

What somesone thinks about the husband and what they think about the father are mutually exclusive. There isn't anything that links them, as they are two seperate people.

I have tried to put myself in the father's place, and try to see how I would feel. The way I see it, he has already lost his daughter. All that is left is her physical body. There are no more father-daughter talks, no visits at the holidays, no grandchildren to expect, none of the things that makes a healty relationship. It is entirely one-sided.

I can empathize about the father's anger, frustration and grief. I am sure that if could trade places with his daughter, he would, as would any parent. But I think that these extreme feelings have put him in a state of denial about the situation, especially based on his recent statements about the entire legal system being a in a huge conspiracy to kill his daughter.

[Blackadar]

Maybe we should send this poll to the Supreme Court.

Justice Rehnquist: "We have received an official poll from the Front Office Football Central. The ayes have it. Let's let her die in peace."


DISCLAIMER: This is just a joke.

Didn't you know that 9 of us are Supreme Court Justices?

[Flasch186]

You're quick to castigate those who you say unfairly villify Michael Schiavo, yet you make no effort to understand, the anger frustration, grief and perhaps desperation of a man about to lose one of his children.


Thats the thing, we do understand it. But its not about them, its about her wishes. Thats the problem your side has, you think its about the parents, you think its about god, you think its about murder BUT the other side thinks its about Teri's wishes. And that is it. One side is religiously emotional about it and the other side says, "hey take the emotion out of it, buddy, It is ALL about what Terri wanted and that is it." The courts agreed with the latter and because of that the religious side has gone nuts thiniking its a crusade against god...

can you understand the disconnect there?

[Tekneek]

You're quick to castigate those who you say unfairly villify Michael Schiavo, yet you make no effort to understand, the anger frustration, grief and perhaps desperation of a man about to lose one of his children.

The man thinks there is a vast conspiracy to kill his daughter. He would not appear to be in touch with reality at this point.

[HomerJSimpson]

You're quick to castigate those who you say unfairly villify Michael Schiavo, yet you make no effort to understand, the anger frustration, grief and perhaps desperation of a man about to lose one of his children.


I do completely understand that. I also recognize why he'd be willing to do anything to keep her alive for personal and religious reasons. I also recognize that these things would cloud his judgement and not make him the most objective of witnesses. I don't blame the family for a single thing they have done (save their part in the character assassination of the husband). I have been through enough to know that people facing highly emotional situations do not make the most rational decisions.

I do have a problem with the number of people that are choosing to ignore the wishes and rights of an indiviual to make a decision about medical treatments (or the removal of such) once they are in a persistant vegetative state. My biggest fear on all of this is a over-reaction in the legislature that will take away a spouses rights to such decisions in cases without a living will. I think that would be a horrible erosion of spousal rights.

Further, as I've said elsewhere, this "movement" is not just trying to save Terri, they are trying to remove the right for anyone to choose to remove treatment if they so choose. They are using this as a platform to further remove invidiual freedoms, and take medical care out of the hands of the indiviual and their family but put it in the hands of the government by giving us no choices.

[Easy Mac]

Wouldn't the religious thing be letting her go to god instead of making her suffer on earth? There's nothing more natural in the world than death.

[HomerJSimpson]

Wouldn't the religious thing be letting her go to god instead of making her suffer on earth? There's nothing more natural in the world than death.


Depends on the religion. To a Catholic (which her family are), it is considered a mortal sin.

[Mac Howard]

Years ago I was visiting my father in hospital. Each time I went there was a middle-aged couple in the waiting room. They were visiting their daughter who was in a coma. She'd been in a bus accident at the age of three and had been in a coma ever since. She was now 21!

Of course I never suggested that they should perhaps consider having the life support removed but in expressing surprise that they had come every single day for 18 years their response suggested that this visit had become an integral part of their every day lives. Despite getting no response whatsoever in the hour or so they spent every day with her, they clearly looked forward every day to seeing her. They were no longer horrified by her condition - they had accepted that this was their daughter and watching her for an hour was their loving interaction with her.

I think maybe you have the same thing here. They can't let go. Poor as the relationship is, it is a relationship and one that will die with her. I can't bring myself to criticise their efforts though I believe it is right to allow Terri to die.

Michael has moved on. He apparently spent 7 years doing everything for her in the hope she would recover but has now accepted the inevitable and has changed his life. I doubt that Terri would not approve. I can't help but feel the parents need to move on also and not let the accident that destroyed their daughter's life destroy two more.

[Bubba Wheels]

You cannot make a legal verbal contract to sell real estate in this country. Has to be in writing. But many here, in a matter concerning life or death, seem more than willing to take the word of a 'husband' who has abandoned his wife to live in a sexual situation with another woman. The reason I put it like that is because those are the two requirements Jesus Himself gave as grounds for divorcing someone. Abandonment or Adultery.

Add to that the fact that Michael did not even claim Terri said that to him until 7 YEARS after she first became disabled. He suddenly 'remembered' it after Terri was awarded a million bucks for her medical care. And add to that the fact that Terri is NOT in a coma, NOT in a vegatative state, and would NOT die (unlike unhooking Christopher Reeves from his ventilator would have done) outside of having to starve her to death.

This is not letting someone die in peace. This is clearly killing someone.

[Masked]

And add to that the fact that Terri is NOT in a coma, NOT in a vegatative state, and would NOT die (unlike unhooking Christopher Reeves from his ventilator would have done) outside of having to starve her to death.
I will only respond to this one point - Terri is in a persistant vegitative state. She shows no evidence of higher brain functions. In fact most of her cortex is gone. There is no way for it to come back. Every action she makes is indicative of a functioning brain stem and that is it.

[SunDancer]

Wouldn't the religious thing be letting her go to god instead of making her suffer on earth? There's nothing more natural in the world than death.


This is what I hate about this whole situation, and part of why I am starting to hate the extreme Christians. They seem to think they know what is right for everyone else, and are willing to break the laws, the United States Constitution (and these same people (or most) are backing the war in Iraq for freedom and democracry), and abuse politicial power against the court system for own personal beliefs. I respect all religions, but these people are starting to really get under my skin. How religious was Terri, was she a "devoted" Catholic, or was she like most Christian Americans, who believe in God, and all that, yet do not live by the Bible, ect? I just find it odd that these protestors "know" what Terri was, and just because her parents are decidated Catholics, doesn't mean she was. I just find it odd that they want to cut services, health care, lower taxes, yet when it comes time, they want life (yet complain about paying higher taxes).

Not to threadjack, but I always though that Jesus would of been an extreme liberal (not from the Bible, but from historical facts).

[cartman]

I find it interesting, especially at this time of year, the pleas that God wouldn't want Terri to die. If God allowed Jesus, his very own son, to die, why would it be any different for anyone else? I would think that Easter, more than any other time of year, would be a religious reminder that death isn't the end, but rather a door to another beginning.

[larrymcg421]

I particularly like the argument that this is a violation of her religious rights because she is Catholic. Well the Catholic church is also against the Death Penalty and the War in Iraq. So then we have to commute death sentences for Catholics and send all Catholic soldiers home.

[clintl]

Well there are different standards in criminal and civil court. You are talking 'beyond a reasonable doubt' compared with 'a preponderance of evidence'. In criminal cases you gotta be 100% sure. In civil cases, you just have to be 51% sure (basically).

Actually, it depends. In this case, the standard of evidence required was "clear and convincing evidence," which is not as high as beyond a reasonable doubt, but much higher than a preponderance of the evidence.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I think a lot of us feel that he lost his daughter 15 years ago. Obviously the parents are in a horrific situation, but I have to wonder if they are doing all this for her, or for themselves.
We will be seeing them as ''voices'' for the next 4 years, specially towards the road to the house, senate and presidency.

[SunDancer]

We will be seeing them as ''voices'' for the next 4 years, specially towards the road to the house, senate and presidency.

And if you get a decent democratic presidential candidate, it could be a bad move, considering that many of Americans are not too fond of the Republicans' political intervention into the case.

[Mr. Wednesday]

But many here, in a matter concerning life or death, seem more than willing to take the word of a 'husband' who has abandoned his wife to live in a sexual situation with another woman.I would recommend researching the case a bit more before spouting off about it. The courts did not take his word for it -- in fact, they specifically expressed concern about his bias. Judge Greer based his decision on the testimony of Michael's brother and sister-in-law, which he found to be credible. (He also found Terri's relatives' testimony to be not credible, with problems involving changes from their depositions and timeline issues.)

[Tekneek]

You cannot make a legal verbal contract to sell real estate in this country. Has to be in writing. But many here, in a matter concerning life or death, seem more than willing to take the word of a 'husband' who has abandoned his wife to live in a sexual situation with another woman. The reason I put it like that is because those are the two requirements Jesus Himself gave as grounds for divorcing someone. Abandonment or Adultery.

I don't think that adultery is treated like that anymore. I bet there are adulterers at every church service in this nation. Some of them might even be having their affair with another person attending the service. It's ok with me to enforce this Jesus take on adultery because it won't rope me in, but I bet you this won't fly. Jesus Law is not necessarily the U.S. or Florida law.

Add to that the fact that Michael did not even claim Terri said that to him until 7 YEARS after she first became disabled. He suddenly 'remembered' it after Terri was awarded a million bucks for her medical care. And add to that the fact that Terri is NOT in a coma, NOT in a vegatative state, and would NOT die (unlike unhooking Christopher Reeves from his ventilator would have done) outside of having to starve her to death.

How do you know he suddenly remembered? Please tell me how it went, since you seem more enlightened than anyone else about the matter. I am truly curious how it went down and Michael is not posting here, so I can't ask him. I'll take your secondhand knowledge and judge it. She is not in a PVS? How much time have you spent with her to arrive at this medical opinion? How much training do you have in the field? Are you aware that other medical professionals disagree, including one that was appointed by the courts to make the determination? What makes you more qualified than them to make this conclusion? At least when you scanned the brain of Christopher Reeves it was intact.

This is not letting someone die in peace. This is clearly killing someone.

Oh yes, "clearly" it is killing them and "clearly" it is not peaceful, and "clearly" she is feeling intense pain (although no medical evidence exists to suggest so, just a few outrageous claims).

[Tekneek]

I find it interesting, especially at this time of year, the pleas that God wouldn't want Terri to die. If God allowed Jesus, his very own son, to die, why would it be any different for anyone else? I would think that Easter, more than any other time of year, would be a religious reminder that death isn't the end, but rather a door to another beginning.

God wouldn't want Terri to die, but God let the hijackers fly those planes into the WTC and kill a lot of people who may have done nothing wrong to anyone. I'm of the conclusion that God would rebuild Terri's brain if he wanted her to live. She would then be able to feed herself and get back to business. Instead, God has seen fit to do otherwise. If God has turned His back on Terri's life, maybe everyone else should move on as well.

[Flasch186]

God wouldn't want Terri to die, but God let the hijackers fly those planes into the WTC and kill a lot of people who may have done nothing wrong to anyone. I'm of the conclusion that God would rebuild Terri's brain if he wanted her to live. She would then be able to feed herself and get back to business. Instead, God has seen fit to do otherwise. If God has turned His back on Terri's life, maybe everyone else should move on as well.


Well Im not sure it goes this far the other way either. A religious person would argue, "its all God's plan". And maybe they're right.

[Suicane75]

In situations such as these I often ask myself, what would <a href="http://www.ultimatewarrior.com/03.22.05.htm" target="_blank" class="postlink">Ultimate Warrior</a> do?

[Tekneek]

Well Im not sure it goes this far the other way either. A religious person would argue, "its all God's plan". And maybe they're right.

I was being a bit absurd, I know, but it's just as absurd as some of the other religious arguments put forward.

[HomerJSimpson]

You cannot make a legal verbal contract to sell real estate in this country. Has to be in writing. But many here, in a matter concerning life or death, seem more than willing to take the word of a 'husband' who has abandoned his wife to live in a sexual situation with another woman. The reason I put it like that is because those are the two requirements Jesus Himself gave as grounds for divorcing someone. Abandonment or Adultery.




The husband should be the one making this decision. It is a regular point of law that a spouse speaks for a spouse that is incapacitated. The only way to lose that right is in extreme circumstances. BTW, you do know one of the foundations of that, right? The Bible.

"Therefore a man shall leave his mother and father and be joined to wife..."

It is a rule as old as time that a spouse speaks for the one who can't. In this case, Terri had made her decision while she was alive. She expressed it to the one who legally should make this decision (the husband) in front of witnesses. She also told him to get on with his life, which he did after it became apparent that Terri was already gone. The only thing I can see he wants here is to make sure her wishes where granted and her physical body is not forced to linger here.

Is Micheal perfect? No. I wouldn't have made many of the same decisions he did in this. Do I think he is doing this for the right reasons? Yes I do. He is no more dishonest than the family. Let the side on this issue that is without sin cast the first stone.

Again, this same thing is happening every day all across the country. Husbands/wives/parents/family are following after wishes either spoken or implied to remove feeding tubes from indiviuals in comas/vegitative states/other terminal conditions. Where are the protesters? The news media? The courts?

[Tekneek]

Again, this same thing is happening every day all across the country. Husbands/wives/parents/family are following after wishes either spoken or implied to remove feeding tubes from indiviuals in comas/vegitative states/other terminal conditions. Where are the protesters? The news media? The courts?

Maybe Dutch will dig up the political parties, political action groups, churches, etc, that are organizing this Schiavo protest (while ignoring all other incidents of this nature). We might be shocked to find how many groups pushing this are trying to serve their own agendas, much like those anti-war protests.

[Bubba Wheels]

The husband should be the one making this decision. It is a regular point of law that a spouse speaks for a spouse that is incapacitated. The only way to lose that right is in extreme circumstances. BTW, you do know one of the foundations of that, right? The Bible.

"Therefore a man shall leave his mother and father and be joined to wife..."

It is a rule as old as time that a spouse speaks for the one who can't. In this case, Terri had made her decision while she was alive. She expressed it to the one who legally should make this decision (the husband) in front of witnesses. She also told him to get on with his life, which he did after it became apparent that Terri was already gone. The only thing I can see he wants here is to make sure her wishes where granted and her physical body is not forced to linger here.

Is Micheal perfect? No. I wouldn't have made many of the same decisions he did in this. Do I think he is doing this for the right reasons? Yes I do. He is no more dishonest than the family. Let the side on this issue that is without sin cast the first stone.

Again, this same thing is happening every day all across the country. Husbands/wives/parents/family are following after wishes either spoken or implied to remove feeding tubes from indiviuals in comas/vegitative states/other terminal conditions. Where are the protesters? The news media? The courts?

This is why I made the statements about the abandonment and adultery on the part of the husband. Those who would never think of cracking open a Bible are suddenly popping up everywheres quoting the scripture regarding 'becoming one flesh." What I attempted to point out was that as sacred as marriage is to God, He Himself makes only two real cases for ending a marriage or divorcing. Both of which are flaunted by Michael Shiavo knowing full well that his wife is in absolutely no position physically to tell him otherwise. If Terri could talk and knew what Michael was doing think she would approve? The fact that there is such a clear conflict of interest on the part of Michael and clear benefit in her dying to him should bother everyone.

That's not even thumping the Bible, that's just using plain, common sense.

[Bubba Wheels]

I don't think that adultery is treated like that anymore. I bet there are adulterers at every church service in this nation. Some of them might even be having their affair with another person attending the service. It's ok with me to enforce this Jesus take on adultery because it won't rope me in, but I bet you this won't fly. Jesus Law is not necessarily the U.S. or Florida law.



How do you know he suddenly remembered? Please tell me how it went, since you seem more enlightened than anyone else about the matter. I am truly curious how it went down and Michael is not posting here, so I can't ask him. I'll take your secondhand knowledge and judge it. She is not in a PVS? How much time have you spent with her to arrive at this medical opinion? How much training do you have in the field? Are you aware that other medical professionals disagree, including one that was appointed by the courts to make the determination? What makes you more qualified than them to make this conclusion? At least when you scanned the brain of Christopher Reeves it was intact.



Oh yes, "clearly" it is killing them and "clearly" it is not peaceful, and "clearly" she is feeling intense pain (although no medical evidence exists to suggest so, just a few outrageous claims).

The information I have gotten is that 1. No MRI has been taken of Terri's brain per Michael's wishes. If you know otherwise please enlighten me.

In fact, the biggest flaw in this whole case appears to be that the original judge, Greer I believe, has basically denied all facts contradicting his personal findings to be admitted in any way. This includes the two registered nurses that filed affidavits stating they not only fed soft foods to Terri without the tube before Michael halted it, but that Terrri regularly spoke in discernable tones and words and reacted to sight and sound.

And it shouldn't be surprising that the sources I hear this on are both Fox News and Christian radio/TV since they seem to be the ones promoting life for Terri in the face of others promoting her death sentence. The facts about the judge should be easily checked out if untrue.

[larrymcg421]

This is why I made the statements about the abandonment and adultery on the part of the husband. Those who would never think of cracking open a Bible are suddenly popping up everywheres quoting the scripture regarding 'becoming one flesh." What I attempted to point out was that as sacred as marriage is to God, He Himself makes only two real cases for ending a marriage or divorcing. Both of which are flaunted by Michael Shiavo knowing full well that his wife is in absolutely no position physically to tell him otherwise. If Terri could talk and knew what Michael was doing think she would approve? The fact that there is such a clear conflict of interest on the part of Michael and clear benefit in her dying to him should bother everyone.
It might bother me if he was the only witness to her saying this. He isn't. It might bother me if they spent a few months determining her wishes and that was it. No, the original petition to have the tube removed was in 1998. After 7 years of appeals, several injunctions restoring the tube, more appeals, state legislature and congress intervening, I think enough time and care has been spent to make sure that Terri's rights are properly being represented.

By the way, If I've been in a Persistent Vegetative State for several years, then yes I would approve of my spouse moving on. I don't see why people assume Terri automatically wouldn't.

[Bubba Wheels]

It might bother me if he was the only witness to her saying this. He isn't. It might bother me if they spent a few months determining her wishes and that was it. No, the original petition to have the tube removed was in 1998. After 7 years of appeals, several injunctions restoring the tube, more appeals, state legislature and congress intervening, I think enough time and care has been spent to make sure that Terri's rights are properly being represented.

By the way, If I've been in a Persistent Vegetative State for several years, then yes I would approve of my spouse moving on. I don't see why people assume Terri automatically wouldn't.

That seems to be the crux of the matter. I keep hearing, in contrast to the judge's personal fact finding, that she has NEVER been in a Persistent Vegetative State at all!

[larrymcg421]

That seems to be the crux of the matter. I keep hearing, in contrast to the judge's personal fact finding, that she has NEVER been in a Persistent Vegetative State at all!
That argument has come up several times during the many appeals. Both sides have had their own doctors testify one thing or another, but independent doctors appointed by the court have ruled that she is in PVS. Again, we have a court system to determine all of this. You talk like it's been just one judge looking at medical records. That's not the case.

[rexallllsc]

You cannot make a legal verbal contract to sell real estate in this country. Has to be in writing. But many here, in a matter concerning life or death, seem more than willing to take the word of a 'husband' who has abandoned his wife to live in a sexual situation with another woman. The reason I put it like that is because those are the two requirements Jesus Himself gave as grounds for divorcing someone. Abandonment or Adultery.

Add to that the fact that Michael did not even claim Terri said that to him until 7 YEARS after she first became disabled. He suddenly 'remembered' it after Terri was awarded a million bucks for her medical care. And add to that the fact that Terri is NOT in a coma, NOT in a vegatative state, and would NOT die (unlike unhooking Christopher Reeves from his ventilator would have done) outside of having to starve her to death.

This is not letting someone die in peace. This is clearly killing someone.

I think you should read this: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=13&u=/usatoday/feudmaybeasmuchovermoneyasprinciple

Read about all of the time the husband put in, as well as both parties agreeing she's in a persistent vegetative state.

[Bubba Wheels]

I think you should read this: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=13&u=/usatoday/feudmaybeasmuchovermoneyasprinciple

Read about all of the time the husband put in, as well as both parties agreeing she's in a persistent vegetative state.

Really? Because the last story I heard was that Michael Shiavo was a very controlling individual, going so far as to check Terri's odometer after she returned home from a trip. That Terri herself was overweight and shy as a teenager and that Michael possibly found her 'easy to control." And that Terri's 'accident' actually occurred right around the time that she had told a coworker that she might 'be leaving Michael." Might be all propaganda from the one side, but certainly contradicts some aspects from the report you linked with. Bottom line for me is, without written proof that Terri would not want to live in her present condition, and given Michael's clear 'conflict-of-interest,' are we as society really the one's to decide that Terri should be starved to death?

[rexallllsc]

That seems to be the crux of the matter. I keep hearing, in contrast to the judge's personal fact finding, that she has NEVER been in a Persistent Vegetative State at all!

From USA Today (the link above):

Despite the row over money, Schiavo and the Schindlers agreed on one major point in the 2000 testimony: the extent of Terri's brain damage, according to additional court documents cited by The Miami Herald. In the documents, Pamela Campbell, then the Schindlers' lawyer, told the court that "we do not doubt that she's in a persistent vegetative state." Campbell could not be reached to confirm the statement.

[Chubby]

Really? Because the last story I heard was that Michael Shiavo was a very controlling individual, going so far as to check Terri's odometer after she returned home from a trip. That Terri herself was overweight and shy as a teenager and that Michael possibly found her 'easy to control." And that Terri's 'accident' actually occurred right around the time that she had told a coworker that she might 'be leaving Michael." Might be all propaganda from the one side, but certainly contradicts some aspects from the report you linked with. Bottom line for me is, without written proof that Terri would not want to live in her present condition, and given Michael's clear 'conflict-of-interest,' are we as society really the one's to decide that Terri should be starved to death?
The problem is where you are getting your news from. Just because you or one souce deems it "clear" there's a conflict of interest with the husband does not make it so. Escpecially when every court has said there is none.

Bottom line for me is, without written proof that Terri would not want to live in her present condition are we as society really the one's to decide that Terri should be kept as a vegetable for the next 40 years? - The answer to your AND my version is the same. No, it's her husband's decision.

[Bubba Wheels]

From USA Today (the link above):

Despite the row over money, Schiavo and the Schindlers agreed on one major point in the 2000 testimony: the extent of Terri's brain damage, according to additional court documents cited by The Miami Herald. In the documents, Pamela Campbell, then the Schindlers' lawyer, told the court that "we do not doubt that she's in a persistent vegetative state." Campbell could not be reached to confirm the statement.

Even given that to be true, without Terri's own express consent to end her own life...is her husband with a clear conflict of interest or us as a society represented by the judicial system entitled to declare her 'quality of life unacceptable' and to starve her to death?

[Chubby]

Even given that to be true, without Terri's own express consent to end her own life...is her husband with a clear conflict of interest or us as a society represented by the judicial system entitled to declare her 'quality of life unacceptable' and to starve her to death?
There is no clear conflict of interest, feel free to read any of the facts about the judges' decisions over this in the last 8 years.

[rexallllsc]

Really? Because the last story I heard was that Michael Shiavo was a very controlling individual, going so far as to check Terri's odometer after she returned home from a trip. That Terri herself was overweight and shy as a teenager and that Michael possibly found her 'easy to control." And that Terri's 'accident' actually occurred right around the time that she had told a coworker that she might 'be leaving Michael." Might be all propaganda from the one side, but certainly contradicts some aspects from the report you linked with.

He was a controlling husband, therefore, he must not care about her, right? C'mon dude. We all have our faults. Whether it's having controlling tendencies, partying a bit too hard, poor w/ money, whatever...no one is perfect.

As far as the info above, it's all heresay (he was controlling, he found her easy to control, she might be leaving so he killed her), whereas what I posted is fact (he took her to CA for experimental procedures, sold hotdogs on the beach w/ the in-laws to raise money)...Read the article, and see how much time and effort he put in. Doesn't sounds like too much of a jerk to me. Sounds like someone who did as much as he could, and now would like to move on with his life.

Bottom line for me is, without written proof that Terri would not want to live in her present condition, and given Michael's clear 'conflict-of-interest,' are we as society really the one's to decide that Terri should be starved to death?

It's not about society at all. It's about Terri's guardian. Michael Schiavo. Yes, a living will would be ideal, but seeing as it's not around...all we can go on now is what the courts have decided.

[rexallllsc]

Even given that to be true, without Terri's own express consent to end her own life...is her husband with a clear conflict of interest or us as a society represented by the judicial system entitled to declare her 'quality of life unacceptable' and to starve her to death?

I'm not sure what you mean...the judicial system is siding with Schiavo. If I'm mininterpreting your post, please let me know.

[Bubba Wheels]

The problem is where you are getting your news from. Just because you or one souce deems it "clear" there's a conflict of interest with the husband does not make it so. Escpecially when every court has said there is none.

Bottom line for me is, without written proof that Terri would not want to live in her present condition are we as society really the one's to decide that Terri should be kept as a vegetable for the next 40 years? - The answer to your AND my version is the same. No, it's her husband's decision.

Sorry, but abandoning Terri to live with another woman, having kids and a life with her in addition to some portion of a million dollars leftover from medical care is a pretty self-evident 'conflict of interest' to me when he alone decides that she should die based on 'hearsay." The judge is ruling for him, not making that decision himself so the 'he alone' part stands.

[Bubba Wheels]

He was a controlling husband, therefore, he must not care about her, right? C'mon dude. We all have our faults. Whether it's having controlling tendencies, partying a bit too hard, poor w/ money, whatever...no one is perfect.

As far as the info above, it's all heresay (he was controlling, he found her easy to control, she might be leaving so he killed her), whereas what I posted is fact (he took her to CA for experimental procedures, sold hotdogs on the beach w/ the in-laws to raise money)...Read the article, and see how much time and effort he put in. Doesn't sounds like too much of a jerk to me. Sounds like someone who did as much as he could, and now would like to move on with his life.



It's not about society at all. It's about Terri's guardian. Michael Schiavo. Yes, a living will would be ideal, but seeing as it's not around...all we can go on now is what the courts have decided.

Was that before or after the million dollar medical care award?

[Bubba Wheels]

I'm not sure what you mean...the judicial system is siding with Schiavo. If I'm mininterpreting your post, please let me know.

Kind of convoluted I know, but we as a society enpower the judge to decide if Michael Shiavo's argument is persuasive and Terri should be starved to death. All I meant. Michael gets his authority in the matter from the judge, who in turn gets his from us (as a whole.)

[Chubby]

Sorry, but abandoning Terri to live with another woman, having kids and a life with her in addition to some portion of a million dollars leftover from medical care is a pretty self-evident 'conflict of interest' to me when he alone decides that she should die based on 'hearsay." The judge is ruling for him, not making that decision himself so the 'he alone' part stands.
Yet you seem perfectly willing to accept whatever hearsay allegations are thrown out there against the husband. As far as my understanding of the finances is, there is no insurance policy and most of the settlement money is gone (if not all).

What was the guy supposed to do? Not move on? That's not healthy, which brings us to her parents... She didn't want to be in this state, she is essentially dead already (to him at least) and he moved on. Just like thousands of widowed people do every year.

Of course, we're supposed to keep her alive because of hearsay tho right because the parents must have some recording of Terri saying she'd never want to be let off of life support. Silly parents, they've been hiding it from everyone but you Bubba for the last 15 years...

[cartman]

Sorry, but abandoning Terri to live with another woman, having kids and a life with her in addition to some portion of a million dollars leftover from medical care is a pretty self-evident 'conflict of interest' to me when he alone decides that she should die based on 'hearsay." The judge is ruling for him, not making that decision himself so the 'he alone' part stands.
It is in the transcripts from one of the hearings that her parents actually encouraged him to start dating again while he was still living with them. Once I read that, it kind of put that situation in a different light.

[Bubba Wheels]

Yet you seem perfectly willing to accept whatever hearsay allegations are thrown out there against the husband. As far as my understanding of the finances is, there is no insurance policy and most of the settlement money is gone (if not all).

What was the guy supposed to do? Not move on? That's not healthy, which brings us to her parents... She didn't want to be in this state, she is essentially dead already (to him at least) and he moved on. Just like thousands of widowed people do every year.

Of course, we're supposed to keep her alive because of hearsay tho right because the parents must have some recording of Terri saying she'd never want to be let off of life support. Silly parents, they've been hiding it from everyone but you Bubba for the last 15 years...

Chubby, that's the odd thing going on here. If Shiavo has moved on, and Terri's parents are willing and able to care for her, and Terri's condition does not include pain (being in a vegetative state and all) then why the big push to kill her via starvation? Again, removing life support would be one thing, but actively killing her via starvation when her parents are willing to accept the burden of her care doesn't make logical sense. Not saying that hearsay on my side of the argument is any different than Michael's, but believing her parents side keeps her alive, believing Michaels gets her dead. That's the difference.

[Chubby]

Chubby, that's the odd thing going on here. If Shiavo has moved on, and Terri's parents are willing and able to care for her, and Terri's condition does not include pain (being in a vegetative state and all) then why the big push to kill her via starvation? Again, removing life support would be one thing, but actively killing her via starvation when her parents are willing to accept the burden of her care doesn't make logical sense. Not saying that hearsay on my side of the argument is any different than Michael's, but believing her parents side keeps her alive, believing Michaels gets her dead. That's the difference.
It's not their decision, it's his. It's not your's, or Jeb's, or mine it's the HUSBAND'S decision. He is abiding by what her wishes are. Why is this so diffciult to understand?

So now you back to saying she's in a vegatative state since you think it will further your argument? Pick one, she either is or isn't.

[Bubba Wheels]

It is in the transcripts from one of the hearings that her parents actually encouraged him to start dating again while he was still living with them. Once I read that, it kind of put that situation in a different light.

First I heard that. But the timing of the million dollars sticks with me. Money does funny things to people. A lawyer joke goes like this "When is it appropriate to read the will after a funeral?" Ans: "As soon as you can get to the lawyer's office without running." Human nature is unpredictable.

As far as the money being 'all gone,' anyone ever going thru a divorce can tell you there is a million and one ways to hide assets in particular money.

[Easy Mac]

it is life support under florida and 99% of states laws, is that really tough to understand? Its not more killing that removing a venitlator, but it take too much time. But go ahead, try and feed her and give her water, I'm sure she'll have no trouble getting it down since she's so aware of her surroundings.

Her parents don't want to let go, its natural, but if I told my girlfriend, even off hand, that I wouldn't want to live that way, I'd expect her to do the same thing as Shaivo's doing, my parents be damned.

[cartman]

First I heard that.

Not too surprising, since that doesn't really fit into the message your stated news sources are trying to convey.

[Airhog]

As far as the money being 'all gone,' anyone ever going thru a divorce can tell you there is a million and one ways to hide assets in particular money.

There is no way that after the 10? years of this he has any money left. Or if he does, it is a very small amount.

[Bubba Wheels]

It's not their decision, it's his. It's not your's, or Jeb's, or mine it's the HUSBAND'S decision. He is abiding by what her wishes are. Why is this so diffciult to understand?

So now you back to saying she's in a vegatative state since you think it will further your argument? Pick one, she either is or isn't.

If you read what I've said, she may indeed be in a vegetative state (althought that is being actively denied by including registered nurses that have cared for her) but even if she is doesn't mean Michael still has a right to kill her or we as a society have the right to enpower a judge to enpower Michael to kill her. Think I've pretty well beat this horse now.

[Bubba Wheels]

it is life support under florida and 99% of states laws, is that really tough to understand? Its not more killing that removing a venitlator, but it take too much time. But go ahead, try and feed her and give her water, I'm sure she'll have no trouble getting it down since she's so aware of her surroundings.

Her parents don't want to let go, its natural, but if I told my girlfriend, even off hand, that I wouldn't want to live that way, I'd expect her to do the same thing as Shaivo's doing, my parents be damned.

If feeding someone is 'life support' then we all fall into that category. Well, you can argue we being healthy can actually put it into our own mouths and Terri can't, but that's just splitting hairs and I'll just leave it there.

[Easy Mac]

so lets not remove anyone from life support, lets keep them there forever... of course, the president ordered a war where people died, so I guess we should take away his power to send people to death.

[Easy Mac]

If feeding someone is 'life support' then we all fall into that category. Well, you can argue we being healthy can actually put it into our own mouths and Terri can't, but that's just splitting hairs and I'll just leave it there.
Read the laws. We can all breath, so perhaps a ventilator shouldn't be life support either.

[Bubba Wheels]

There is no way that after the 10? years of this he has any money left. Or if he does, it is a very small amount.

Are you his accountant? Bud Selig said that baseball was broke last year and might have to contract some teams. People in Florida can (and do) declare bankruptcy and still keep multi-million dollar homes since they are exempt from creditors. Its not always very clear-cut.

[Chubby]

If you read what I've said, she may indeed be in a vegetative state (althought that is being actively denied by including registered nurses that have cared for her) but even if she is doesn't mean Michael still has a right to kill her or we as a society have the right to enpower a judge to enpower Michael to kill her. Think I've pretty well beat this horse now.
We obviously do as a society, have the power to try and overturn dozens upon dozens of identical court rulings simply because some disagree tho right?

Her parent's also said she said she wanted to live which clearly didn't happen, I know you'd love for things to drag on whenever one person jumped up and said "SHE BLINKED TWICE WHEN I ASKED HER A QUESTION" since that would keep her alive for decades.

[Chubby]

Are you his accountant? Bud Selig said that baseball was broke last year and might have to contract some teams. People in Florida can (and do) declare bankruptcy and still keep multi-million dollar homes since they are exempt from creditors. Its not always very clear-cut.
Are you?

[Bubba Wheels]

so lets not remove anyone from life support, lets keep them there forever... of course, the president ordered a war where people died, so I guess we should take away his power to send people to death.

Read my thread regarding The Politically Incorrect Book of History. The President's use of military without congress declaring war is one of the things I highlighted in that.

[cartman]

If you read what I've said, she may indeed be in a vegetative state (althought that is being actively denied by including registered nurses that have cared for her) but even if she is doesn't mean Michael still has a right to kill her or we as a society have the right to enpower a judge to enpower Michael to kill her. Think I've pretty well beat this horse now.

That's an ironic part of this sad story. Michael Schiavo does have the right to remove life support. This right was given to him by the laws of the state of Florida, passed by the state legistlature, and signed by the Governor. The judge wasn't enpowering anyone. He, and all of the appellate judges, were simply making the determination that the decision that Michael Schiavo made was legal and lawful based on the law that was enacted, since he is the nearest relative by law.

People have moral objections to this, and are trying to project them as legal objections.

[Bubba Wheels]

Are you?

We are talking about people able to hide assets and money and then claim to be 'broke.' :rolleyes:

[Chubby]

We are talking about people able to hide assets and money and then claim to be 'broke.' :rolleyes:
Whoa whoa whoa, you're questioning Airhog for saying that the money is gone since he's not the guy's accountant so you obviously must be right? Or are you saying that any possibility no matter how statistically improbably should be a reason to reverse 8 years of constant court decisions?

[SFL Cat]

Personally, I hope the Schiavo's sue for part of Terri's trust fund to recoup whatever costs they have incurred helping to care for her. At least then we'll find out exactly how much money is left in the trust. The first time Schiavo tried to pull the plug on her, there was still over $700K left.

I've heard some say that Schiavo's been paying the legal bills from the fund, but I'm thinking that would violate what the fund was established for in the first place.

[Airhog]

Are you his accountant? Bud Selig said that baseball was broke last year and might have to contract some teams. People in Florida can (and do) declare bankruptcy and still keep multi-million dollar homes since they are exempt from creditors. Its not always very clear-cut.


Do you have any idea of how much money he won? It was something like 1.2 million I believe. Do you know how much a place like where she is staying a month costs? My fiancee's grandmother is in a retirement home, and it costs her like 2400 a month. 10 years of that alone would have cost him 250,000 dollars easily, and I know the cost of living is higher down there. Lastly, look at how many court cases he has had to refute. I bet his lawyer fee's have ate up nearly all of the cash he got from that settlement.

[Bubba Wheels]

That's an ironic part of this sad story. Michael Schiavo does have the right to remove life support. This right was given to him by the laws of the state of Florida, passed by the state legistlature, and signed by the Governor. The judge wasn't enpowering anyone. He, and all of the appellate judges, were simply making the determination that the decision that Michael Schiavo made was legal and lawful based on the law that was enacted, since he is the nearest relative by law.

People have moral objections to this, and are trying to project them as legal objections.

This is pretty straight-forward. Makes sense, I stand corrected on that.

[Bubba Wheels]

Personally, I hope the Schiavo's sue for part of Terri's trust fund to recoup whatever costs they have incurred helping to care for her. At least then we'll find out exactly how much money is left in the trust. The first time Schiavo tried to pull the plug on her, there was still over $700K left.

I've heard some say that Schiavo's been paying the legal bills from the fund, but I'm thinking that would violate what the fund was established for in the first place.

Yes, I think if Mr. Shiavo opened up his books and showed his true 'alturism' it would answer most if not all remaining questions about his motives at least. And why shouldn't he? After all, he claims Terri's best interests at heart, the money was specifically for Terri's medical care...Michael can silence most if not all his critics with an open accounting.

[Chubby]

Yes, I think if Mr. Shiavo opened up his books and showed his true 'alturism' it would answer most if not all remaining questions about his motives at least. And why shouldn't he? After all, he claims Terri's best interests at heart, the money was specifically for Terri's medical care...Michael can silence most if not all his critics with an open accounting.
So you would all of a sudden drop any concerns that he "abandoned" Terri if he opened the books? Hahaha, right.

[Bubba Wheels]

Do you have any idea of how much money he won? It was something like 1.2 million I believe. Do you know how much a place like where she is staying a month costs? My fiancee's grandmother is in a retirement home, and it costs her like 2400 a month. 10 years of that alone would have cost him 250,000 dollars easily, and I know the cost of living is higher down there. Lastly, look at how many court cases he has had to refute. I bet his lawyer fee's have ate up nearly all of the cash he got from that settlement.

Many lawyers take high-profile cases without payment up front for many reasons: Fame, future profits, books, lectures, ect..., just speculating on how Michael 'may' have spent the money don't cut it. Nope, not at all.

[Bubba Wheels]

So you would all of a sudden drop any concerns that he "abandoned" Terri if he opened the books? Hahaha, right.

I quit following you awhile back. Couldn't keep up with all of your conclusions.

[Chubby]

I quit following you awhile back. Couldn't keep up with all of your conclusions.
:rolleyes:

The bottom line is "your side" has zero legal reasons to stop this. It is well within the husband's right to do this as it has been granted to him by law. Every judge has sided with him, you can come up with whatever outlandish reasons you want just as the parents have (GAHH somehow equals "I want to live") and it's not going to stop the inevitable and just end to this stupid overblown political circus.

[Bubba Wheels]

:rolleyes:

The bottom line is "your side" has zero legal reasons to stop this. It is well within the husband's right to do this as it has been granted to him by law. Every judge has sided with him, you can come up with whatever outlandish reasons you want just as the parents have (GAHH somehow equals "I want to live") and it's not going to stop the inevitable and just end to this stupid overblown political circus.

So your bottom line is, Michael now has the legal authority to kill her?

[Chubby]

So your bottom line is, Michael now has the legal authority to kill her?
He has always had the legal authority to remove her feeding tube. The courts have consistently agreed with this through the last 8 years. Please keep up.

It's not murder simply because you deem it so.

[Bubba Wheels]

He has always had the legal authority to remove her feeding tube. The courts have consistently agreed with this through the last 8 years. Please keep up.

It's not murder simply because you deem it so.

I think that's the problem with arguing with you Chubby...you just don't look at the words written. You said murder. I said kill. I am just stating the fact of the case. It is a yes or no answer to the question of your bottom line.

Starving someone to death is killing them. That is pretty straight-forward. Legal or not.

On second thought, its not even necessary for you to answer at all. You state pretty emphatically Michael does have the legal authority and right to kill her.

Now this is truly ironic. Those who take issue with me the most concerning religious vs. scientific fact are the ones least able to say yes to the scientific fact that starving someone to death is killing them. Amazing.

[Chubby]

I think that's the problem with arguing with you Chubby...you just don't look at the words written. You said murder. I said kill. I am just stating the fact of the case. It is yes or no. Starving someone to death is killing them. That is pretty straight-forward. Legal or not.
Have you actually read ANYTHING on this case?

If you were "just stating the fact of the case" you would know that the husband has ALWAYS had the legal grounds to remove the tube. You would know that there is no "clear" abandonment or hiding of money going on. The parents have tried any and every trick and lie to get Terri's life prolonged for 8 years.

The pretty straight forward fact in this case is that Terri will die because her husband is carrying out her wishes whether you or Jeb agree with them or not.

[SunDancer]

Wow...

It's like arguing with monkeys. The law and religion do not interact, and are seperated.

The money is an non-issue, with the years, years of care and the court fees (even if his lawyer did take the case for free, and prolly didn't until late when it became nationa-he'll still have legal fees). In today's health world, a milion dollars is not much (and really, a million dollars in general isn't what it use to be). I highly doubt money is an issue, or else I would guess Michael would of married an extremely rich women (or dating).

The court system does not rule on religious law, but state and federal law. The only matter the courts rule is on violation and discrimmination of religion and the freedom of them. Why do people think that the courts rule on the bible, and not the laws?

[Airhog]

Many lawyers take high-profile cases without payment up front for many reasons: Fame, future profits, books, lectures, ect..., just speculating on how Michael 'may' have spent the money don't cut it. Nope, not at all.


Was this case high-profile when it started 10 years ago? Nope, not at all.

[Bubba Wheels]

According to the courts, Michael Shiavo now has the legal authority to kill his wife by having her starved to death. True or False? One or the other, no dancing.

[HomerJSimpson]

This is why I made the statements about the abandonment and adultery on the part of the husband. Those who would never think of cracking open a Bible are suddenly popping up everywheres quoting the scripture regarding 'becoming one flesh." What I attempted to point out was that as sacred as marriage is to God, He Himself makes only two real cases for ending a marriage or divorcing. Both of which are flaunted by Michael Shiavo knowing full well that his wife is in absolutely no position physically to tell him otherwise. If Terri could talk and knew what Michael was doing think she would approve? The fact that there is such a clear conflict of interest on the part of Michael and clear benefit in her dying to him should bother everyone.

That's not even thumping the Bible, that's just using plain, common sense.


Again, I said there are things that Micheal has done that I don't condone (the adultery being one of them), but I also recognize not everyone has my personal beliefs, and my understanding is his moving on was also a part of Terrri's wishes. But if you want to judge individual actions, why is character assassination any better? The rumor, innuendoes, half-truths, and out right lies about Micheal are not a sin? That is not "gossip" that is also condemn by the Bible? There are many people that are talking about this case that know nothing about the facts, but they are willing to spout off theories that have no basis in fact. Is that some how right? Or just?


As for many people "who don't crack open the Bible," well I'm not one of them. I would humbly suggest that you might spend a little more time in it yourself. :)

[Bubba Wheels]

Again, I said there are things that Micheal has done that I don't condone (the adultery being one of them), but I also recognize not everyone has my personal beliefs, and my understanding is his moving on was also a part of Terrri's wishes. But if you want to judge individual actions, why is character assassination any better? The rumor, innuendoes, half-truths, and out right lies about Micheal are not a sin? That is not "gossip" that is also condemn by the Bible? There are many people that are talking about this case that know nothing about the facts, but they are willing to spout off theories that have no basis in fact. Is that some how right? Or just?


As for many people "who don't crack open the Bible," well I'm not one of them. I would humbly suggest that you might spend a little more time in it yourself. :)

Just making a point here. No matter how you dress it up, or attribute motive, ect., plain fact is someone is being killed. That is just a fact that you cannot get around.

[HomerJSimpson]

Just making a point here. No matter how you dress it up, or attribute motive, ect., plain fact is someone is being killed. That is just a fact that you cannot get around.


And when someone is removed from a respirator? Stop medications needed to live? Refuse treatment or have a DNR? Are you really saying that no one should be able to determine that they no longer want medical treatment?

[cartman]

Well, we all get killed once blood stops flowing to our brains. That is what has killed anyone who has ever lived, and will kill everyone to come. The reason the blood stops flowing is what varies. According to the Bible, it is a consequence of original sin, and there is no avoiding it. So there is no saving anyone at anytime, only delaying the inevitable.

Hopefully I covered both the religious and scientific aspects.

[Airhog]

According to the courts, Michael Shiavo now has the legal authority to kill his wife by having her starved to death. True or False? One or the other, no dancing.

False

[Flasch186]

Wow...

It's like arguing with monkeys. The law and religion do not interact, and are seperated.

The money is an non-issue, with the years, years of care and the court fees (even if his lawyer did take the case for free, and prolly didn't until late when it became nationa-he'll still have legal fees). In today's health world, a milion dollars is not much (and really, a million dollars in general isn't what it use to be). I highly doubt money is an issue, or else I would guess Michael would of married an extremely rich women (or dating).

The court system does not rule on religious law, but state and federal law. The only matter the courts rule is on violation and discrimmination of religion and the freedom of them. Why do people think that the courts rule on the bible, and not the laws?


Thats my biggest problem with Bubba, SFL, and all the other religious right-ies (meant with no harm intended) from thread to thread. They continue to want the law of the land to be based on their religious morals and thusly apply them to everyone even if they're not that religion (which I can harken back to the mayflower and the reason for the Puritans leaving England). They dont believe in seperation of church and state and will bounce from rhetoric and theory to rhetoric and theory (sometimes conjecture) to keep their movement going (state's rights, activist judges, gay marriage ammendments, "cheating husbands", paid doctors (as opposed to independent ones), verbage, propoganda, etc.

When I tell you this is what I fear(ed) when the hijacked Republican party (my opinion) won the election (I believe it was even posted about by me and many others - along with other stuff, I know) I hope you know, it is.

[Flasch186]

According to the courts, Michael Shiavo now has the legal authority to kill his wife by having her starved to death. True or False? One or the other, no dancing.

I would say True by some of the definitions I see on dictionary.com....but again, the fact that she asked for this (decided by our courts more exhaustedly than, probably, any other court case ever) if ever in this predicament...Im glad that HER wishes remained the most important thing in all of this and her desires she was able to get.

7 entries found for kill.
kill1 Audio pronunciation of "kill" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kl)
v. killed, kill·ing, kills
v. tr.

1.
1. To put to death.
2. To deprive of life: The Black Death was a disease that killed millions.
2. To put an end to; extinguish: The rain killed our plans for a picnic.
3.
1. To destroy a vitally essential quality in: Too much garlic killed the taste of the meat.
2. To cause to cease operating; turn off: killed the motor.
3. To tire out completely; exhaust: “The trip to work, and the boredom and nervousness of jobs, kills men” (Jimmy Breslin).
4. To pass (time) in aimless activity: killed a few hours before the flight by sightseeing.
5. To consume entirely; finish off: kill a bottle of brandy.
6. Sports. To prevent a hockey team on a power play from scoring during (a penalty).
7. To cause extreme pain or discomfort to: My shoes are killing me.
8. To mark for deletion; rule out: killed the story.
9. To thwart passage of; veto: kill a congressional bill.
10. Informal. To overwhelm with hilarity, pleasure, or admiration: The outstanding finale killed the audience.
11. Sports.
1. To hit (a ball) with great force.
2. To hit (a ball) with such force as to make a return impossible, especially in a racquet game.


v. intr.

1. To cause death or extinction; be fatal.
2. To commit murder.
3. Informal. To make such a strong impression as to overcome: dress to kill.


n.

1. The act of killing.
2.
1. An animal killed, especially in hunting.
2. A person killed or to be killed: “Infantrymen... had seen too many kills suddenly get up and run away or shoot at them as they approached” (Nelson DeMille).
3. An enemy aircraft, vessel, or missile that has been attacked and destroyed.
3. Sports. A kill shot.


Phrasal Verb:
kill off

To destroy in such large numbers as to render extinct.


Idiom:
in at/on the kill

Present at the moment of triumph.

[clintl]

After all, he claims Terri's best interests at heart, the money was specifically for Terri's medical care...Michael can silence most if not all his critics with an open accounting.

Only $700K was for Terri's care. The other $300K was awarded to Michael for loss of companionship. Given the costs of keeping someone in a skilled nursing facility (it's got to be at least $200 a day, if not more), and it's been 12 years since the settlement, that adds up to about $73K a year, or somewhere around $875K total. With the money spent on legal fees, there can't be much left.

[Young Drachma]

The really ironic thing is people are fighting to feed someone who had an eating disorder.

Yeah, I noted that and saw it as a bit odd. I'm sure there is more to all of this story, but the rankling over the money seems pretty apparent.

I think it's somewhere in the middle, but the parents obviously are going off the deep end, starting to demand that lawmakers change the law to suit them. Don't they realize that once the political capital is sapped out of this, there isn't much else they'll be able to do.

Though I read somewhere that conservative groups were backfunding some of the lawyers that Terri's parents had. Not sure if it's true obviously, but there has to be something else going on here..and it's not all about how evil the husband is.

Not that I would've agreed with his choices, either.

[NoMyths]

The really ironic thing is people are fighting to feed someone who had an eating disorder.To a certain degree I'm surprised this isn't considered more carefully by the Christian right-to-lifers that are fighting to reinsert her tube...her condition was apparently caused by her eating disorder, and now she's continuing the process of starving to death. Seems like if a person were betting on God trying to enact his will, that would be it, with humans interfering with their technology. *shurg*

[SunDancer]

To a certain degree I'm surprised this isn't considered more carefully by the Christian right-to-lifers that are fighting to reinsert her tube...her condition was apparently caused by her eating disorder, and now she's continuing the process of starving to death. Seems like if a person were betting on God trying to enact his will, that would be it, with humans interfering with their technology. *shurg*

I saw it on CNN today about this. She was Belanix (not sure if I spelled it right), and had an electroyde/chemical inbalance.

[SunDancer]

To a certain degree I'm surprised this isn't considered more carefully by the Christian right-to-lifers that are fighting to reinsert her tube...her condition was apparently caused by her eating disorder, and now she's continuing the process of starving to death. Seems like if a person were betting on God trying to enact his will, that would be it, with humans interfering with their technology. *shurg*

Your suprised? They wanted Jeb Bush to violate the law and Constitution.

[digamma]

Read my thread regarding The Politically Incorrect Book of History. The President's use of military without congress declaring war is one of the things I highlighted in that.
I'm staying out of the Shiavo discussion, but I think you ignored my reply in the thread you mention above. See the War Powers Act.

http://dynamic5.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?p=726633#post726633

[Mr. Wednesday]

The problem is where you are getting your news from. Just because you or one souce deems it "clear" there's a conflict of interest with the husband does not make it so. Escpecially when every court has said there is none.The court recognized the conflict of interest in the 1998 proceeding. That's why they didn't take his word for it -- they took the word of his brother and sister-in-law. Now, you may not think this is appreciably different, and I would sympathize with that point of view, but the judge found their testimony credible (going into some detail in his decision about the sorts of things he was looking for) and Terri's family's testimony not credible.

[Mr. Wednesday]

As far as money goes, Greer indicated in the 2000 decision that Michael and the Schindlers split in 1994 over the question of the disposition of the $300,000 loss-of-consortium judgement. Apparently, they wanted half of it -- the way Greer discusses it, one gets the impression the Schindlers claimed there was some sort of prior agreement that Schiavo vacated.

[Tekneek]

The information I have gotten is that 1. No MRI has been taken of Terri's brain per Michael's wishes. If you know otherwise please enlighten me.

CAT scans have even been posted in this thread. I don't know what an MRI would show that the CAT scan failed to demonstrate. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that point.

Terrri regularly spoke in discernable tones and words and reacted to sight and sound.

I don't think anyone has denied that. Those sorts of activities are consistent with brain stem activity, from what I have read elsewhere and in this thread.

And it shouldn't be surprising that the sources I hear this on are both Fox News and Christian radio/TV since they seem to be the ones promoting life for Terri in the face of others promoting her death sentence.

You are buying into a conspiracy theory as well? Now, it is Michael Schiavo, numerous levels of the judicial system, AND the media.

The facts about the judge should be easily checked out if untrue.

I agree they should be easily checked out. It makes me wonder why so many Courts and Judges don't agree with you.

[Tekneek]

Might be all propaganda from the one side, but certainly contradicts some aspects from the report you linked with.

I have not read all the legal documents related to the case, but you'd think those allegations would have at least shown up in some of them if they held any water. Do you know if they did?

[Tekneek]

If you read what I've said, she may indeed be in a vegetative state (althought that is being actively denied by including registered nurses that have cared for her) but even if she is doesn't mean Michael still has a right to kill her or we as a society have the right to enpower a judge to enpower Michael to kill her. Think I've pretty well beat this horse now.

The law of the State of Florida and the United States of America says otherwise. So, you are wrong. You have every right to have this opinion, but it doesn't mean you're right.

[Tekneek]

Personally, I hope the Schiavo's sue for part of Terri's trust fund to recoup whatever costs they have incurred helping to care for her. At least then we'll find out exactly how much money is left in the trust. The first time Schiavo tried to pull the plug on her, there was still over $700K left.

What expense have they had? The cost of gasoline to/from the hospice? It would be interesting to see what they could legally claim as care expenses in such a matter.

I've heard some say that Schiavo's been paying the legal bills from the fund, but I'm thinking that would violate what the fund was established for in the first place.

Maybe not, since he is implementing her wishes. Perhaps it could be demonstrated that all of these legal matters have been everyone vs Terri Schiavo, since he is legally recognized and verified as representing her legal wishes in the matter.

[Tekneek]

So your bottom line is, Michael now has the legal authority to kill her?

No, but he has the authority to remove the feeding tube, which has gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Tekneek]

On second thought, its not even necessary for you to answer at all. You state pretty emphatically Michael does have the legal authority and right to kill her.

So has every court in the judicial system that their argument could be taken to. However, I would question whether he has the legal authority to kill her. He does have the legal authority to remove the feeding tube. If she sat up and asked for a cheeseburger, her caregivers would probably be legally required to bring it to her.

[Tekneek]

Just making a point here. No matter how you dress it up, or attribute motive, ect., plain fact is someone is being killed. That is just a fact that you cannot get around.

More people are being killed everyday, and some of them are killed by the government by one method or another. Your crusade would be better served working on those injustices first.

[Tekneek]

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/news/article/0,1375,VCS_121_3654520,00.html

CLEARWATER, Fla. (AP) -- Amid the pitched legal battle over Terri Schiavo that has been fought through his court, Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer has been under the protection of armed guards, and friends say his family also is protected.

Death threats have been made against him for allowing Michael Schiavo to remove the feeding tube that has kept his 41-year-old wife alive for the past 15 years, and the Southern Baptist church that Greer belonged to for years has asked him to leave the congregation.

Greer - a conservative Christian and longtime Republican known for an easy manner - has become the public face of the judiciary in this internationally watched fight. But despite the mounting pressure, he has been steadfast in his rulings that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state and did not want to be kept alive artificially...

Protesters now show up at his Clearwater home. The FBI arrested a North Carolina man it said placed a $50,000 bounty on the head of a judge in the case, although officials didn't name the judge.

This past week, he parted ways with his Southern Baptist church, which had advocated keeping Terri Schiavo alive, after his pastor suggested it would be better if he left...

[Tekneek]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11239223.htm

...

Ronald Cranford, a Minnesota neurologist who examined her in 2002 as part of a previous court case, said a CT scan of her brain showed very little but scar tissue and spinal fluid. An electroencephalogram measuring electrical activity in the thinking areas of her brain showed no evidence of continued function, he said.

“It's totally flat — nothing, and this is very unusual,” Cranford said. “The vast majority of people in a persistent vegetative state show about 5 percent of normal brain activity.”

...

At least a half dozen neurologists have examined Schiavo. In affidavits or testimony, four of them agreed she was in a persistent vegetative state and unlikely to recover. Courts have rejected the diagnosis of the dissenters. In 2002, the judge called one of them a “self-promoter” who “offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no test results” to support a claim that he could cure serious brain damage.

Yet another doctor, William Cheshire, cited last week by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in his decision to intervene in the Schiavo case, also questioned the diagnosis, based on a personal visit to the patient and a review of records and videotape, according to an affidavit he filed with the court.

But Cheshire did not conduct an examination, according to his employer, the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. He declined a request for an interview.

...

Neurologists, ethicists and doctors who specialize in rehabilitating people with brain injuries said it is highly unusual to make a diagnosis without a complete neurological exam. This includes a careful observation to see whether a person can track objects with the eyes, whether they pull away from a pinch, whether the nerve reflexes in their feet, eyes and elsewhere reflect some conscious control. Doctors may also perform brain imaging technology to measure changes in structure or activity.

Neurologists define several levels of mental function. Whole brain death means neither the brain stem, which is involved in breathing and reflexes, nor the cortex and other areas involved in conscious awareness are active. In a persistent vegetative state, the brain stem is engaged but not the higher brain: The eyes are open, the person may seem aware, but is not.

There have been at least four confirmed cases of patients with oxygen-related brain injuries such as Schiavo's who have recovered awareness after being declared permanently vegetative. All four were young or middle-age men who regained consciousness within two years of being declared persistently vegetative and were partly paralyzed or severely disabled afterward. One was a patient of Cranford's.

“Yes, I made a mistake, and to this day no one can explain these cases,” but the patient made his recovery in less than 12 months, Cranford said.

In the Schiavo case, he said, “there has been no change in more than 12 years, and no real disagreement about that.”

[Tekneek]

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4235.html

The War on Michael Schiavo/The War Over Life
by Nicholas Stix
26 March 2005

Many of the people who have claimed to care so much about Terri Schiavo are motivated less by concern for her, than by their hatred for her husband, Michael.

...

Greed:’ If Michael Schiavo were greedy, he would have found a way to do away with his wife ten years ago, just after he received a $1 million settlement from a malpractice suit against her former doctors. But he didn’t. He put the money into a trust for her, where it has been virtually exhausted -- perhaps $50,000 remains. Schiavists point out that Mr. Schiavo has spent upwards of $400,000 from the trust for legal representation, as if that were an indictment of him. But he was defending himself in court against legal challenges from Mrs. Schiavo’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler. The Schiavists seem to be angered over Mr. Schiavo’s ability to afford legal representation.

...

However, on Nightline a few days ago, the second guardian ad litem, Jay Wolfson, said that doctors had told Mr. Schiavo from the beginning that his wife’s case was hopeless, and that after five years of caring for her, he seemed finally to accept what they had been saying all along. Note that unlike just about everyone else who has weighed in on the case, Wolfson, a lawyer and professor specializing in health law, has not aligned himself either with Mr. Schiavo or his in-laws, Bob and Mary Schindler, and appears to have no ox to gore.

Note that this “devil,” Mr. Schiavo, had spent over 5000 hours caring for his wife in the nursing home during those first five years alone. And he has never deserted his wife. But such facts are wasted on the Schiavists and the Schindlers.

Wolfson emphasized that Mr. Schiavo has demanded and gotten an extraordinarily high level of care for his wife, and during the first five years had even trained as a nurse, in order to assist in her care. Wolfson said that Mrs. Schiavo had suffered no decubitus ulcers (aka bed sores), which patients in such a condition typically suffer.

...

Aside from calling Mr. Schiavo a murderer, the Schiavists’ other condemnation of him, is that he is an “adulterer.” He is cheating on a woman who has been in a persistent vegetative state since 1990.

We are not talking about a 70-year-old man here, but of a young man who was about 30 years of age, when his wife became, for all intents and purposes, brain dead. The people who would condemn a vital young man, who has never neglected his stricken wife, to a life of celibacy, are ghouls.

They are saying that when her life effectively ended, he was obliged to give up on any life of his own, as well.

...

Many of the “strangulation”/“Michael wants to shut Terri up” stories seem to have originated with the Schindlers themselves. The Schiavists have portrayed Mrs. Schiavo’s parents as angels locked in mortal combat with her demonic husband. The truth is, the Schindlers are no angels. Their hatred of their son-in-law runs so deep, that they have for several years engaged in a ruthless campaign of defamation against him. Indeed, the campaign of the Schiavists mirrors that of the Schindlers. Perhaps I should call the Schiavists the Schindlerists.

‘Michael has withheld care which would help Terri recover.’ No such care exists for someone in Mrs. Schiavo’s condition. Only divine intervention could have helped her.

...

The claim that the civil rights of death row inmates are better protected than Mrs. Schiavo’s, in addition to denying reality, nonsensically treats criminal and civil cases as if they were identical. It further presumes that Mrs. Schiavo’s interests are not being represented in court. Even the highly intelligent John O’Sullivan is not only promoting this nonsense, but playing the “Nazi card,” as well.

But of course Mrs. Schiavo’s civil rights are being represented -- by her husband. The civil rights arguments must presuppose that Mr. Schiavo does not have the legal role that he in fact has, or that he has failed to properly protect his wife’s rights. But in either case, the reasoning is circular -- the Schindlers’ attorneys and the Schiavists are presupposing that which they must prove. Ultimately, their belief reduces to ‘Mr. Schiavo refuses to do our bidding, ergo he is violating his wife’s civil rights.’ The belief takes the violation of Mr. Schiavo’s rights as husband and as his wife’s legal guardian as a matter of course.

Note that the Schiavists have called for a separate lawyer to be named to represent Mrs. Schiavo. That would mean that not one party would purport to speak on Mrs. Schiavo’s behalf, but THREE: Mr. Schiavo’s attorney, the Schindlers’ attorneys, and the new attorney purportedly representing -- aren’t they all? -- Mrs. Schiavo. That is not legal representation; it is legal chaos.

Note again, that the Schiavists are conservatives who, when they are not calling for more lawyers and more governmental interference in the private matters of the Schiavos, are expressing their distrust of government, and particularly, lawyers. Note too that the Schindlers have claimed that they desire a private solution. If you believe that claim from the very people who have called on the federal Leviathan to gut the legal process and pervert a private matter, I have a great deal for you on a slightly used bridge.

...

‘Terri is a disabled person; we need greater legal protection for disabled people. The spouse of a disabled person should not have legal power over that person, but must have to share that power with the disabled person’s birth family (parents and siblings).’

To speak of Mrs. Schiavo as a “disabled” person, as many Schiavists have, is misleading. Someone who can’t walk or who is blind is disabled, though with today’s pc regime of double-talk, you could lose your job for saying that. The woman’s cerebral cortex liquefied years ago. There’s no “there” there.

...

The same social and religious conservatives have, in their support for the family, been adamantly opposed to gay marriage. And yet, many of them are supporting government intervention into the family (to protect the disabled or incapacitated) and the weakening of the marital bonds. Again, these people either don’t really support marriage, they don’t know what they support, or they have lost their minds.

I didn’t marry my mother; I married my wife. And if I were to become a turnip, and my mother or father or sister could get a judge to force my wife to somehow “share” or cede altogether her power to make decisions on my behalf, the judge would, in effect, be dissolving my marriage. No one can dissolve the Schiavos’ marriage but Mr. Schiavo.

...

In Mrs. Schiavo’s case, however, the feeding tube is a form of life support, the functional equivalent of a ventilator, and thus an extraordinary measure. (Full disclosure: This is not a popular position.) Thousands of people receive nourishment through a “feeding tube,” known in nursing as a “g-tube,” but many of those people simply have a problem swallowing or a related gastric problem. They can speak or otherwise communicate with the world; Mrs. Schiavo can’t. Her only connection to the world is through that g-tube.

When my grandmother was felled by a series of strokes just before her 80th birthday, although she was, as folks said at the time, “vegetating,” she could still swallow. And so for over three years, she was fed pureed food by her nurses. And at the beginning, unlike Mrs. Schiavo, Nana did occasionally talk, as if in a dream. I recall her once talking about “paper,” telling someone to get her some paper. (She had been an executive secretary, and later served as our hometown’s deputy registrar.)

But soon thereafter, my nana stopped talking. She wasted away, and after three years, she died....

[QuikSand]

Tekneek... you should know better. We AMericans don't decide the facts (like what state Mrs. Schiavo may be in at the moment) in the case based on the medical evidence, or the expert opinions of people who are more learned than we are in the matter, or even on the perspectives of those who know much more about this case then we do. You have it all wrong. You can't argue something like this from the bottom up.

No, indeed. We decide these matters of fact based on what we want the outcome of this situation to me. In large part, we seem to start with how we feel about Mr. Schiavo. Some of us have decided he's a bad guy, mostly based on the things being said by his wife's parents. We also seem to be persuaded by our political heroes, some of whom have opted to get very involved in this matter, as you know.

Once we have reached our conclusion about what we want to have happen, we then go back and "set the facts" to support that conclusion. Do you see, now? If I have decided that Terri now has to live, then I need to strengthen that argument by looking for evidence (any evidence wil do, from any source) that she is in some state other than "persistent vegetative," because that just doesn't sound like someone we could rightfully defend. Fortunately, we have some long-ago physician who "reviewed a few tapes" and has concluded that Mrs. Schiavo is, in fact, not in such a state. So, since it suits the outcome that was picked for me by Tom DeLay and the radio talk show guy I listen to, I will now deny anything said by the reputable physicians... and will instead rely on the fringe medical evidence. (Please understand that if I had been led to the opposite conclusion about the outcome I desired, I would be arguing equally vociferously on behalf of the other set of doctors and thir opinion -- matters of fact are simply a means to an end here)

So, since I have decided that she must live -- I now accept every assertion made that Mr. Schiavo is an evil man, and that Mrs. Schiavo is all but up and dancing about the hostpial room. And I reject any evidence that Mr. Schiavo was, for years and years, a completely devoted and even overprotective husband to his impaired wife, or that Mrs. Schiavo's state is far worse and irreversible than even the long-comatose. That way, it's almost as if I reached this conclusion by thinking.


I hope that is clearer to you, now. If you want the matters of fact (even difficult ones) to lead, step by step, to a logical conclusion... politics isn't your game. Try math.

[HomerJSimpson]

... If you want the matters of fact (even difficult ones) to lead, step by step, to a logical conclusion... politics isn't your game. Try math.


I'm going to frame that quote. You didn't steal it from somewhere, did you?