PRAY FOR TERRI SCHIAVO by Conscience

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Your post hardly is worth a reply, but I'm going to anyway. When you have taken care of Terri for EIGHT YEARS- diapering her, feeding her, bathing her, amusing her- as her husband did- THEN you can come back and call him "evil". Until you've done that, shut the f*ck up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2005 11:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

gorram double post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2005 12:00 PM

KNIBBLET

There's no evil in this. There are misguided intentions. Those misguided intentions belong to the parents who cannot accept that their daughter is now a shell.
Terri died 15 years ago. Her husband took her to every specialist there was. He took care of her 24/7 for 8 years.
Her parents cannot accept that their daughter is gone. If you believe in heaven, I'd think you'd want her soul to be free of a body and brain that doesn't work.
I pray that she dies peacefully so that she will once again 'live'.

"I'm gonna rip you a new puppet hole, bitch!"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2005 1:30 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2005 1:46 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Even when the brain remains physically intact, this kind of case is rare. In Terri's case- where most of the cerebral cortex is gone- recovery is impossible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2005 2:18 PM

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2005 2:38 PM

DARKJESTER

It seems to me that she is having life thrust upon her, against her wishes. We can keep a corpse "alive" nowadays, with machinery and drugs. But the person is in the consciousness, not the body.

I onced watched as doctors "threw the switch" on a friend of mine. He'd been in a coma for several days, his heart could no longer beat on its' own, his kidneys had shut down days before, and his liver was failing. But perhaps most importantly, in the previous days his heart had stopped several times, and the doctors were almost sure there was brain damage. Rick had an IQ in the MENSA range (around 140) and was the only guy I'd ever met who could ALWAYS beat me in punning battles. I for one knew that he wouldn't want to live if he was reduced to being in a "vegitative state".

Fortunately, I guess, his family, girlfriend and friends all came to realize that it was his time to go. When the head of cardiology in a major hospital uses the phrase "If by some miracle he should survive this...", it's usually a good indication it's time to say your good-byes. His family stood around his bed, his friends behind them. The doctor really did throw a switch on a piece of machinery, and 30 seconds later his heart stopped.

Yes, it's different than the current case - my friend needed machines or he would (and did) die naturally. But going through my friend's illness and death taught me that a beating heart doesn't prove someone is alive.

My parents and sisters have all been told, very directly, that under no circumstances do I want to be kept alive by machines when there is no real hope of recovery, and/or if I have brain damage to the point of not being able to care for myself.

Terri's gone. Her body is still here. And honestly, there is very little that frightens me more than imagining myself in her place, trapped in a non-responsive body, with my loved ones forcing me to live, preventing me from finding peace.

Edited to add: I don't think that there is a "person" in her body anymore. There is no consciousness there to percieve anything. That last statement about being "trapped" in her body is really irrelevant.

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2005 3:01 PM

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2005 3:43 PM

HARDWARE

Having had a close family member in a quality of life struggle with a doctor I think I have a little understanding of what is involved in these sort of decisions. I can't even imagine what it would be like to be so greatly impaired as Terri. And to live day in, day out, knowing you have most of your life in front of you to waste away in a hospital bed.

Like it or not Terri's parents have no legal grounding to stop Michael Schiavo from excercising his rights as Terri's next of kin. Just as Terri would have those same rights if Michael were the one in the vegetative state.

At some point you've got to cut the umbilical cord.

Of course you're got to wonder how ol' W reconciles signing the Terri Schiavo law considering the legislation he signed in to law in 1999 in Texas.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3073295

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2005 7:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

So, which is it? Is a body without higher order cognition (intellectual and emotional) just a shell or some sort of "person" still?

Depends on the definition of person.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Is it something between 0 to 100% of a person, or is it 100% person, but just disconnected from the higher order senses?

I don't think that a scale should be used. This is one of the very few black and white issues. Someone is either a person or not.

I really think what should be the question is, what constitutes dead?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 3:43 AM

The US governments or governments in general, should not be in the practice of killing people because they do not exhibit enough awareness. As the president said, we should err on the side of life.

I’ve read where many people have criticized drawing a conclusion from a few seconds of film in which Shiavo appears to watch and follow a balloon as it is moved across her field of view. But the fact remains that that film clip, the length of which is irrelevant, demonstrates that Shiavo has been able to react to her environment. So it would seem to be an absolute certainty that at least once during this so-called “persistent vegetative state” that Shiavo was responding to her environment. What is far less certain is to what degree her condition renders her unaware and cognitively dead. Not a shred of conclusive evidence exists to support that conclusion; it is pure supposition.

How does anyone know that she is unaware? Even the doctors can’t draw a consenting opinion. The fact is that people have recovered after being diagnosed as being in a “persistent vegetative states.” People can function with chunks of their brain missing. No one doubts she hasn’t sustained some degree of brain damage, but if that alone qualifies her for being killed, then we are now living in a state where retarded people can be put to death simply based on our assessment of how much of their brain is functional? Science cannot offer a conclusion here.

Then there is the politics. A husband with complete control of the life and death of his wife who appears to be quite divided in his interests. Parents whose only request is to keep their daughter alive are being ignored. Some people claim that Shiavo should be killed because that is what she wants or wanted. Based on what? Her husband who is clearly divided? People who may have heard her say something while she was alive? People say a lot of things while they are alive, we don’t kill them for it, do we? It’s easy to say things in passing while one believes themselves free from consequences. We should not be in the practice of killing people based on heresay. If it does not come from the person in question in the form of a signed legal document, then how can something be used as justification for killing a person who cannot make that decision themselves? If there is nothing conclusive about the evidence that science can offer, then how are judges and politicians going to draw a conclusion on what Terry Shiavo thinks, especially since their whole position is that she doesn’t think.

Finally, the fact of the matter is that the plant in my living room sitting by the back door is in a persistent vegetative state, yet there is no law preventing me from giving it water. In fact, if I were to not give it water and allow it do die, some people would claim that as evidence of irresponsibility based on neglect. So even if Terry Shiavo is truly in a state in which she will never recover and has no awareness of her surrounding, how on earth do we justify creating laws specifically designed to neglect her until she dies when there are people who want to take care of her. My god, even my plant would seem to have more rights then Terry Shiavo.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 6:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Signym:

"Your post hardly is worth a reply, but I'm going to anyway. When you have taken care of Terri for EIGHT YEARS- diapering her, feeding her, bathing her, amusing her- as her husband did- THEN you can come back and call him "evil". Until you've done that, shut the f*ck up."

What the hell are you talking about?!?!

You get on here with your self righteous BS about "Bathe her and change her diapers and watch her suffer". Michael Schiavo hasn't done any of that, hell he was hardly ever there.

He's left her minimal care up to the hospital staff WHEN HE'S ALLOWED them to care for her at all.

The guy's been trying to whack her from the day he recieved his settlement check (even though he claimed he would see to it she got all the proper care).

Personally I think the guy is desperate to hide something.

I've followed this case for the last 3 years and Michael Schiavo is a kook. An adulterous lecherous lying Kook at that. Anyone who is "THAT" devoted to his wife, wouldn't hook up with some other white trash broad and make babies with her out of wedlock. I don't buy the whole "She wouldn't want to live this way" Bullshit either. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't in writing then you shouldn't be able to MURDER someone, ESPECIALLY if there is someone who wants to care for that person.

According to Signym "IT'S NOT OK" to whack or interrogate terrorist bastards who kill people (because we may humiliate them or further anger them ) but it's ok to starve someone to death based on SOMEONE ELSES word even though there were NO OTHER MOTHER F'ing witnesses!!!!!

What a crock of shit.

Conscience just give it up, all the liberal douchebags on these boards are a bunch of hacks.

I think I get it now..the new "Progressive Credo"

"If they can't defend themselves..kill em" , lets see we should abort infants because they have cleft lips, We can whack retarded people (I'm sure thats coming..too expensive to care for..that whole diaper changing etc..etc..), the infirm, etc..etc..

"If they can defend themselves..be afraid of them and kowtow to their every want and desire."
Terrorists, murderers (god help us if we use the death penalty), rapists etc..etc..

ARGHHHHHHHHH..!!!!!!!!!!!

I need more ducktape to hold the top of my head on.

I wonder how many people would cry out in anger and dismay from the liberal douchebag wing if we were to STARVE TO DEATH an animal, because "THEIR OWNER" said that the animal wouldn't want to live that way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 8:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Terri is no longer there. Terri died when she purged so much she had a heart attack, and her brain was left without oxygen too long. Only her body is left, and it has an approximate cognitive functioning slightly higher than a slug.

But if you want to look at sheer unadulterated hypocracy- what about those Republican Congressman who voted to "save Terri" and cut Medicare? Or, what about Bush? In Texas, HIS law says the hospital makes the decision on when to pull the plug, and THAT decision is based on "ability to pay".

Jeez, Check out your facts first BEFORE you start whinging!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 8:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Terri is no longer there. Terri died when she purged so much she had a heart attack, and her brain was left without oxygen too long. Only her body is left, and it has an approximate cognitive functioning slightly higher than a slug.

But if you want to look at sheer unadulterated hypocracy- what about those Republican Congressman who voted to "save Terri" and cut Medicare? Or, what about Bush? In Texas, HIS law says the hospital makes the decision on when to pull the plug, and THAT decision is based on "ability to pay".

Jeez, Check out your facts first BEFORE you start whinging!

LOL..maybe you didn't read or hear about the strange bone scans or the possibility that her "Loving" husband choked her out. I find it strange that he is so keen on having her cremated against the rest of the family's wishes but hey..I haven't checked any of my facts *waves the whatever hand*

I say we follow your lead and kill anyone who is infirm currently, particularly if only one person says they shouldn't or wouldn't want to live that way. We can start with Autistic children and children with cancer or other debilitating issues and work our way up to the elderly. Lets do away with them . We should make it as painful as possible too. Last I checked though Euthanasia is illegal and so is assisted suicide. So I guess it's better to just do what the eskimoes do and put em on an iceberg and float em out to sea.

I now fully believe you are a delusional crackpot so filled with hatred for Republicans (though there were some Democrats involved in this Bill as well, except for the cut throat kill em all if the Repubs want em to live assholes) that you will despise everything that a Repub may say regardless of whether or not they are right.

I'm begging you to pack and move to Canada to live with all the other tree-hugging capitalism hating ass blasting dirt munchers.

I'll continue to have compassion for those who deserve it and those who don't can kiss my ass.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 8:52 AM

Alright! I really have been trying to avoid these converstions but what the hell. If there's something I can't stand it's hypocrisy.

Finn, Connor. By your standard, not force feeding this woman is tantamount to murder? Come on. So now, with holding aid is murder. By that condition we are a nation of rabid murderers. Withholding food aid abroad. Placeing an embargo on iraq. Withholding funds from aid groups that aside from fighting AIDs also provide family planning service (read abortion.) Come on.

Is withholding aid really a standard you want to use for MURDER? Don't be fucking ridiculous. So that bum I didn't give a dollar to. If he freezes to death tonight, have I committed murder? Do I have the duty to ensure that every person 'lives' every second that machinery and modern medicine and force feeding can provide? Otherwise I am a murder? This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

And furhtermore, you are the same folks chronically defending marriage. Alright well listen, as next of kin a husband has the legal right to make this decision for his wife. That is part of marriage. Regardless of your self righteous narrow opinion of what kind of husband he was.

If I am ever in her state I hope no STATE will tell my wife she has to pay to maintain my corpse in some bizarre psuedo life. Your worried about states legislating death... well they do that all the time. It is in fact the only true power of the state. The threat of death. Let's not give them another power by making life one of their further powers.

-Eli

If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Conner- As far as Terri is concerned- she has been scoped, prodded, assessed, and examined numerous times over the past fifteen years, including a group of five doctors (2 chosen by the parents, 2 chosen by Michael, 12 chesen by the judge). If the only thing you can come up with is some unsubstantiated allegations that have ALREADY been reviewed IN COURT, then you are simply arguing for the sake of argument.

And FYI- There is a VAST difference between being "infirm" and being vegetative. Having dealth with a MIL who died raving and incontinent (metastatic cancer), a father who died of cerebellar degeneration (fuly aware, unable to respond) and a child that the neuros gave up on ten years ago, I think I have profoundly more to say on the topic than you. Your TOTAL lack of thought and compassion, your abundance of self-righteous hypocracy, your complete lack of feeling for the people involved is truly apalling... and SO VERY TYPCIAL of the right-wing that you represent. Go hide yourself in shame, you stupid mother. Oh yeah, I forgot- the right wing has no morals and therfore has no shame. But that's OK- now everyone can see what an idiot you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Conner- There is a VAST difference between being "infirm" and being vegetative. Having dealth with a MIL who died raving and incontinent (metastatic cancer), a father who died of cerebellar degeneration (fuly aware, unable to respond) and a child that the neuros gave up on ten years ago, I think I have profoundly more to say on the topic than you. Your TOTAL lack of thought and compassion, your abundance of self-righteous hypocracy, your complete lack of feeling for the people involved is truly apalling... and SO VERY TYPCIAL of the right-wing that you represent. Go hide yourself in shame, you stupid mother.

Like I said..we can follow your lead and kill anyone who "lacks cognitive awareness". What the fuck do you mean my complete lack of feeling for everyone involved. There are a HELLUVA lot more people who are involved that want Terri to live then the 2 or 3 pieces of vile waste that want her dead.

As for your profound knowledge ..you don't know me..you don't know my life background. Don't proclaim you know shit about me or what I've been through. I've cared for 3 cancer stricken family members..so don't tell me what is right or is wrong or what it means to be compassionate, you elitist headcase.

One person should NOT have the ability to declare death upon someone for the sole reason that they "Wouldn't want to be that way" unless that person put their desires in writing.
Starving someone to death is not compassionate it's wrong.

PS..because you make it a point to declare anyone who disagrees with this biblical times barbarism,a member of the Right wing hypocrisy (spelled with an "i" not an "a" ) just proves my point above. I'm no Right wing Bible Thumping Right to Lifer. Get over the goddamned election and get over yourself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xenocide:
Alright! I really have been trying to avoid these converstions but what the hell. If there's something I can't stand it's hypocrisy.

Finn, Connor. By your standard, not force feeding this woman is tantamount to murder? Come on. So now, with holding aid is murder. By that condition we are a nation of rabid murderers. Withholding food aid abroad. Placeing an embargo on iraq. Withholding funds from aid groups that aside from fighting AIDs also provide family planning service (read abortion.) Come on.

Is withholding aid really a standard you want to use for MURDER? Don't be fucking ridiculous. So that bum I didn't give a dollar to. If he freezes to death tonight, have I committed murder? Do I have the duty to ensure that every person 'lives' every second that machinery and modern medicine and force feeding can provide? Otherwise I am a murder? This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

And furhtermore, you are the same folks chronically defending marriage. Alright well listen, as next of kin a husband has the legal right to make this decision for his wife. That is part of marriage. Regardless of your self righteous narrow opinion of what kind of husband he was.

If I am ever in her state I hope no STATE will tell my wife she has to pay to maintain my corpse in some bizarre psuedo life. Your worried about states legislating death... well they do that all the time. It is in fact the only true power of the state. The threat of death. Let's not give them another power by making life one of their further powers.

-Eli

If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.

WOW!!! You are a real putz. Her parents want to take care of her. NOONE IS FORCING MICHAEL SCHIAVO TO PAY FOR HIS WIFE. Not one red frigging dime has been spent out of his own hard earned funds to pay for anything regarding Terri.

Xenocide is officially on my "Ignore the Fucknuts" list.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:37 AM

Connor. In spite of your kindly ad hominem attacks, you still failed to answer my question. Perhaps this is my fault let me phrase this more clearly. Is withholding aid murder? You seem to think so.

PS If your persist in acting like a troll some people may call you one.

-Eli

If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Why do you bring up stupid points like "killing the infirm" (which no one is arguing) and those "mysterious" whatevers that no one can seem to substantiate? Just wanting to roil the waters? For what? To get attention? Posting flamebait? TROLL??

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why do you bring up stupid points like "killing the infirm" (which no one is arguing) and those "mysterious" whatevers that no one can seem to substantiate? Just wanting to roil the waters? For what? To get attention? Posting flamebait? TROLL??

LOL..I'm flamebaiting!!!!? Someone starts a topic "Pray for Terri" and Siggy comes on and says Shut the fuck up! Who's the one flamebaiting? I'm talking about not killing a woman who can't defend herself, who has done nothing wrong except marry the wrong man and you are talking about Right Wing Hypocrisy. Get the fuck over yourself and look at what I'm saying..not what you think I'm saying.

Then we have another dork come on who starts claiming it's equivalent to the witholding of aid to some countries (though they aren't particularly clear on which). Talk about trying to spin something to fit your jaded little progressive douchbag philosophy. /ignore on

God I wish they had an Ignore User feature on these boards. You folks could ignore me and I wouldn't have to read your silly posts.

HEY XENO- This is my last response to you jerky-

Purposefully Starving Someone to Death who can't feed themselves or fend for themselves is MURDER!!! No fucking ifs ands or buts. Its capital punishment of the innocent, a horrific loophole in the whole assisted suicide/euthanasia laws.

Siggy - Who substantiated Terri's wishes? Noone..it's Michael Schiavo's words against the silence of Terri.

Here's a decent article on the "Unsubstantiated possibility of Abuse"

Quote:
Evidence of Physical Abuse Haunts Michael Schiavo
Fractures in wife’s ribs, pelvis, spine and ankle point to prolonged violent abuse

To: National Desk

Contact: Gary McCullough for the Schindler Family, 202-546-0054

CLEARWATER, Fl., Feb.10 /Christian Wire Service/ -- On May 6, 1990, two months after the mysterious incident that left Terri Schindler Schiavo severely mentally disabled, Dr. Hamilton, an Orthopedic Surgeon, examined her. A year later Terri was demonstrating painful reactions to physical therapy treatment, so on March 5, 1991, the Mediplex therapist director ordered a bone scan.

This bone scan revealed a healed broken right femur bone and healed bone fractures in Terri Schindler Schiavo’s ribs, pelvis, spine and ankle.

Dr. W. Campbell Walker concluded that Terri has a history of trauma and presumed that the other multiple areas of abnormal activity also relate to previous trauma.

As Terri’s lone guardian, Michael Schiavo has been able to conceal the bone scan and examinations from her parents, brother, and sister for over ten years. To date, Michael Schiavo has not allowed the family to see the results of the May 6 examination, the emergency room records from the day of the incident, nor any of the accompanying x-rays.

Michael Schiavo's inability to be forthright over the bone scan brings into question his lone description of Terri's activity at the time of the incident. His choice to have his wife terminated rather than rehabilitated may not be in pursuit of her interests, but to continue to conceal the level of physical violence he displayed toward Terri.

The bone scan evaluation is available online at www.earnedmedia.org/bonescan.htm

Makes you wonder why Hubby Dearest is so keen on having his wife cremated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:41 PM

REEQUEEN

Quote:
Makes you wonder why Hubby Dearest is so keen on having his wife cremated

Omigod! *bwhahahaha!*

Yes, planning to have one's spouse cremated is definitely a sign of a murderer. Or maybe it's clear I'm going to commit suicide because I plan to be cremated?

Hard to know.

'Cause, y'know, medical examiners cannot do an autopsy on a corpse before the planned cremation, at all.

...I'm sorry, the flailing is just so funny!....

"He has a gorm horizon. All gorm that falls past it is lost forever." UserFriendly http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050114

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xenocide:
Is withholding aid really a standard you want to use for MURDER? Don't be fucking ridiculous. So that bum I didn't give a dollar to. If he freezes to death tonight, have I committed murder? Do I have the duty to ensure that every person 'lives' every second that machinery and modern medicine and force feeding can provide? Otherwise I am a murder? This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

It is quite absurd, I agree, but it is your own invention. I don’t see anything in what Connor said that even resembles this nonsense, and I know I said nothing like it. The only thing you’ve proven is that you can invent entirely ridiculous strawmans and then claim they are absurd. Good luck with that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 4:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

This is just so absurd. Let's see... According to the bone scan, the injuries were received about the time of the collapse. So Michael Schiavo beat the shit out of his wife and strangled her. Then he called 911 And the ER people didn't see any bruises around her neck or on her ribs, knees or ankles? And none appeared later, while she was in hospital? And since this "vicious beating" should have left obvious signs of abuse, no one notified the police? I mean, I know Florida doctors seem to be incompetent on the average, but this really strains credibility.

The other point is that people say Michael did this for money. He's already received the money, and none of it has gone to him. Most of it ahs gone to lawyers, the remainder is in still in the fund. Clearly, whatever is motivating him, it's not money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 7:05 PM

WITLESSCHUM

To respond to thread, I don't think there's anything to pray to, so I won't.

I feel for the parents here, they're seeing what looks like reactions out of her. But I think that's all it is, things that look like reactions. Whenever they've systematically tested it, she doesn't respond.

I don't blame the guy for shacking up and having kids, I'd want my wife to do the same, and I'd want her to pull the plug, same as he says she did. If my trust in m'love turns out have been misplaced, well, that's on me and that's life.

Even if everything the anti-Michael crowd says is true, well, I don't know what to tell you. Her folks have had many chances to argue in court before different judges and the legal system has investigated this to the extent it can and they haven't found evidence that her husband, as her next of kin, doesn't have the right to make this decision for her.

If you want to argue that it should be illegal to disconnect anyone, ever, from life support, than fine. Or argue to make someone's parents their presumed next of kin. I'd say you're wrong and it's a bad, but fine. But think, is going to all this for one case really worth it, or sensible, or even practical? Similar things happen every day.

In thinking about this, I don't think there are hard and fast rules that you can come up with that would lead to a perfect outcome, so we need a judiciary to look at things like this. And they have, I don't think our modern, secular society of the rule of law (which I think is the best thing since sliced bread) can do any better by any of us than it has by the apparently former residence of Terri Schiavo. If this was a despotry, you could win this by emotionally appealing to the despot, and getting him to see it your way, but it isn't.

And if anyone wants to call me a godless, commie, heathen leftwing bleeding heart fuckhead, well I'm proud of it. Elitist might not be ok, though I do hope to one day make enough money to be an elitist liberal.

Dan

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:13 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Having had a close family member in a quality of life struggle with a doctor I think I have a little understanding of what is involved in these sort of decisions. I can't even imagine what it would be like to be so greatly impaired as Terri. And to live day in, day out, knowing you have most of your life in front of you to waste away in a hospital bed.

Having a family member in this condition has got to be one of the toughest things to deal with. We respected my grandmother's DNR instructions last year and it was so hard just to watch her die when technology could've kept her alive.

I feel bad for all of Terri's family, the family that she was born into as well as the family that she chose for herself (her husband). I understand that hope springs eternal but, at some point, I hope that her family comes to terms with the reality that the areas of her brain associated with higher order thought are gone. Whoever is giving her parents' false hope is increasing their own karma as we speak.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 3:30 AM

KNIBBLET

Witlesschum, I think we were cut from the same cloth. Thanks for speaking up :)

Whatever brain patterns made Terry, Terry, are long gone and have been replaced by cerebral fluid. 'Terry' is gone - only the vessel remains.

I'm grateful she isn't there to suffer what would be suffered by someone aware of their body's condition. And I repeat my assertion that if you believe in the soul, than you'd want to help Terry's soul escape the hellhole prison her body has become and release her to her God's care.

I'm also grateful that the two levels of federal judges that family has appealed to so far have shown more intelligence than the grandstanding legislators who are forcing this higher and higher.

Hasn't the Supreme Court already refused to hear this case? They hear only cases where they judge that someone's constitutional rights have been trampled by lower courts. This is not the case here and I hope the Court declines to hear the case.

[bold] Witlesschum wrote:
I don't think our modern, secular society of the rule of law (which I think is the best thing since sliced bread) can do any better by any of us than it has by the apparently former residence of Terri Schiavo. [/bold]

"I'm gonna rip you a new puppet hole, bitch!"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 5:33 AM

Finn,

A) The plural is strawmen.
B) Connor Said:

Quote:
HEY XENO- This is my last response to you jerky-

Purposefully Starving Someone to Death who can't feed themselves or fend for themselves is MURDER!!! No fucking ifs ands or buts. Its capital punishment of the innocent, a horrific loophole in the whole assisted suicide/euthanasia laws.

If you lay aside the connotations in connor's language then you get: Withholding aid from someone who cannot get that aid through their own means is murder. Is this a strawman? I tend to think of it as using neutral language to discuss a concept in ethics. If that makes me a "fucknut" so be it.

C) Finn, I like talking to you because usually you try to keep rationality in the conversation but for you to accuse me, in this case, of constructing a strawman is utter fuckin' hypocrisy. Cases in point from your own initial post:

Quote:
...then we are now living in a state where retarded people can be put to death simply based on our assessment of how much of their brain is functional?

Strawman argument and an inappropriate analogy. Retarded (to use your adjective) people can survive without any assistance whatsoever. Terri will die without being force fed.

Quote:
the plant in my living room sitting by the back door is in a persistent vegetative state, yet there is no law preventing me from giving it water. In fact, if I were to not give it water and allow it do die, some people would claim that as evidence of irresponsibility based on neglect.

Strawman and ridiculous analogy. Furthermore if you killed your plant, for which your were responsible, no one would care.

Quote:
We should not be in the practice of killing people based on heresay.

Hearsay? Or rule of law. Husbands and wives as special privledges under the law. Including next of kin status, and guardianship in case of incapacity. This is part of that societal glue provided by marriage that republicans are so valiantly defending against gays.

I simply asked you both if you believed that withholding aid was tanatamount to murder. Which your arguments imply. The logical extension of those moral assumptions to other moral questions was my way of elucidating a point. That is not a strawman argument. Comparing brain dead people to 'retards' or plants is making a strawman argument.

Connor,

Feel free to ignore me. Glad if you do. Since you can't make an argument without resorting to juvenile name calling, and can't make an argument based on reason at all. Feel free to sod off.

-Eli

If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 4:47 PM

CAITE

Okay, so after I saw this thread I wanted to read up on what was going on with Terri Schiavo. What can I say-I am a perpetual scholar and I like to read up on things that interest me...especially before forming an opinion.

When I started reading up on this I was flabbergasted. I too agree that Terri should be let go. Michael is more than likely her legal guardian for a reason, or so I would assume. If she had wanted her parents to be the ones to make decisions for her, then she would have made them her legal guardians, yeah?

Also, I just read this which enraged me...Governor Jeb Bush is now trying to get LEGAL CUSTODY of Terri so HE can order the tube reinserted http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=Assisted_Suici
de. I don't know about you, but I would NOT want politicians or anyone in the government making those types of decisions for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 5:41 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
But the fact remains that that film clip, the length of which is irrelevant, demonstrates that Shiavo has been able to react to her environment.

While visually following a balloon can be a voluntary action, tracking can also be a mindless reflex.
The part of her brain that knows, remembers, feels, and plans is gone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2005 3:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xenocide:
Finn,

A) The plural is strawmen.
B) Connor Said:
Quote:
HEY XENO- This is my last response to you jerky-

Purposefully Starving Someone to Death who can't feed themselves or fend for themselves is MURDER!!! No fucking ifs ands or buts. Its capital punishment of the innocent, a horrific loophole in the whole assisted suicide/euthanasia laws.

If you lay aside the connotations in connor's language then you get: Withholding aid from someone who cannot get that aid through their own means is murder. Is this a strawman? I tend to think of it as using neutral language to discuss a concept in ethics. If that makes me a "fucknut" so be it.

The quote above from Connor’s post was made after your strawman argument. So we are to believe that you wrote a response to a comment that had not yet been made? More likely however, Connor’s use of murder to describe the situation is in response to your strawman, and not the impetus of it, and your use of a quote that you could not possibly have known about to justify a wholly fallacious argument is disingenuous.

But it doesn’t change anything. While Connor may believe that the state mandating an obligation to neglect an invalid until they die is tantamount to murder, he did not say that withholding voluntary aid is murder. So even if we assume you have some capacity to foretell the future, your assessment of both Connor’s and my arguments is clearly flawed.

Quote:
Originally posted by xenocide:
C) Finn, I like talking to you because usually you try to keep rationality in the conversation but for you to accuse me, in this case, of constructing a strawman is utter fuckin' hypocrisy. Cases in point from your own initial post:

Quote:
...then we are now living in a state where retarded people can be put to death simply based on our assessment of how much of their brain is functional?
Strawman argument and an inappropriate analogy. Retarded (to use your adjective) people can survive without any assistance whatsoever. Terri will die without being force fed.

Actually there are severely retarded people who cannot take care of themselves without assistance from other people. A severely retarded person may starve to death simply for an inability to understand how to acquire food. Many severely retarded people need constant attention. Maybe you really don’t understand the degree to which some people suffer mental retardation, or perhaps more likely, it’s just willful ignorance in the face of ideas you would rather not consider, because they make your support for killing a women whom many people obviously care for, less acceptable.

Quote:
Originally posted by xenocide:

Quote:
the plant in my living room sitting by the back door is in a persistent vegetative state, yet there is no law preventing me from giving it water. In fact, if I were to not give it water and allow it do die, some people would claim that as evidence of irresponsibility based on neglect.
Strawman and ridiculous analogy. Furthermore if you killed your plant, for which your were responsible, no one would care.

So because people care for Mrs. Schiavo, it is more acceptable to kill her?

And my analogy is actually quite accurate, if one assumes that Mrs. Schiavo has no ability to think. If she is indeed nothing more then an involuntary muscle, then what does it matter whether someone feeds her or not? If you believe that she is already dead, why are you so intent on killing a woman for whom many people have expressed a desire to keep alive? The fact is that my plant will not die because the state is not intervening and making law to force me not to water it. If my plant and Mrs. Schiavo have an equivalent degree of mental capacity, then at least my plant is not being forced to starve, which is right Mrs. Schiavo does not have.

Quote:
Originally posted by xenocide:

Quote:
We should not be in the practice of killing people based on heresay.

Hearsay? Or rule of law. Husbands and wives as special privledges under the law. Including next of kin status, and guardianship in case of incapacity. This is part of that societal glue provided by marriage that republicans are so valiantly defending against gays.

I don’t know what Republicans you’ve been listening to, but killing one’s spouse has never been part of any “societal glue” that I have ever valiantly defended, or ever heard any Republicans defend.

Quote:
Originally posted by xenocide:
I simply asked you both if you believed that withholding aid was tanatamount to murder. Which your arguments imply. The logical extension of those moral assumptions to other moral questions was my way of elucidating a point. That is not a strawman argument. Comparing brain dead people to 'retards' or plants is making a strawman argument.

Finally this is a continuation of your previous strawman. No one ever said that withholding voluntary aid is tantamount to murder. I never implied it, and I don’t think anything in Connor’s posts did. If for some reason some future post of Connor’s will include some implicating comments, then I’ll have to leave that to your future clairvoyance. It is not a question of withholding voluntary aid being murder, rather it is the state’s mandating of the starvation of this woman right? People want to take care of Mrs. Schiavo. The state is withholding the right of people to take care of her.

You used the example of a bum freezing to death because you chose not to give that bum a dollar. But that’s not the issue, nor has it ever been. An accurate analogy would be if you wanted to give that bum a dollar, but the state made it illegal for you to do so. Then if that bum dies, it is not because you withheld aid, but because the state forced voluntary aid that was forthcoming to be withheld.

If Mrs. Schiavo dies, it will not because people don’t want to help her, it will be because the state forced people not to help her.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2005 3:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
But the fact remains that that film clip, the length of which is irrelevant, demonstrates that Shiavo has been able to react to her environment.

While visually following a balloon can be a voluntary action, tracking can also be a mindless reflex.
The part of her brain that knows, remembers, feels, and plans is gone.

Based on what? A CT scan? CT scans don’t have a great deal of resolution, and there are many neurologists who believe that that assessment cannot be made without the greater resolution provided by an MRI or PET scan. So a fuzzy CT scan or a quite clear images of Mrs. Schiavo clearly responding to her environment? We can’t be sure either way, so which side do you want to err on?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2005 5:30 AM

Apologies for the long post.

Finn!

This is why I love discussing with you. (Please understand that for a few more moments I will speak with no sarcasm.) You help me get clear on what I really think. I'm a spaz, and though I generally disagree with you, you often lend some much needed clarity to my thinking.

I should have quoted from an earlier post of Connor's:

Quote:
The guy's been trying to whack her from the day he recieved his settlement check (even though he claimed he would see to it she got all the proper care)....

...I don't buy the whole "She wouldn't want to live this way" Bullshit either. ...

...As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't in writing then you shouldn't be able to MURDER someone, ESPECIALLY if there is someone who wants to care for that person....
...According to Signym "IT'S NOT OK" to whack or interrogate terrorist bastards who kill people (because we may humiliate them or further anger them) but it's ok to starve someone to death based on SOMEONE ELSES word even though there were NO OTHER MOTHER F'ing witnesses!!!!!

Your last post helped me understand Connor's point better, though I still (clairvoyantly) believe that he believes that withholding aid is tantamount to murder(note emphasis on 'especially.')

So let me see if I understand your basic poition. It seems to me that you and Connor believe that a judge should not be allowed to enforce a next of kins decision to execute the expressed wishes of his incapacitated spouse?

In your case you seem to believe that this might be allowable if the wishes of the incapacitated party where written and witnessed.

In Connor's case (and this is based on my understanding of his vehement connotative language and his various emaphases, but especially his emphasis on 'especially') that cutting of life support without express permission of the incapacitated party is tantamount to murder and should never be allowed?

It seems to me that you view the judge's enforcement of next of kin's decision as immoral government intervention.

I feel that government intervention to stop next of kin's decision would be immoral. I feel that Terri's family has had their day in court. They were unable to convince a number of courts that they had a right to decide what Terri would have wanted when her husband said otherwise. I prefer to have a judge be trier of fact than the legislature. My opinion.

Furthermore, I would rather have my spouse, who I have chosen, who knows me better than anyone, who I have contracted with, be my guardian during my incapacity. See I believe the whole one flesh thing that came with my vows. I certainly trust her over my parents. Who I did not choose. Who I don't discuss everything with. When I consider myself in Terri's position I pray that my wife would not be called a murderer, and be harassed and demonized for executing the wishes and desires that I expressed to her but was to foolish/lazy/ignorant to write down and have witnessed by a stranger. I would hope that no legislature would prevent her from letting me rest as I have asked. I hope that makes where I am coming from more clear.

My standpoint is based in what I believe that government, maximally, should be; the enforcer of contracts. It seems to me that you and Connor believe that government should have another role. Am I correct in assuming this?

Also, thank you for making me turn my eyes back to one of Connor's posts that I was reacting to in my posts and which helped clarify (for me) the
true disagreement:

Quote:
I wonder how many people would cry out in anger and dismay from the liberal douchebag wing if we were to STARVE TO DEATH an animal, because "THEIR OWNER" said that the animal wouldn't want to live that way.

I personally would cry out in this case, but not because of the owner's decision in the death of the dog, but because the method is cruel. Maybe it's just an overdose of steinbeck at an early age, but I think you do need to 'kill your own dogs.' George, in the end, took care of Lenny mercifully. We ought to discharge our responsibility mercifully. I see no mercy in keeping Terri alive, if she’s unaware. If she is aware, or ever came aware, it would be even worse. Starving her to death is horrible, but most states make giving her an easier death illegal. I see a greater mercy in letting her go.

Thanks again Finn. For making me a understand my own position better.

-Eli

If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2005 8:09 AM

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2005 8:45 AM

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2005 9:58 AM

Ms. Noonan is interesting, as always. But as always her faith makes her a creature who is so strange to me that we can hardly even communicate.

Quote:
God made the world or he didn't.

God made you or he didn't.

If he did, your little human life is, and has been, touched by the divine. If this is true, it would be true of all humans, not only some. And so--again, if it is true--each human life is precious, of infinite value, worthy of great respect.....

...Our children have been reared in the age of abortion, and are coming of age in a time when seemingly respectable people are enthusiastic for euthanasia. It cannot be good for our children, and the world they will make, that they are given this new lesson that human life is not precious, not touched by the divine, not of infinite value.

Once you "know" that--that human life is not so special after all--then everything is possible, and none of it is good. When a society comes to believe that human life is not inherently worth living, it is a slippery slope to the gas chamber. You wind up on a low road that twists past Columbine and leads toward Auschwitz. Today that road runs through Pinellas Park, Fla.

She is in my mind a brilliant master of words. But she fails to understand those who don't share her faith because she would rather not understand them.

For people with that kind of faith it is alway about LIFE. Period.

For those of us without that faith, who see suffering in far greater volume than miracles. Who see sorrow at least in equal part with joy. For us it will always be about quality of life. Period.

Why live a life of suffering if that struggle doesn't bring nirvana. If the only peace to be had is in the darkness at the end than there is no reward for suffering here on earth. Thats a christian vice, not a secular one.

For me personally, the quality of life question is the only one worth discussing, so when it's time for my tube to be pulled...please do pull it.

If we are in love with death then noonan, and a great many other christians, are in love with the suffering of others.

-Eli

If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2005 11:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xenocide:

If we are in love with death then noonan, and a great many other christians, are in love with the suffering of others.

Very well put.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2005 1:49 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Based on what? A CT scan? CT scans don’t have a great deal of resolution, and there are many neurologists who believe that that assessment cannot be made without the greater resolution provided by an MRI or PET scan.

Ultrasound (not applicable here) has resolution of about 7.5mm. CT has a resolution of about 1mm (though high resolution CT has a better resolution). MRI has sub-mm resolution.

However, MRI is not needed to see her gross loss of brain matter. (one scan available at the following link) http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/18/terri-schiavo-news/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

However, MRI is not needed to see her gross loss of brain matter. (one scan available at the following link) http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/18/terri-schiavo-news/

Thanks for this. Saves me the trouble of looking up exact details myself

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2005 3:45 PM

MELEAUX

I had sworn off reading realworld posts but the subject line caught me.
Now I remember why I do not come here. You are sad, mean, vicious, filthy people and I am ashamed to call you fellow brown coats. You are not. You are Alliance. I see that now. I will pray for Terri and her family because no one deserves to starve to death. Goodbye

She understands, she doesn't comprehend

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2005 5:15 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I've considered this without, I think, any meanness or forgone conclusions. But I don't think my opinion should count. So I haven't weighed in with anything other than my understanding of her actual medical condition.

I'd like to point out that, at least until now, everyone dies. Death is something we will all endure. I have watched hundreds of people die. I have sat with family members while they died. I've seen only one death that looked tranquil - as if the patient had closed her eyes for a second, thinking peacefully and calmly about her life perhaps, and then simply forgot to breathe. Unless they were mercifully unconscious, everyone else has died in knowledge of their dying, in pain, distress and fear.
Without making a judgment on whether or not this was her time to die, the manner of death doesn't seem unduly cruel.

Here is an article about a family who had the same terrible decision to make, whose boy did show some attempts to move during therapy, who laughed at times, and who who also elected to withdraw nourishment:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2005/03/24/my_brother/index.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2005 6:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xenocide:
Your last post helped me understand Connor's point better, though I still (clairvoyantly) believe that he believes that withholding aid is tantamount to murder(note emphasis on 'especially.')

That’s an interpretation you’re free to make. While Connor clearly believes the act of killing Mrs. Schiavo to be murder, I don’t see any dependents on an unwillingness to provide voluntary aide as the catalyst. Aside from the colorful tone of some of his posts, (a tone I do sympathize with) I can see his side of things. If Connor wishes to clarify his position, I’ll leave that to him.

Quote:
Originally posted by xenocide:
So let me see if I understand your basic poition. It seems to me that you and Connor believe that a judge should not be allowed to enforce a next of kins decision to execute the expressed wishes of his incapacitated spouse?

In your case you seem to believe that this might be allowable if the wishes of the incapacitated party where written and witnessed.

Yes. But let me clarify that Mr. Schiavo is not suing for the execution of the “expressed wishes” of his wife. If indeed these wishes were expressed, I would have no problem with the courts decision. The problem that I have is that the court is essentially speculating on what Mrs. Schiavo thinks, and that speculation along with what may be inconclusive medical evidence is being used as justification for state mandated starvation of an innocent human being. I think the state should set the bar for killing innocent human beings higher then their assessment of a person’s ability to think.

I believe Judge Greer’s deliberation on the issue is stretching. I’m concerned with the degree to which people have taken wholly unfounded issues in this case and contorted them into fact, on both sides. As a result of this, a woman may die while the nation reassures themselves with wholly unknowable “facts.” Such as Mrs. Schiavo complete lack of cortical function? Or what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted? Neither are things that we know. To a large degree I think that many people’s opinions on the matter have more to do with using Mrs. Schiavo’s life to push a political “right to die” agenda, then with a genuine concern for her. Politically, this is part and parcel to the abortion issue. I think there is also some degree of interfamily politics between Mr. Schiavo and Mr. and Mrs Schindler. And it kind of turns my stomach that Mrs. Schiavo, aware or not, may die in furtherance of personal agendas that have nothing to do with her health or safety. Of course, I’m speculating. I don’t know what Mr. Schiavo, or the Schindler’s unspoken agendas are, if anything, but I do know politics when I see it, and there is way too much of it surrounding what, in my opinion, should be a private family matter.

I don’t know if the court has overstepped its bounds, but if it has not, then I believe we should reassess the courts bounds. I think it is a reasonable judgment to nullify Mr. Schiavo’s marriage. I even think that given strong evidence of Mrs. Schiavo lack of higher cortical functions, I would believe that absolving the state, the hospice, the family etc of any potential liability in Mrs. Schaivo’s death may also be acceptable. That way her husband could go his own way free from whatever obligation he may or may not have felt for his invalid wife. And those who wish could take care of Mrs Schiavo or, if they see fit, allow her to die. But I do not believe that the state has any right to interfere in the way they have done or basis to even form an opinion, not without solid legal pronouncements from Mrs. Schiavo. Mrs. Schiavo’s life or death should remain a family matter, and the court should have made that clear.

Quote:
Originally posted by xenocide:
My standpoint is based in what I believe that government, maximally, should be; the enforcer of contracts. It seems to me that you and Connor believe that government should have another role. Am I correct in assuming this?

I don’t believe so, but I can’t speak for Connor. What contract do you believe is being enforced by the government?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2005 6:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ultrasound (not applicable here) has resolution of about 7.5mm. CT has a resolution of about 1mm (though high resolution CT has a better resolution). MRI has sub-mm resolution.

However, MRI is not needed to see her gross loss of brain matter. (one scan available at the following link) http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/18/terri-schiavo-news/

Ah, an image of what may or may not be a CT scan of Mrs. Schiavo’s brain on an internet blog site written by someone who is not a doctor?

As someone who is acquainted with the physics of CT, NMR, ESR and PET and having worked on both CT, NMR/MRI and ESR signatures/RIs I am aware of the shortcomings of the CT compared to either the MRI or the PET imagery. (ESR scanners only collect data in the paramagnetic sources. I’ve never heard it being used for medical imagery.) I’m not a neurologist, so I don’t know what neurologists think when they see a CT scan. There are plenty of distinctions between CT and MRI, though. Resolution, which is dependent on more then just spatial quantities, is just one. There is also the attenuation of X-rays, which is poor in the human body; as such CT scans tend to produce good contrast and resolution only between very dense material, such as bone, and softer tissue. I question its ability to resolve the subtle distinctions between fluids and brain tissue, an NMR is better suited for that. MRI, which is not depended on the attenuation of X-rays, is able to produce very clear distinction between different types of soft tissue that all appear quite the same in CT. So when I read that neurologists question why Mrs. Schiavo was not given an MRI, I tend to consider that rather strange myself, considering that a distinction between a fluid and brain tissue is one of the principle pieces of evidence that I have heard in support of Mrs. Schiavo’s diagnosis.

But the issue of the imagery may be moot, because I don’t believe the CT scans were ever of use in the diagnoses. To my understanding, PVS is something that is generally diagnosed symptomatically, not with the use of scans. Not surprisingly, PVS is often misdiagnosed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2005 10:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Ah, an image of what may or may not be a CT scan of Mrs. Schiavo’s brain on an internet blog site written by someone who is not a doctor?

Finn, follow the links. This is where the souce came from:
http://www.miami.edu/

Which the specific page is here:
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/Schiavo_links.htm

Somehow, I'll trust an University over you. Some guy posting on the net who always seems to be familiar with everything that is being discussed.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 12:12 AM

SOUPCATCHER

The two questions are: Is Terri in a non-recoverable state and, if so, did she decide that she wouldn't want to live in that condition? I totally understand the point of view of the parents who are willing to spend the rest of their lives taking care of their daughter. It's heartbreaking and so human. I think all good parents would make any sacrifice to take care of their children, no matter what. But is that what she would've wanted? Are they, with the best of intentions based on their love for their daughter, going against her wishes? Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to follow the wishes of someone you love when you disagree with their decision, especially if their decision is to die and you want them to live. And there's the problem. She didn't leave a written decision. So it came down to the courts.

I was trying to find the actual court documents in this case. FindLaw has a page, but they only go back to 2003 (unless I'm missing something):
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo/index.html

The most complete grouping I've found so far for primary source documents is from the same website you reference, SigmaNunki. The index to the documents is chronological:
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm

I'm slowly working my way through the mass of paperwork and I've come to one conclusion: most of the reporters writing stories on this topic haven't read the legal documents.

I read the February 11, 2000 Trial Court Ruling ( http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/021100-Trial%20Ct%20Order%200200.
pdf )and a couple of things jumped out. The judge acknowledges the conflict of interest of Michael Schiavo in regards to his testimony. My interpretation is that, if Michael Schiavo is the only person testifying as to Terri's wishes to not live on life support, that wouldn't have been enough for the judge. The two additional witnesses (brother and sister-in-law of Michael) are what convinced the judge. Here's the relevent quote,

Quote:
Starting with the last sentence of page 5
The court has reviewed the testimony of Scott Schiavo and Joan Schiavo and finds nothing contained therein to be unreliable. The court notes that neither of these witnesses appeared to have shaded his or her testimony or even attempt to exclude unfavorable comments or points regarding those discussions. They were not impeached on cross-examination. Argument is made as to why they waited so long to step forward but their explanations are worthy of belief.

So the judge was convinced that Terri would not have wanted to live if there was no hope of recovery.

Now as to the question of whether or not there is hope of recovery. Going back to the same document:

Quote:
Starting with the first full paragraph on page 6
Turning to the medical issues of the case, the court finds beyond all doubt that Theresa Marie Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state or the same is defined by Florida Statues Section 765.101 (12) per the specific testimony of Dr. James Barnhill and corroborated by Dr. Vincent Gambone. The medical evidence before this court conclusively establishes that she has no hope of ever regaining consciousness and therefore capacity, and that without the feeding tube she will die in seven to fourteen days. The unrebutted medical testimony before this court is that such death would be painless. The film offered into evidence by Respondents does nothing to change these medical opinions which are supported by the CAT scans in evidence. Mrs. Schindler has testified as her perceptions regarding her daughter and the court is not unmindful that perceptions may become reality to the person having them. But the overwhelming credible evidence is that Terri Schiavo has been totally unresponsive since lapsing into the coma almost ten years ago, that her movements are reflexive and predicated on brain stem activity alone, that she suffers from severe structural brain damage and to a large extent her brain has been replaced by spinal fluid, that with the exception of one witness who the court finds to be so biased as to lack credibility, her movements are occasional and totally consistent with the testimony of the expert medical witnesses. The testimony of Dr. Barnhill establishes that Terri Schiavo's reflex actions such as breathing and movement shows merely that her brain stem and spinal cord are intact.

* Any misspellings are probably my own as I was typing from a print-out.

I haven't seen all the evidence the judge did and I haven't heard the arguments presented by attorneys for both parties, nor have I heard all the testimony. I'll trust in the judgement of the people who are paid to do this for a living. I hope that Terri's parents can one day accept that she did not want to continue living in the state she is in now. I hope that one day they can find peace.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 5:10 AM

FIREFLOOZYSUZIE

Connor, as sympathetic as I am toward Ms. Shiavo's parents...I see what they're doing as completely wrongheaded. While I can understand that they've now built their entire life around "saving" Terri, the proponderance of evidence, from doctors who actually examine her, is that Terri is gone.

Frankly, I do not comprehend how people think there is something positive in holding out hope that Terri might be "minimally conscious." To my mind, the notion that Terri might even be slightly conscious of what has happened to her, what continues to pass for existence, fills me with horror for her. I pray that Terri is NOT aware of what her life has become, and that if she has a soul it is elsewhere and at peace.

Allowing Terri to go is not murder. It's mercy. And I speak as somehow who has been there, as someone who had to decide how to let my young son die. You trivialize what many families know is an agonizing situation. And you know what? Mindlessly parroting the folk who demonizing Michael Shiavo when you've never had to live with his choices? That just makes you a mean, judgemental person in my book. So I wish you'd stop posing this as "concern" for Terri, because your hateful rhetoric belies any real compassion for what this family is enduring.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 5:39 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

I have a bad feeling that the coda to this whole sad incident will occur when some ardent right-to-life supporter kills either Michael Schiavo or one of the judges who has turned down Terri's parents' requests to continue feeding her. It seems as inevitable as a Greek tragedy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2005 7:55 AM