I don't know what the 'right' answer is in this case, I do know that I, at least, have a living will and have made it clear to all members of my family (both genetic and married into) what my wishes are.

Good for the Supreme Court to stay out of it.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20050318/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman&sid=84439559

The right answer is simple. She was married, her husband has power of attorney over her, no court has found any insidious ulterior motive for his request.

There is no need for a living will. This is just the right wing flexing their moral muscle.

Absolutely agree with Aidon.

The right answer is to let her starve to death over a period of upto 2 weeks?

No, the right answer would be to give her something so she could painlessly die...but the right wing would absolutely not stand for that.

I know that forcefully keeping the poor lady alive, while she's trapped within her own body, is cruel and unusual punishment we wouldn't inflict on our worst criminals.

The right answer is to let her starve to death over a period of upto 2 weeks?Is it a better answer to let her "live" in a vegetative state for another 15 years? If she didn't trust her husband to make her wishes known and abide by them then she should have divorced him 20 years ago. Marriage isn't just about making babies...

No, the right answer would be to give her something so she could painlessly die...but the right wing would absolutely not stand for that.

Yup. Ashcroft and his successors have gone after Oregon's law repeatedly. I'm hoping that the latest round doesn't get hammered by the Supreme Court.

http://www.deathwithdignity.org/press/releases.asp for more info

Unfortunately, even the death with dignity law wouldn't help this woman as you have to be fully mentally functional to use the law.

I don't think keeping someone alive who has zero quality of life for as long as they're body will continue burning calories and excreting waste is all that noble. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be kept in limbo like that. Let me die if you can't make me live. And for the love of all, don't let the politicians or religious zealots make that decision for me. History has not shown either of those groups to be terribly good at making decisions about who should live and who should die.

Pull the plug.

Let her go with some dignity.

If any of her organs are even working properly, let them go to someone who needs them.

There's just as difficult a case in the UK at the moment, with a brain damaged young girl (less than one year I think) who will not even develop her body fully if left alive. Her parents are fighting to keep her alive, suggesting she can recover, whilst the doctors see no hope and want to stop providing her artificial breathing. Legal judgements are coming thick and fast for that case, the child simply won't live through years of legal wrangling.

With the UK having state provided medical care, keeping a terminally ill child alive actually takes beds, doctors, and specialist equipment from other needy children. I'm assuming in the US an insurance company would foot the bill and is obliged to provide care for as long as necessary. The resources shouldn't really come into these ethical arguments, but it does translate into other needy people not receiving the care they need.

The right answer is simple. She was married, her husband has power of attorney over her, no court has found any insidious ulterior motive for his request.

There is no need for a living will. This is just the right wing flexing their moral muscle.

Both sides accused each other of being motivated by greed over a $1 million medical malpractice award from doctors who failed to diagnose the chemical imbalance.

The Schindlers also said that Michael Schiavo wants their daughter dead so he can marry his longtime girlfriend, with whom he has young children. They have begged him to divorce their daughter, and let them care for her.

Money is almost ALWAYS a motivating factor. My question is, who's picking up the tab? Who's paying her bills? Is it her parents or the husband. I would think it is the husband and if so, then should he get the 1 Million to help pay the medical expenses? Of course, if he says he doesn't care about the money, then why doesn't he just divorce her and marry his long-time girlfriend with whom he has been having an adulterous relationship with?

This is before
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-11-13/fishwrapper-1.jpg

This is now
http://www.nrc.nl/images/scholierenschiavo2.jpg

This is insane
http://www.cogforlife.org/terri.JPG

Personally I wouldn't want to stay alive like this, and I don't know anyone who would which is saying alot. To the schindlers defense though, if they're willing to take care of her then they should be allowed to. Their is always a chance she could return to "normal" whatever that would be considered.

There are videos of Terry laughing, and smiling when her parents are around. She also has no voice so how do we not know that she is already trying to tell us something.

To me this whole subject has gone from a moral family debate to a political feud. If they really let her die, then why in such a barbaric manner as to starve her? How many people would call it humane to kill someone who has done nothing wrong, but her only flaw is that she's not normal like us. Many people have mentally handicapped children who are no better off and if their parents didn't feed them then they would need a feeding tube just like Terry Shiavo.

Now would you kill a mentally handicapped child? Would you dissect their every last working organ to give it to someone who also may not survive? Would you starve a family pet that has rabies because you cant bring yourself to shoot it but don't want to feed it? Would you?

Kalest MoonGlade

...She also has no voice so how do we not know that she is already trying to tell us something....


S
O
S

K
I
L
L

M
E

S
0
S

She should have learned Morse Code like Joe Bonham.

Most Common Questions and Answers from http://www.terrisfight.org/

If Terri hasn't recovered after all these years of therapy, why not let go?

Terri hasn't had meaningful therapy since 1991, but many credible physicians say she can benefit from it.

Why can't Terri just divorce?

Terri's husband/guardian speaks for her. She cannot divorce without his permission

Does Terri have an advanced directive or any wishes about her healthcare?

Terri never signed any directive or living will and there is no evidence that she foresaw her present situation.

Why do Terri's family fight to keep her alive? Shouldn't they let her husband decide?

Terri's husband has started another family and probably has gone on with his life. Terri's family want to provide her therapy and a safe home.

Is Terri receiving life support?

Not in the traditional sense. Terri only receives food and fluids via a simple tube.

Isn't removing her tube a natural and dignified way to die?

No. Dehydration and starvation cause horrific effects and are anything but peaceful. Read more here.


Most common misconceptions about Terri's situation

MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

MYTH: Terri does not need rehabilitation
FACT: Florida Statute 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated:

(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.

This is a retained right that a guardian cannot take away. Additionally, it does not make exception for PVS patients. Terri has illegally been denied rehabilitation - as many nurses have sworn in affidavits.

MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri's feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri's husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular food and water:

Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.

Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.

MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a “houseplant” and has used Terri’s case on national television to promote his newly published book.

MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the inheritance to charity.
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo’s conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terri’s medical fund upon her death. This one and only offer stated “if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days, it shall automatically be withdrawn”. Naturally, Terri’s parents immediately rejected the offer.

MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:
Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)
NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50

Atty Gwyneth Stanley
Atty Deborah Bushnell
Atty Steve Nilson
Atty Pacarek
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL)
Atty George Felos
$10,668.05
$65,607.00
$7,404.95
$1,500.00
$4,511.95
$397,249.99

Other

1st Union/South Trust Bank
$55,459.85

Michael Schiavo
$10,929.95

Total $545,852.34

She should have learned Morse Code like Joe Bonham.

Terri's novel is an anti-anti-life story, one that speaks to the importance of life itself, and man's capacity to love and fight for other's that they don't even know, have never seen, and never will.

Footnote: of great interest is the fact that Michael Schiavo had his attorney sue the Schindlers (Terri's family) to prevent them from showing videos on the Internet that prove that she responds to stimuli!

Thanks for the good read.

Kalest.

Terrisfight.org looks like the parents website. Hardly unbiased in any regard.



The responding to stimuli thing from HyScience?

...Most reflexes occur(originate from) in the spinal column anyway.

Those that don't can be attributed to the brain stem and mid brain.

Most, if not all, of the higher functions are from the cerebral cortex.

I remember this case from a while back, maybe it was the first time they tried to let her die, I'm not sure. Anyways, from that point on, I made sure my mom, my ex, my friends, the grocery clerk who rings my milk up...anyone and everyone knew that I do NOT want to be plugged into machines.

It seems that having her husband know was not enough. Heck, she might even have let her parents know and they just decided to be selfish. Whatever the case, I want a huge group of people to be able to stand up and say "yep, we remember that crazy lady telling us all about her wishes." No questions, problems, no court cases and no plugs.

This just makes me think of Metallica's "One". *shudder*

Terrisfight.org looks like the parents website. Hardly unbiased in any regard.
The "about us" page states: "The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation is a group of volunteers who are dedicated to protecting the life and liberty of a disabled woman.
Along with Terri's immediate family, the Foundation works to make the truth about Terri's case known in order to protect her and others like her."

Well OF COURSE her parents are biased (in favor) of saving her life! But this in no way proves that the information on the website is inaccurate. Let the website (and the information contained therein) stand on it's own merits.

The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation is who?

I checked the site, and there is no mention of who they are.

Anyone can set up a foundation.

It could be her parents, their lawyers, a bunch of Christian Right to Life whackos, their lawyers, Anti-Abortionists, and their lawyers for all I know.

Who are they? And where do they get their money?


It still is biased content. As would the husband's site, if he has one.

Half the content is "Let's make Michael Schiavo into a monster".

Schindler-Schiavo is not even her name. Kinda one sided, wouldn't you say?

Foundation Credibility (http://www.tampabaylive.com/stories/2005/02/050209schiavo.shtml)
The Schindlers' Web site -- www.terrisfight.org -- said that the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation and the Life Legal Defense Foundation are authorized to raise money for the family. The Life Legal Defense Foundation is a California-based anti-abortion group.


What do you get when you cross a female seagull and a male bovine?


[edit: I called it]

It's another case of religious zealots preventing the rest of society from taking the only reasonable and compassionate action in this tragic situation. The woman should be allowed to die quickly and peacefully with an injection, not starve to death, or be kept in a vegetative state.

The lesson for the future: make an advance directive clearly documenting your wishes in that situation. It can really happen at any time, no matter what your age.

Pull the plug.

Let her go with some dignity.

If any of her organs are even working properly, let them go to someone who needs them.

Starving her to death is hardly dying "with some dignity."

In case you didn't know, on Oct 2, 2002 - Mr. Schiavo petitioned the court to authorize Terri’s cremation.

Looks like he doesn't want anyone using her organs.

Looks like he doesn't want anyone using her organs.
Can't you cremate after the organ removal?

Can't you cremate after the organ removal?

I suppose you could always look on the back of her driver's license to see if she wanted her organs donated. Of course, I'm assuming the organ donor option is on the back of her driver's license.

::edit:: It's actually on the front of mine rather than the back.

Money is almost ALWAYS a motivating factor. My question is, who's picking up the tab? Who's paying her bills? Is it her parents or the husband. I would think it is the husband and if so, then should he get the 1 Million to help pay the medical expenses? Of course, if he says he doesn't care about the money, then why doesn't he just divorce her and marry his long-time girlfriend with whom he has been having an adulterous relationship with?

No court has found an ulterior motive.

The money, obviously, goes to the husband. He's her next of kin.

And he's not having an adulterous affair. Adultery is sleeping with another man's wife.

As for divorce, if he divorces her, she gets half of his resources, since she's in a persistant vegetative state...her next of kin would have control over that money, thus her parents...

And he's not having an adulterous affair. Adultery is sleeping with another man's wife.

Yes he is. Adultery is sleeping together when either of you are married to someone else.

In case you didn't know, on Oct 2, 2002 - Mr. Schiavo petitioned the court to authorize Terri’s cremation.

Looks like he doesn't want anyone using her organs.Many organ donors have been cremated after the organs are removed... even after full autopsies are preformed.

Yes he is. Adultery is sleeping together when either of you are married to someone else.

No. The technical definition of Adultery is sleeping with another man's wife.

Think about it. We have a commandment regarding adultery that predates monogamous marriage...

In the same series of books which makes adultery a sin, it lists the steps that must be taken if you sleep with a woman before you marry her (which is not a sin, as per se. You just have certain responsibilities).

Sleeping with another woman, while married, in a society which permitted you to marry as many women as you want, obviously wasn't a major issue. Unless that woman was already a wife of someone else....

Regarding Truid's site of supposed evil intentions by the husband...

A Court of Law, with multiple reviews, has determined the situation.

Oh, and btw, there is no such thing as an independant medical examine. the IME's were hired and paid for by the parents.

Secondly, the million dollars can, ultimately, be used in any manner the husband wishes. That's part of the "sanctity of marriage" these same religious right are soooo worried about gays destroying. If you marry a person..legally speaking, it is as if the two parties were their own entity. Everything they own..belongs to both. They have power of attorney over each other.

The more I read about it, the more I'm convinced the parents are greedy bastards. They wanted a piece of the pie...so they fight to keep her alive until her husband gets tired of it, divorces her, and they can get the million dollars, and half of everything the husband has (as well as alimony while the girl is alive). They are willing to keep their daughter a prisoner in her own body just so they can take a new cruise or two.

No. The technical definition of Adultery is sleeping with another man's wife.

Think about it. We have a commandment regarding adultery that predates monogamous marriage...

I didn't think about it. I looked it up in the dictionary instead, which means he is an adulterer. Look it up in your dictionary instead of your bible ;).

Sexual equality applies to sin just as much as it applies to virtue.

Congress announces deal in Schiavo Case (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=596988)

Okay, is it an election year and I just missed it?! We really have nothing better to discuss in Congress than this? I mean, seriously...I keep waiting for the punch line.

Gotta love how well our tax dollars are managed. How much do you think we'll be paying for this overtime?

Congress announces deal in Schiavo Case (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=596988)Better question: WTF is Congress doing sticking their nose into a private affair?

WTF is Congress doing sticking their nose into a private affair?

That was pretty much what I was aiming at with the title of this thread.

I don't want my medical care to be determined by congress. Hell, they can't figure out that debt = (money out > money in). These are not people I trust to determine anything having to do with medicine, Particularly given how many of them are in the pockets of the big pharmaceutical companies.

I didn't think about it. I looked it up in the dictionary instead, which means he is an adulterer. Look it up in your dictionary instead of your bible ;).

Sexual equality applies to sin just as much as it applies to virtue.

Why should I look it up in a dictionary that is focused around monogamous marriage? Strictly speaking, my religion doesn't demand it (though Judaism has followed a monogamy for millenia). Adultery is essentially a religious issue...

Besides, is really fair to force this man to go without forming a new relationship just because his parents-in-law have kept his wife's status in limbo for a decade? She's have died a peaceful death 10 years ago, letting him move on, if it weren't for them. He doesn't want to divorce her. He loves her. The same as any widower would still love his first wife...despite getting remarried later.

And sexual equality just means that its only adultery for a wife to sleep with a married man.

Congress announces deal in Schiavo Case (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=596988)

Okay, is it an election year and I just missed it?! We really have nothing better to discuss in Congress than this? I mean, seriously...I keep waiting for the punch line.

Gotta love how well our tax dollars are managed. How much do you think we'll be paying for this overtime?

I rather suspect that the first thing a Federal Judge will do is throw the case out as a state matter. At least I hope so...preferably with a scathing commentary on Congress abusing its powers.

Adultery is essentially a religious issue...

I'd argue it was a moral issue. One doesn't have to believe in a higher power to believe in monogamy (or not, if one is so inclined)

Why should I look it up in a dictionary that is focused around monogamous marriage? Strictly speaking, my religion doesn't demand it (though Judaism has followed a monogamy for millenia). Adultery is essentially a religious issue...

Besides, is really fair to force this man to go without forming a new relationship just because his parents-in-law have kept his wife's status in limbo for a decade? She's have died a peaceful death 10 years ago, letting him move on, if it weren't for them. He doesn't want to divorce her. He loves her. The same as any widower would still love his first wife...despite getting remarried later.

And sexual equality just means that its only adultery for a wife to sleep with a married man.

Adultery is a legal term. It may have begun as a religious one but it has crossed into the boundaries of the Law. You are arguing for legal precedence in this case in regards to marriage and power of attorney while at the same time arguing against legal precedence for Adultery. You can't have it both ways. Either the case is legal or it's religious, if it is religous then your religious beliefs have no baring on it and only the religious beliefs of the participants do. Not knowing (or caring about) the religious backgrounds of the couple I don't know if religiously he is committing Adultery - he is however legally doing so.

Legal definition of Adultery
n. consensual sexual relations when one of the participants is legally married to another.

The legal definition doesn't discriminate between the sexes.

In terms of what you are actually arguing (in which the religious and legal definitions of Adultery have no baring) I agree, the man has the right to move on with his life. The woman he married has been dead since her brain seziure, he has mourned her and he has attempted to go forward, but the courts are blocking his ability to truely continue with life. He is continueing to prove his commitment for his first wife by fighting for her rights in the only way he can; and to do so he must remain married to her.

Some people still hold religious beliefs against divorce and this man may want to remarry as a widower and not a divorcee. To my great surprise, there is still a "controversy" that Prince Charles as going to marry a divorced woman, with people even going so far as to write objections to the registar asking him to prevent the marraige.

As to politicians interfering with private lives, well, once Americans stop voting for politicans on moral grounds then the politicians won't have the right to interfere with your morality. Stem cell research, gay marraige, and abortion are very similar moral topics where voters will endorse their politicians to affect people's private lives.

Legal definition of Adultery
n. consensual sexual relations when one of the participants is legally married to another.

The legal definition doesn't discriminate between the sexes.

..but maybe we discovered one of his non-negotiable issues for marriage that he mentioned earlier: "No, babe, it isn't cheating if the girl I sleep with isn't married" :thumbsup:

*teases aidon"

Better question: WTF is Congress doing sticking their nose into a private affair?

Doing one of the things in congress'es power, and that's protecting the rights of individual citizens. All laws may not seem like they protect us, but they do a better job then leftist lawyers and judges who would have us model are government after the USSR.

Kalest.

No, they aren't protecting the rights of individual citizens...they are removing those rights. And congress does not have the power to disrupt what is ultimately a private and state issue. At such a rate we will need Federal permission to marry, have kids, and die.

As for modelling out government after the USSR...socially speaking, the Conservatives are far more of a danger of that than the Liberals. Or are you just one of those conservatives who go on about "those damn pink commie bastards" without knowing just what was bad about those "damn pink commie bastards"?

House GOP fails to pass Schiavo Law (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=598084)
"...congressional Republicans denied that political motivations were behind legislative efforts."

I can' believe they actually said this, let alone let it be printed...not political?! What am I, stupid? Please....


Score one for the smart people! :thumbsup:

Doing one of the things in congress'es power, and that's protecting the rights of individual citizens.Whose rights? The patient? The parents? The husband?

They're just taking sides in a personal affair, fueled by their religious zealotry.

That was rhetorical, right, Tudamorf?

If respect for human life makes one a religious zealot. You can count me in too. Try to seperate your anti-religious bigotry from matters of humanity.

Well, it is the parents who are the ones making this a religious mockery.

If a bunch of anti-abortion whacko hypochristians want to make a test case out of this, then they should be prepared to be discussed/ridiculed because of their actions. To further their own anti-abortion cause...

Then their religious practices, what they stand for is debatable.

The definition of what is human and not human, humane or not humane is clearly debatable in this case.

Opinions definately differ.

If sitting in your own feces, without a functioning brain, without the basic reflexes required to keep you from breathing in your own food into your lungs, year after year is your definition of humanity, that it qualifies you as living a human life; have at it.

To deny that the only reason that you have even heard about this case is because a bunch of whackos want to outlaw abortion is silly. There are tens of thousands of people on ngtube and gtubes, it is no biggy-no big story. No Congressional hearings when these people continue to live or are allowed to die, hundreds die each day(I have met a few) and there is no national discussion over their humanity. From you, I, anti-abortionist, governors, congressmen, or the president.

humanity?

I would consider it humane to put a person incapable of communication, movement, or thought out of their misery.

We wouldn't inflict the state she's in on our worst criminals. Its cruel and unusual punishment.

Further, its not the Government's business. Especially not the Federal Government's business. It is the religious right's zealotry pushing this breech of our Constitution through through.

I'll say it again, on our current course, we'll need Federal permission to marry (gays need not apply), have children, to not have a child, and to die.

Congress has so far overstepped its bounds its absolutely mind-boggling. I can only pray that the Federal Courts tell them so.

What most ridiculous about all this is that Congress is willing to enact special sessions for this, but heaven forbid the dirty ******s stay in session through their precious Easter Break to un**** our budget...

Oh? and anyone who apposes abortion is a religions zealot too? Because no one who isn't religious would value life of the unborn or those who cann't speak for itself? This is the slippery slope. First we say it's ok to let a human die because they are unborn or incapacitated. Living a life we don't feel is valid. Next it's because they are black, jewish or, hyper christians. I wish sometimes you people could just step back and listen to yourselves.

What people keep overlooking/forgetting is that Terri's husband has stated, several times, that before Terri's medical situation occurred, she said she would never want to be like this. And yet, her parents, out of their fear of losing their daughter, are only postponing the inevitable...the loss of their daughter. They are not thinking about Terri's right to live...they are thinking of their own 'right' to not lose their daughter.

I completely agree with Aidon and Tudamorf. This is not humane. This is asinine. This is nothing more than selfishness and political bandwagonning.

If respect for human life makes one a religious zealot. You can count me in too.Don't make me laugh. The politicians/religious zealots pushing this couldn't care less about the patient and have zero respect for her life or well-being. They are just using her as a pawn, seeing how far they can push their religious agenda.

Although the state court has already decided this matter, Congress now wants a "do over" at the federal court level because they don't like the state court result. There is no other logical reason for doing so; they are just hoping the federal judge will be more conservative (religious). I bet that if the federal judge decides similarly, they will want another "do over" by appealing to the Supreme Court. The motives here are utterly transparent, and they have little to do with respect.

In this, I agree with Aidon.

It isn't the job of the government to be messing in this. It is, however, great for political points and so we see the real reason they are doing it.

Likewise, they aren't being paide to fiddle with baseball, either. They are successfully avoiding what they should be doing, however.

This has been in, I think I heard this morning, 21 different court rooms. Each of the courts had their own independent doctors to advise them, they don't work for either side, they report to the court. Each court found for the husband every time.

This is nuts. I hope the US Supreme Court slaps the legislature around a little.

Has Jeb or George even gone to SEE Terri? No. Has any of the legislature? I rather doubt it.

And the next time I hear another christian conservative say, "We just want to be left alone to practice our faith", I will point to this and say, "Then leave the rest of us the hell alone!"

crap like this makes me understand the Christian Scientists view that if God's come to get me, let man leave me alone.

I simply can't imagine spending 15 years of my life watching Iagoe in that state, and, because of his parents and the meddling of the government, not be able to either grieve for him or move on. 15 YEARS.

To the best of my knowledge, everyone in my family has a living will. My sister in law is my decision maker (she's an MD, who better to understand what's going on?). She, and my whole family, have explicit directions to "not put me through anything I wouldn't put my dog through".

I wouldn't put my dog through that, not only for the dog's sake, but for my own. Sometimes you have to let go to be able to move forward in life.

I definitely don't want freakin' congress deciding my end of life care. It's one of the reasons so many Oregonians are so pissed off at the Fed. Attorney General's repeated attacks on Oregon's Death with Dignity Law.

Curious observation....
Those who are in favor of removing her feeding tube are generally against the death penalty.
Those who are in favor of keeping her on "life support" are generally in favor of the death penalty.

LOL! Good observation, Stormhaven.

Well, life sort of has its own built in death penalty. I'm against that death penalty too... but not much I can do about it. I think the issue for me is that individuals should be able to decide for themselves, within reasonable limitations, when the end is at hand. If they can't do it themselves, their spouse should be able to decide.

That reminds me, I really need to get a living will done.

Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler claim she is responsive to them and has a chance at recovery. The experts do not agree but believe this is a common misconception that the loved ones of people in this condition often have.

'To the families and loved ones, and to inexperienced health care professionals, PVS patients often look fairly 'normal,''' Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and bioethicist at the University of Minnesota Medical School said in a statement.

'Their eyes are open and moving about during the periods of wakefulness that alternate with periods of sleep; there may be spontaneous movements of the arms and legs, and at times these patients appear to smile, grimace, laugh, utter guttural sounds, groan and moan, and manifest other facial expressions and sounds that appear to reflect cognitive functions and emotions, especially in the eyes of the family.'

Dr. Cranford continued, 'Sadly, these actions often appear meaningful to hopeful families but are all automatic reflexes -- not movements with a purpose. There are no confirmed reports of anyone fully recovering from a permanent vegetative state lasting more than three months.'

The part of the brain where the personality is held, known as the cerebral cortex, has been destroyed by lack of oxygen. Dr. Lawrence Schneiderman of the University of California at San Diego posted the following at www.seeingthedifference.berkeley.edu/schneiderman.html: 'Four to six minutes of anoxia, lack of oxygen, destroys that completely. The rest of your brain, particularly the brain stem, can survive for fifteen or twenty minutes without oxygen. What happens is that that part of the brain, the cerebral cortex, which is us, our personality, who we are, how we think -- our capacity to experience, see, hear, think, emote -- that may be permanently destroyed.'

Experts say it appears that there is no hope of Terri Schiavo returning to a normal life. The question is, what were her true wishes and who should determine whether she should be kept alive indefinitely in a permanent vegetative state.

I think the issue here is that the people who believe in miracles and magic think something might happen. I don't know... makes me uncomfortable that so much of our government is not well grounded in reality.

Curious observation....
Those who are in favor of removing her feeding tube are generally against the death penalty.
Those who are in favor of keeping her on "life support" are generally in favor of the death penalty.

Not in my case. I am all for the death penalty. I think they should let her die but I also think that I would rather them give her a lethal injection instead of just removing the feeding tube and letting her starve to death.

Thanks Pan for that post.

I think I said most of that back on page 2 or something. But it is good to have more authoritative confirmation.


I do have a question though, there must have been extensive damage done if her swallow and gag reflex were damaged.

If not, then why the tube other than convenience for healthcare providers. What I mean is that if her reflexes are intact(I have been assuming they are gone), then her parents should be able to take her home and be able to feed her with a spoon and straw.

Swallowing
Gagging
Sucking
Sneezing
Hiccuping(physiologists don't really know why we have this reflex)
Coughing
are all reflexes from the midbrain(thalamus and hypothalamus) and one can have her entire cerebrum removed and these should all still be intact.
Breathing reflex is just lower than these, she is breathing so we know this is intact.

Additionally, pain centers are in the higher brain(the part damaged in the patient), there has been concern about "starving her to death"; in all likelyhood she does not feel any pain, atm. And there would be no ethical issue with administration with pain meds after removing the feeding tube; it would be unethical to NOT give her pain meds in all actuality.

I think my overall question here is, if she is as 'alive' as her parents say she is, why don't they take her home. I have a friend whose son is far worse than she is, and she takes care of him at home(with a tube directly into his stomach) and has for 4 years(he has no gag reflex).

I have not read deep enough it seems, I assumed that she was in a hospital setting. Where is she?

Curious observation....
Those who are in favor of removing her feeding tube are generally against the death penalty.
Those who are in favor of keeping her on "life support" are generally in favor of the death penalty.Hm... Did I miss that poll? I disagree with your statement, and know for a fact that it's inaccurate for me.

I think my overall question here is, if she is as 'alive' as her parents say she is, why don't they take her home. I have a friend whose son is far worse than she is, and she takes care of him at home(with a tube directly into his stomach) and has for 4 years(he has no gag reflex).

I have not read deep enough it seems, I assumed that she was in a hospital setting. Where is she?

Her parents WANT to take the responsibility of caring for her. The problem is the husband WANTS her DEAD! All he would have to do is divorce her and give legal guardianship to her parents so they can be responsible for her well-being. Also, if her parents are telling the truth (that they are not motivated by money) and if he divorced her, the courts ( I assume) could include in the divorce decree something that would prevent the parents from collecting any money from him.

I personally have no idea whether or not she can recover. She is currently in a Hospice facility (I don't know the name off hand). But if the parents want to take on that responsibility and expense, then I say let them. Also, it would get Michael off the hook so he could marry his "fiancee" and go on with his life with his new family. I know you think the Terri's Fight website is biased, but that doesn't mean that the information is false. Just look at their website to (at the very least) get their point of view before giving Terri the death penalty. http://www.terrisfight.net/

Very knowledgeable and intelligent people are coming to different conclusions about this issue. I don't think there is any one right answer. I've read that she's never been allowed to have rehabilitation by her husband, and such rehabilitation would have allowed Terri to swallow again, among other things. It really makes me wonder about his motives. Why won't he divorce and move on, and let her parents care for her?

While there have been 19 decisions or reviews of this case, I'd rather err in favor of her life in allowing another independent review, than err in letting her die when there are still some issues or questions. While I question the constitutionality of the process, I am not sorry that there will be a federal court review of this case. And I say this being one that believes that such issues are better left to the families and the states. It just shows how unsettling this particular case is, and the equally justifiable yet contrary positions it poses.

If it were me, I'd want to be allowed to die. This whole situation is horrendous, and has been caused because of the differences between her parents and her husband. I'd guess in most of the other cases that we've never heard of, all agreed, one way or another.

The thing that I abhor the most, however, is that her death will be by dehydration and starving. Such a cruel way to die when more humane means are available. :(

I am relatively sure that you can not 'rehabilitate' reflexes. The swallowing reflex included.
The thing that I abhor the most, however, is that her death will be by dehydration and starving. Such a cruel way to die when more humane means are available.
Well ya, if it were you or I one can empathize. But she is not like you or I. She won't feel it. I really can't attribute cruelty to something someone can't feel.

The thing that I abhor the most, however, is that her death will be by dehydration and starving. Such a cruel way to die when more humane means are available

You are forgetting that a person in a persistant vegetative state doesn't suffer pain or discomfort like you or I would. They pull the feeding tubes on people in this condition all the time. Hospices are familiar with it, it probably happens many times a day. This one just got to be a big media political tele-drama.

Personally I would prefer if it were done in a quicker manner. It'd be more peaceful and less stressful to the family. To the patient... it doesn't matter.

Her parents WANT to take the responsibility of caring for her. The problem is the husband WANTS her DEAD! All he would have to do is divorce her and give legal guardianship to her parents so they can be responsible for her well-being. Also, if her parents are telling the truth (that they are not motivated by money) and if he divorced her, the courts ( I assume) could include in the divorce decree something that would prevent the parents from collecting any money from him.

Maybe he doesn't want to divorce his wife? Maybe he loves his wife and wants to do see her wishes carried out? Maybe he refuses to divest himself of the woman he loved enough to marry and consign her to a life as a vegetable, prisoner to her family and her own body?

There are good reasons why he may not want to divorce her and give legal guardianship to the parents.

By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express (http://www.inclusiondaily.com/archives/04/10/21/102304flschiavomichael.htm)
Why, Michael? Twelve Questions For Michael Schiavo
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
October 23, 2004

A couple of weeks ago, CNN's Larry King asked Robert and Mary Schindler what they thought Michael Schiavo's reasons are for wanting Terri to die.

They both answered that they didn't know.

After eleven years of battling their son-in-law, they still don't know.

Of course, none of us can know what goes on in another person's mind.

Their actions, however, can give us a glimpse into their thinking.

In television clips I have seen of Michael, he comes across as arrogant, brash, and intimidating. Michael makes it easy to dislike him.

But just because I don't like someone doesn't mean he's not telling the truth.

At the same time, it's been hard for me to judge Michael's thoughts because I have never been in his place. In fact, I can not imagine being in his place.

Since 1997, Michael has consistently said that he wants Terri's feeding tube removed because it is what she would have wanted -- that he is honoring her wishes because he loves her very much. He testified that Terri mentioned on several occasions that she would not want to live "by artificial means". As witnesses, he presented his brother and sister-in-law who verified his testimony.

I would not hesitate to take Mr. Schiavo at his word, if it weren't for other things he has said and done that cause me to doubt his sincerity. So, for me to get a better understanding of what he's been thinking, I'd like to ask him a few questions:

1. Why has he refused several recommendations for Terri's continued therapies?

In April of 1991, about a year after her collapse, therapists at Bradenton Mediplex Rehabilitation Center determined that Terri's condition was improving and recommended Michael have her transferred to Gainesville Rehabilitation Center to receive advanced therapy so she could continue her recovery.

But by July, Michael had instead moved her to Sable Palms Nursing Home, with no such therapy.

Later, he refused to allow therapies that her parents believed might have allowed her to swallow, so she would not have to rely on a feeding tube.

2. Why did he not mention his wife's wishes during one of two malpractice cases?

In late 1992, one of Terri's doctors settled a malpractice suit out of court for $250,000. The following January, a Pinellas jury awarded about $1.4 to Terri and $600,000 to Michael in a suit filed because her gynecologist failed to ask about her medical history while treating her.

Michael had asked the jury to grant $20 million to pay for Terri's future medical and neurological requirements, based on her life expectancy, which he and his attorneys estimated at 51 years. Michael also told the court he wanted to become a nurse so he could help his wife for as long as she lived.

His attorney told the court about Terri: "She can't respond much but she can respond, and she does respond a little bit, not much. But enough to give him hope."

The following month, February 1993, Terri's parents had a 'falling out' with their son-in-law, because, they claim, he refused the therapies that professionals had recommended.

3. If Michael expected Terri to live to at least age 51, why did he order her caregivers not to treat her for a potentially life-threatening infection in August of 1993, and another in late 1995?

4. Why did he invoke a "do not resuscitate" order just a few months after the jury award?

5. Why, in 1997, did he announce his engagement to another woman, while still married to Terri?

6. Why, also in 1997, did he hire George Felos, an attorney with a reputation for fighting "right to die" cases, to represent him?

7. Why did he petition the court, also in 1997, to have Terri's feeding tube removed so she would starve and dehydrate to death.

8. Why did several nursing home workers swear that Terri's demeanor changed after he was in the room with her?

9. Why did nursing home workers swear that he at times stormed into the facility asking when "that bitch" would die?

10. Why did he have Terri, who does not have a terminal illness, moved to a hospice in 2000, even though hospices are designed for people who are expected to die within six months? According to his earlier calculations, she still had at least 15 more years left to live.

I have no reason to believe that Michael Schiavo did not love his wife. My guess is -- and this is only a guess based on his actions that have been reported -- that he did plan for his wife to live a long life, and that he even thought there was a chance she might recover some of her "old self" right after her injury.

I wonder, however, if her costly therapy became less of a priority when he saw the $20 million he projected for her long-term care and rehabilitation -- and to compensate him for his loss -- shrink to $1.4 million. I wonder, too, if the fact that he had been living without a lover for three years weighed heavily on him, along with feelings that it was time for him to "move on with his life".

I can imagine a vague comment Terri may have made about life-support suddenly taking on new meaning and new urgency: Terri would not have wanted "to live like this".

We really don't know.

But something clearly shifted in his mind. Choosing George Felos, who even in 1997 had a history of supporting "right to die" causes, was a clear and conscious choice, in my view. From that point on, Michael wanted his wife to die and was willing to spend most or all of the money from her trust fund to make that happen.

And Terri, bless her, did not die.

Finally, there are two questions that nag at me more than any others and which I cannot reconcile:

11. Why won't he allow Terri's parents and siblings to take over her guardianship?

12. Why did Michael not allow Terri, a Catholic, the holy sacraments of Communion and last rites when her feeding tube was removed last October?

I am not Catholic, but I understand these rites to be an extremely important practice in Catholicism

Michael said it was because she might choke on a communion wafer or inhale some of the wine.

In my view, nothing could be more absurd.

For one thing, priests have explained that the ceremony could have been adapted by dissolving much of the wafer before placing it on Terri's tongue and touching a cloth dabbed in wine to her lips.

For another, Michael planned on starving her to death and had believed she only had a few more days to live.

If he loves his wife as he says he does, why did he deny his wife this most important, final gesture of love?

Why, Michael? Why?
---

Curious observation....
Those who are in favor of removing her feeding tube are generally against the death penalty.
Those who are in favor of keeping her on "life support" are generally in favor of the death penalty.

That doesn't work for me, I'm all for the death penalty. The death penalty however has no meaning with the current appeals process and court backlogs.

Her parents WANT to take the responsibility of caring for her.

Well there is something about this that worries me. Do her parents want this woman to outlive them? The answer has some bad implications however you look at it. Do they really want her to be kept alive in a hospital ward after they died, with no blood relatives, a divorced husband, paid carers looking after her, and no life to return to even if she did recover?

Another question, is "what would happen if her trust fund runs out?" Would politicians allow a comatose woman to starve because she hadn't money after fighting hard to keep her alive against the husband's wishes?

Truid,

It is usually considered good board form that if you are going to post someone else's words that you use quotes to separate them from your own.

That last post is confusing as to what parts are yours and/or another writer's.

It is also considered good board form to include a link to where the original content is from.

Thank You, /smile

Well there is something about this that worries me. Do her parents want this woman to outlive them? The answer has some bad implications however you look at it. Do they really want her to be kept alive in a hospital ward after they died, with no blood relatives, a divorced husband, paid carers looking after her, and no life to return to even if she did recover?

Another question, is "what would happen if her trust fund runs out?" Would politicians allow a comatose woman to starve because she hadn't money after fighting hard to keep her alive against the husband's wishes?

I think in most normal situations a parent might say "they want their children to "outlive" them." But in this situation . . . who knows. You bring up a very good point. However, Terri does have "blood relatives" (a sister I believe) who also wants her to live. Now whether she wants to take on the responsibility of caring for her sister is unknown to me.

In the end, couldn't you make the same argument for all invalids? I mean just think of all the money we could be saving if we euthanized them all? Hell, might as well euthanize the elderly too. That'd fix our social security problem for sure! /sarcasm off. Sorry couldn't resist. :D

It's kinda funny that the greek actually means "a good death". [Greek euthanasi, a good death : eu-, eu- + thanatos, death.]

I did not read all the post but the posts before this and those at the begining of the thread.

I see what the Florida court has order as the denial of food and water for a human being. I think there are many references where removing basic sustance is best described as barbaric.

I do believe in euthenasia but this method is unacceptable. How can anyone want to see someone they love starved to death? That said, other methods such as admistering large quantites of barbituates to an understanding citizen would be acceptable.

To me, the dependancy this woman has is not unlike the depenancy that Connor Petersen would have had... That is for food and warmth.

That said, other methods such as admistering large quantites of barbituates to an understanding citizen would be acceptable.Many of us would agree. Now you just have to convince our government of that, and tell the federal government to stop interfering with states that try to implement such laws.

In the end, couldn't you make the same argument for all invalids

These decisions are made every day in every hospital/hospice/nursing home in your town or city.

You just don't hear about them. Because it is not really your business.

It is only because the Christian anti-Abortionists have made a test case out of this patient, that you have even heard of this one.

People exercise their right to die(and their family member's) today with your complete ignorance of it.

And not every patient has to have a living will(which is a very good thing to have) to still end up with DNR. Even in Catholic hospitals, DNR is usual. And DNR circumstances can be very specific if you wish. No tubes, but everything else. Nothing else, but tubes. However you want it, or your wife wants it, whoever has the power of attorney(including hospitals). However.

Sorry couldn't resist.
You should have resisted.

I do believe in euthenasia but this method is unacceptable. How can anyone want to see someone they love starved to death? That said, other methods such as admistering large quantites of barbituates to an understanding citizen would be acceptable.

I wonder how long it will take before we have "assisted death" centers in addition to our "assisted living" centers.

I wonder how long it will take before we have "assisted death" centers in addition to our "assisted living" centers.

The ones in Switzerland were getting so many overseas customers that they are thinking of limiting their services to Swiss nationals.

I wonder how long it will take before we have "assisted death" centers in addition to our "assisted living" centers.
We already do. But the christian right has caused it so that starvation is the only assistance available.

I wonder how long it will take before we have "assisted death" centers in addition to our "assisted living" centers.

http://www.dwd.org/law/

It's not a center, but it is a law. One the citizens of Oregon passed twice. One that has twice withstood the right wing federal attorney general's attempts to stop it. One that has withstood multiple attempts by various right wing organizations to have it overturned.

Personally, I hope to see it become more common throughout the other states. If I am ever in a position to need that law, I will be happy it's there for me.

It would not, however, apply to Terri Shiavo. By law, the patient has to make the decision, and there are multiple layers of bureaucracy to go through prior to being able to make use of it. Since she is incapable of speaking for herself, she could not use Oregon's DWD law.

In a different slant on this case, I find it interesting that the former Governor of Texas, the state with the highest number of inmates put to death per year, stated the following in regards to his Presidential support of Terri's Law:

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

I wonder how many innocent people in Texas were put to death as a result of "a complex case with serious issues".

By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express (http://www.inclusiondaily.com/archives/04/10/21/102304flschiavomichael.htm)

I can't verify any of Mr. Reynold's supposed facts, nor do I have interest in doing so.

You can be fairly certain, however, that they'd have been brought up in court over the course of the past decade ;)

I rather suspect one of the many relatively impartial Judges have a better understanding of the issues at hand than a very biased journalist.

He's not even a journalist, he's a disability rights and right-to-life activist.

The federal judge denied relief today. Now, the religious zealots who just wanted to put it in the hands of that judge as a compromise are supporting the parents' appeal. Shocking. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/03/22/national/a065556S08.DTLA federal judge on Tuesday refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, denying an emergency request from the brain-damaged woman's parents. The parents' lawyer quickly filed a notice of appeal.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge James Whittemore came after feverish action by President Bush and Congress on legislation allowing the contentious case to be reviewed by federal courts. The judge said the 41-year-old woman's parents had not established a "substantial likelihood of success" at trial on the merits of their arguments.

Shocking.


You didn't expect it? I did.

Its funny, some deep-South representative got wind of the polls where people are 2/3rd in favor of letting Terry die and now he's saying, "Perhaps we acted on this hastily and got too caught up in the TV moment of it". Yeah... you think perhaps there might have been a major misreading of public sentiment about this and now you're scrambling like crazy to put a little space between yourselves and the religious conservatives that brought this about in time for your campaign next year?

I find it soooo amusing... the guy in the white house claiming he wants to err on the side of life who executed more people during his time as govenor than I think anyone. I think he wants to "err on the side of life" when it is most politically expedient for him to do so.

You didn't expect it? I did.I was being facetious. (In case you missed my last post predicting just such as a result.) I guess I needed a <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>.

Ah! Sorry I missed it. :D

In general I fully support the "right to die".

Sad to say in this situation people as mistakenly thinking that is the issue at hand.

In the absence of a clear understanding of her wishes, the fact that she is not in any kind of terminal condition, and no clear understanding of what exactly her mental capabilities or potential is - this is a case of whether or not a husband has the sole decision authority on whther or not his wife should be allowed to starve to death.

There is no "plug" to pull - she is not on any life support machines. She is simply being fed thru a tube because she is unable to feed herself.

And ever since John Sciavo got all the money he could get from lawsuits - he has denied Terri any form of rehabilitation and has been activley trying to kill her off.

Like he said to Terri's nurses back in 1997 . . . "when is the bitch going to die?"

It is good to know that all of you feel more than comfortable to decide for her that she deserves to discontinue living.

'Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall:
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the King's horses and all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty Dumpty in his place again.'


There is no rehabilitation available when one loses the basic survival reflexes.

It is not like relearning how to walk, or talk, or pick your nose.

They are reflexes for a reason, because without them you die, or can die. You have swallow and gag reflexes for a reason, simply put, because your brain is not going to react fast enough while eating or drinking to prevent foods and liquids from going down the wrong pipe. You just can't think that fast, you just can't.

If the reflex center is gone, it is gone for good. Sorry. No do overs, no pass go's. Gone. We will get there one day, but that day is not today-and will be done through genetic surgery in all liklihood.

If it is not gone, or ever gone, then she would not have needed the tube.


In all fairness, I don't actually think there is a legal reason right now preventing her parents(or anyone else) from giving her food and liquids. It just means she will die of drowning instead. But it will be active, not a passive death.

Actually, the real issue here isn't whether or not she should be permitted to die or forced to live. The real issue is who has legal authority to speak for her. I would have thought that the answer should be cut and dried... her husband. I believe that the courts have been trying to say this as well but it seems now that Congress wants to jump in and override the Judicial Branch of government because they don't LIKE the decision!?!!

You can't rehabilitate reflexes. That's all she has left. I think what some of you don't understand is that doctors actually know what parts of your brain do what, to at least some degree. They know that pain is felt in certain areas, emotions in others, your visual processing is done in another area. Short term memory is in other areas. If your brain is damaged in those areas it'll correspond to loss of functions, personality, memory, etc. They can look at an MRI or CAT scan and see it.

After my Dad had his stroke, they could see that he sustained damage in his visual center of his brain, and sure enough, he is now blind on his left side.

There is no rehabilitating that. It either comes back within six months of the stroke or it doesn't. Same with oxygen deprivation to the brain, which is what Terry had. After 5 minutes of that, there isn't going to be much of the brain that is left working. And you can't rehabilitate that. The brain just doesn't work that way.

Like he said to Terri's nurses back in 1997 . . . "when is the bitch going to die?"

Is this even credible?

Like I said - it's nice to know what experts you all are on exactly what Terri's mental and phsical condition is.

Because there are some legitimate experts who disagree with your assessment.

It is good to know that all of you feel more than comfortable to decide for her that she deserves to discontinue living.

Right back at ya...I find it equally obtrusive that so many are comfortable to let her wallow in the state she is in.

Like I said - it's nice to know what experts you all are on exactly what Terri's mental and phsical condition is.

Because there are some legitimate experts who disagree with your assessment.

Have we even assessed her? I have not. You have not. And we hardly have to be experts at anything to express opinions of things that are touching our lives right now.

You have quoted unreliable propaganda from known biased activists. You do not even have the guts to write your own material, quoting other peoples opinions instead of writing your own is wimpy.

A third party quote from an completely unreliable fourth party? You have got to be ****ting me. And I tell you what, when you get to be married, and have been for 9 years- I will give you a 4 hour blow job myself, if you had not called your wife a 'bitch' or your husband an 'asshole' at least a dozen times in that time(or thought it or mumbled under your breath). Let alone being married to a vegetable with whacko in-laws. Who are probably more like the friggen whacko mother in Carrie with idols of dead people hanging from their walls, than people you know(unless you are one of those christian nutjob yourself).

There have been dozens of doctors who have examined this poor woman, if there is medical evidence that you have uncovered that shows that she is more than animal on the barest of physiological reflexes the post it. Show ME! You have read my posts here, you even read my doubts.

Show ME! And not some crap from some gimp activist or nutjob anti-abortion websites either. Real legitimate documentation to show me that my opinion should be changed one way or another.

...The real issue is who has legal authority to speak for her. I would have thought that the answer should be cut and dried... her husband. ...

He's the common law husband of another woman with two children. It could be argued that he gave up his husband rights and privileges. That he is her husband in name only, for the sole purpose of killing her. To paraphrase another commentator, would you want your ex-husband or ex-wife deciding whether you were to live or die? :p

And there are doctors on both sides of the argument, whether she could be rehabilitated or not. One could easily say they are all hired guns, although not all have been paid. So to dismiss one side or the other is like putting on blinders.

All that is at issue right now is time. If she's truly in a permanent vegetative state, she doesn't really know the difference right now, whether she's alive for one more week or another year. No harm done in allowing her to live longer to determine if rehabilitation can be had. (Let those doctors who are saying that she can be rehabilitated put there time where there mouths are.) On the other hand, if she's not in a vegetative state, this is a inhumane premature death when there were alternatives. Problem is, if she's allowed to die now, we'll never know because the additional time was not given.

No harm done in allowing her to live longer to determine if rehabilitation can be had.

Who's going to pay for it? You? Me? The state? Medicare? There is financial harm.

And there is harm to those of her family (including her husband) who want to be able to move on with their lives. I can not imagine watching my husband continue on in that state for 15 years. Knowing that he will never get better. Knowing that "he" isn't inside that shell anymore (her cerebral cortex is gone, that is the center of the personality, or what we think of when we think of a 'person'). Yet not being able to grieve properly for him either because he's in limbo physically.

That would be torture to me and would certainly be harmful to me.

He's the common law husband of another woman with two children. It could be argued that he gave up his husband rights and privileges. That he is her husband in name only, for the sole purpose of killing her. To paraphrase another commentator, would you want your ex-husband or ex-wife deciding whether you were to live or die? :p
I seriously DOUBT that Michael Schiavo has any genuine love for Terri. At best it's disingenuous. He obviously has moved on with his life (as evidenced by his actions of living with another woman and having kids with her). All he has to do is file for divorce and be done with her. Let her parents take the responsibility (financially, emotionally, etc) for Terri's well-being. What's so hard with that?

On a side note. I was listening to some talk radio program on my way into work today and one of the callers mentioned something along the lines of comparing Terri with a common house plant. I mean, basically that's what you all are saying. Terri's brain is mush, she's in a permanent vegetative state. She's in no pain, doesn't require any special "life support" equipment other than a feeding tube. So why not allow the parents to care for her? How is this inhumane? You've already admitted she is in no pain. So I ask again, where's the harm in keeping her alive at the parents expense?

I seriously DOUBT that Michael Schiavo has any genuine love for Terri. At best it's disingenuous. He obviously has moved on with his life (as evidenced by his actions of living with another woman and having kids with her). All he has to do is file for divorce and be done with her. Let her parents take the responsibility (financially, emotionally, etc) for Terri's well-being. What's so hard with that?

On a side note. I was listening to some talk radio program on my way into work today and one of the callers mentioned something along the lines of comparing Terri with a common house plant. I mean, basically that's what you all are saying. Terri's brain is mush, she's in a permanent vegetative state. She's in no pain, doesn't require any special "life support" equipment other than a feeding tube. So why not allow the parents to care for her? How is this inhumane? You've already admitted she is in no pain. So I ask again, where's the harm in keeping her alive at the parents expense?

The harm is that according to her husband, who most likely knew her better at the time of her seziure it is not what she wanted. I haven't been able to find any information as to how long they were together prior to her seziure, but most couples have some form of discussion over life support at some point, something on the news brings it up or an illness in the friends and family circle and a casual conversation occurs. Just because they didn't sit right down and draw up living wills as a result of the conversation doesn't mean it didn't occur. I'd heard my mother say similar things in casual conversation but it wasn't until her diagnosis of cancer that she had the living will and the DNR drawn up, most people just put those things off till later believing that they have plenty of time or that nothing like that could ever happen to them so why worry about it now.

Don't try to judge Micheals feeling for his wife based upon his feelings for another women. At the worst case look upon him as a widower trying to close out a chapter of his life and move on. There is nothing to indicate that the couple would have had problems or would have divorced if she had remained whole and functional all this time. After my mother died my father remarried, I don't believe that means he loved my mother any less that I always knew he did, it just recognizes the fact that he was able to move on with his life after her passing. Does he love my stepmother any less or more than he did my mother? I have no idea it's not something I've discussed with him, but I do know that his feelings for Margaret have nothing to do with his feelings for my Mother or my Mother's memory. Terri has been in a persistant vegetative state for 15 years. Lots of things can happen in 15 years. She was in that state for 8 years before any petitions were drawn up to remove her feeding tube. 8 years of mourning 8 years of hoping and and finaly after 8 years the realization that nothing was going to change.

And if all he was after in not seeking a divorce was the $1 million dollar medical settlement why didn't he take the $5 million the radio talk show host offered him to walk away? He's not in it for the money, he's in it to protect his wife's rights and your rights as well, do you want a congress that has never met you, a Govenor and a President that refuse to even visit you (after offers, and pleads that they do so) making decisions about your medical treatment?

So I ask again, where's the harm in keeping her alive at the parents expense?Because it goes against her expressed wishes?

Because it goes against her expressed wishes?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43401
Shortly after saying his determination to end Terri's life was about her wishes, Schiavo changed his story in the King interview. Asked if he understood her family's feelings, he said: "Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want. ..."

Oh and for all you supporters of stem-cell research, any comments as to whether or not it might help her recover?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43235

Seems there were quite a few threads on that subject.
(example) http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showthread.php?t=9249&highlight=embryonic

That's a very biased article that takes the court quote very much out of context. The articles states that her condition was brought about "Under mysterious and still unexplained circumstances", the circumstances are not mysterious or unexplained at all she had an undiagnosed (substanciated by the sucessful malpractice case) eating disorder that caused her heart to stop which left her brain without blood causing unreversable brain damage.

As for stem cell research helping her case we'll probably never know the same people fighting to save her life also fight against the research that might in the future lead to the recovery of someone like her, if stem cell research was past the research stage at the time of her illness she might have been able to be helped but after 15 years of non use organs, limbs and other body parts can't be rehabilitated.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43401Sorry, I can't take such a site seriously when it advertises on the same page 'Best deal ever on 12-DVD Bible set!' and 'Helping needy children in Jesus' name'.

I did look quickly at the actual Larry King transcript, and it's a somewhat ambiguous as to what he could have meant at that point in the interview, which was long after the first quote.

It's possible that the husband is lying, but the answer to the question "where's the harm in keeping her alive at the parents expense" is still that it goes against her expressed wishes. In othe words, if the state court was right in the first place and she wanted to die, and the matter drags through years of appeals, there will be a definite harm.

Because it goes against her expressed wishes?

If removing the tube was her expressed wish, why didn't her husband mention it in the med mal lawsuit shortly after her seizure? I understand that, instead, he estimated that she would live to age 53 or beyond in that suit, which estimate would have the effect of increasing the damage award.

Why did he take so long (eight years I believe) to raise the issue and request that the feeding tube to be withdrawn? It just seems very inconsistent to me to wait eight years and only then, insist that it was her wish. If her wishes were/are so important to him, why didn't he respect them originally?

Again, if I were in her shoes, I'd hope that they would not keep me alive for eight years, much less a month or two. So, it's not difficult to believe that she would want the same. But, it's just not credible to me coming from him, after eight years of silence, and when he's de facto married to another with children except in the eyes of the law. The only reasons I can see for him to stay married to her are to have the power of life and death over her, and to inherit her estate on her death (e.g. the med mal lawsuit proceeds which are getting smaller with each passing day).

I seriously DOUBT that Michael Schiavo has any genuine love for Terri. At best it's disingenuous. He obviously has moved on with his life (as evidenced by his actions of living with another woman and having kids with her). All he has to do is file for divorce and be done with her. Let her parents take the responsibility (financially, emotionally, etc) for Terri's well-being. What's so hard with that?

On a side note. I was listening to some talk radio program on my way into work today and one of the callers mentioned something along the lines of comparing Terri with a common house plant. I mean, basically that's what you all are saying. Terri's brain is mush, she's in a permanent vegetative state. She's in no pain, doesn't require any special "life support" equipment other than a feeding tube. So why not allow the parents to care for her? How is this inhumane? You've already admitted she is in no pain. So I ask again, where's the harm in keeping her alive at the parents expense?

Because of the "sanctity" of Marriage. Because it undermines everything we've stated Marriage is in our nation. Because she lawfully wed her husband, and as such became his legal guardian, in the event of his incapacitation, as he did hers.

Because, he's in a better position to know her desires than her parents.

Because to let her live undermines the foundations of our legal system, and renders it completely worthless.

Because, maybe, just maybe, she didn't want to live that way (as numerous different judges and courts have found over the past decade).

As for filing for divorce...maybe he doesn't want to divorce his wife. Regardless of what you think or doubt about him, maybe he genuinely loves her.

Maybe she had told him over the course of their marriage, that she thought her parents were freaky religious nutjobs. I don't know. Neither do you.

Why not trust in our Courts, a bit, instead of cooking up new ways to circumvent them? If you don't like the decision, you are welcome to take up arms in revolution.

If removing the tube was her expressed wish, why didn't her husband mention it in the med mal lawsuit shortly after her seizure? I understand that, instead, he estimated that she would live to age 53 or beyond in that suit, which estimate would have the effect of increasing the damage award.

Why did he take so long (eight years I believe) to raise the issue and request that the feeding tube to be withdrawn? It just seems very inconsistent to me to wait eight years and only then, insist that it was her wish. If her wishes were/are so important to him, why didn't he respect them originally?

Again, if I were in her shoes, I'd hope that they would not keep me alive for eight years, much less a month or two. So, it's not difficult to believe that she would want the same. But, it's just not credible to me coming from him, after eight years of silence, and when he's de facto married to another with children except in the eyes of the law. The only reasons I can see for him to stay married to her are to have the power of life and death over her, and to inherit her estate on her death (e.g. the med mal lawsuit proceeds which are getting smaller with each passing day).

Regardless of whether its credible in your eyes, for over ten years all of these matters have been debated, argued, and ajudicated in the State Courts of Florida. Suffice to say, the Courts have access to much more information than the media puts out. And these aren't "activist wacko left wing judges".

If removing the tube was her expressed wish, why didn't her husband mention it in the med mal lawsuit shortly after her seizure? I understand that, instead, he estimated that she would live to age 53 or beyond in that suit, which estimate would have the effect of increasing the damage award.

Why did he take so long (eight years I believe) to raise the issue and request that the feeding tube to be withdrawn? It just seems very inconsistent to me to wait eight years and only then, insist that it was her wish. If her wishes were/are so important to him, why didn't he respect them originally?

Again, if I were in her shoes, I'd hope that they would not keep me alive for eight years, much less a month or two. So, it's not difficult to believe that she would want the same. But, it's just not credible to me coming from him, after eight years of silence, and when he's de facto married to another with children except in the eyes of the law. The only reasons I can see for him to stay married to her are to have the power of life and death over her, and to inherit her estate on her death (e.g. the med mal lawsuit proceeds which are getting smaller with each passing day).

Of course when going after the Medical malpractice you don't say well her life expectancy at this point is 53 years but we want to pull the plug so it's really only two weeks, your lawyer would shoot you for doing that. And I doubt that he was the one testifing over her life expectancy at the malpractice hearing anyway most likely it was another doctor, the husband would never be considered a medical expert that could make that determination

Approximatly 3 years after her seizure friendly relationships between him and her family completly broke down, at that point her parents stopped having any contact with him and refused to visit her when he was around. . This indicates that well before the first court visits there were disagreements about her treatment and wishes. The mere fact that this ever went to court indicates the same thing.

The actual trial procedings are very interesting to read and document the time frames fairly well. Adobe File from FindLaw of the Most Recent Federal case (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/hus32105opp.pdf)

If he was only after money, why hasn't he accepted the $1million dollars from the Florida business man who wants to take Terri's custodianship away from him and keep her on life support or the $5 million raised by supporters of the talk radio show that would like him to drop his case and turn custodianship over to her parents to do the same?

Found a fairly good and fairly unbiased (on either side) website. It's more of a commentary about Florida law than anything else. Interesting read.

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

And a seperate timeline

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm

I just heard last night, when someone was reading excerpts from the judge that denied the request yesterday, that the area where her cerebral cortex was are actually gone. They've deteriorated to the point where basically it is spinal fluid in there instead of the usual brain stuff.

And one of the ironies about all this... When Bush was govenor of Texas he signed a law (Futile Care Law) that basically let hospitals let patients, on feeding tubes or life support die, over the objections of their families, if they were unable to pay for the care.

Of course the thing that disturbs me even more than Congress deciding that state courts can't handle their own issues is that Congress is passing legislation that over one person. Actually the Daily Show was very funny last night, they suggested that this might make congress more useful. They can't do anything about the budget or anything like that, so instead they'll pile into a bus and travel around the country legislating our lives for us. Solving our problems one person at a time.

And the saga continues: after the 11th Circuit denied the appeal, the parents <a href=http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/23/national/a011536S54.DTL>want to appeal to the Supreme Court</a> Let no taxpayer dollar go unwasted! And by the way, who is paying for the massive attorney's fees in all this litigation?Again, if I were in her shoes, I'd hope that they would not keep me alive for eight years, much less a month or two. So, it's not difficult to believe that she would want the same.Which brings up a good point: who <b><i>would</b></i> want to be kept alive in a permanent vegetative state, with no higher brain functions and no chance of recovery? Anyone?

I think the default rule should to be <i>not</i> to use life support unless there has been an expressed, affirmative wish to use them.

And by the way, who is paying for the massive attorney's fees in all this litigation?

The pro-life contingent has massive funding and is most likely paying for it. Terry's husband was offered an enormous sum of money by one wealthy pro-lifer who offered to pay him millions for legal guardianship of Terry. Their pockets, if not their intellect, are deep.

I'm sure there are counter-agendaists giving free legal assistance to Mr. Terry.

Regardless of whether its credible in your eyes, for over ten years all of these matters have been debated, argued, and ajudicated in the State Courts of Florida. Suffice to say, the Courts have access to much more information than the media puts out. And these aren't "activist wacko left wing judges".

Perhaps, but all the appellate reviews were on the legal issues, yes? The factual issues were determined by a single Judge as I understand it. The husband's credibility is a factual issue. And, generally the appellate courts will not overturn the trier of fact on credibility issues. Isn't this why Congress hoped for a de novo review by the Federal Court, so that the facts could be evaluated again, not just another review of the issues of law?

And sometimes, the Courts have more limited information than that available to the media. The Courts are limited to admissible evidence, and what each respective side's attorneys present as evidence in support of their cases. The media is not so limited. So, I don't necessarily have to be satisfied with the information available to the fact-finding Court at the time. For example, in connection with the Michael Jackson case, I'd guess most of us reading this forum are aware of the prior allegations of abuse that were settled. It is likely that those allegations will not be admitted into evidence to show a pattern of conduct and instead, will be kept from the jury (the trier of fact) because of the potential misuse and prejudicial effect it could have (doesn't prove he did it in this case).

Not quite sure where you got the quote of "activist wacko left wing judges." I certainly never said such a thing nor implied it, although your reply was directed to me.

Again, it just seems inconsistent to me that the husband would stay silent for eight years about Terri's expressed wishes, but now is so determined to see her die based on those allegedly expressed wishes. And, insofar as this is just a forum for a discussion of our opinions, that's my opinion, whether the Courts agree or disagree.

The death penalty is utterly unrelated to any right-to-life issues. Murders dont have a right to life. It does make a lovely red herring, nice and emotional like most liberal 'arguments', but in the end its completely irrelevant. There is nothing inconsistent with saying that murderers should be killed but babies and the ill should be taken care of.

Its amusing watching the anti-religion vitriol. "Religious zealots" - ha.

The party of tolerance apparently doesnt actually practice it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43401


Oh and for all you supporters of stem-cell research, any comments as to whether or not it might help her recover?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43235

Seems there were quite a few threads on that subject.
(example) http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showthread.php?t=9249&highlight=embryonic

You have got to be ****tin' me. World Net Daily? You have got to do better than a nutjob hypochristian whacko site.

Here's what I figure...

I figure that whatever mental characteristics defined Terri as a person probably left the building a long time ago. I would wager that <i>even if</i> stem cell technology made staggering leaps forward in the next week or so, and they <i>were</i> able to somehow use the technology to "regrow" the dead areas of Terri's frontal lobe, she would still not be the same person that she was. Think about the story of <a href="http://www.deakin.edu.au/hbs/GAGEPAGE/Pgstory.htm">Phineas Gage</a> who was impaled by a tamping iron - he had half his brain destroyed, lived, but had a completely changed personality. In Phineas' case he had one half of his frontal lobe destroyed - in Terri's case they're saying that none of it is left. All that that which most people celebrate about being human, is gone. All that's really left is general motor functions.

Trying to tackle this from any type of religious standpoint has so many possible pitfalls...

Taking the stance that Terri has the right to die is nearly tantamount to saying "suicide is ok," which we all know is a big no-no in the Christian world. As the Catholic world has defined "life" is something as simple as a fertilized egg, I don't see how they can say that Terri is not a "life," by that definition if you absolutely know that removing her feeding tube will cause her to die, you are in fact saying "Death sentences are ok." And while Roman Catholics are told not to use scientific advancements like birth control, I do not recall any type of similar commandment from the Church about life support, in fact, most religion-based commentary I hear on the subject of life support usually sounds very "pro-machine" and very anti-DNR (ie: if God wanted you to die, the machine could not save you anyway).

On the other hand, you could try and claim that Terri's soul is already "with God," and they're only trying to "save her dignity". Well if I recall correctly, many martyrs throughout the Catholic history have died in rather "unpleasant" ways and had their bodies defiled, yet according to the dogma, they are venerated saints in the afterlife.

Then comes the argument that Terri should be allowed to die so that she can "go to Heaven," but then you're making a <i>very</i> blatant claim that the soul cannot go on to Heaven until the physical body has ceased to exist. In other words, at this point you would be saying that any time you leave anyone on life support, you are stopping their "celestial progress". All those people in comas with no current hope of recovery? They could be in Heaven if you let them go. But again, by also taking that stance, you are acknowledging that the body is alive and you're saying it's ok to kill it. Catch-22.

I personally like to think that whatever awareness of time that Terri had, has left. Otherwise it would suck to be stuck in a bed for 10+ years and not to be able to do or say anything. Then again, how would it be to be alive in that state then be aware of slowly starving to death? Since I tend to side with science when it says that since her frontal lobe is destroyed, she has no more higher level brain functions left, I don't see the reason for the moral outrage at leaving her on the machines for as long as her parents have the money to support her.

The death penalty is utterly unrelated to any right-to-life issues. Murders dont have a right to life. It does make a lovely red herring, nice and emotional like most liberal 'arguments', but in the end its completely irrelevant. There is nothing inconsistent with saying that murderers should be killed but babies and the ill should be taken care of.

Its amusing watching the anti-religion vitriol. "Religious zealots" - ha.

The party of tolerance apparently doesnt actually practice it.

I am not a liberal. So I guess that means my herring is a different color. Maybe green. I like green, it is my favorite color.

Pointing out hypocrisy is never irrelevant, and that was the general point that you are contesting. In fact pointing out hypocrisy is of such importance we could probably have complete threads just on that subject.

Are you really amused? If so, I will continue.(I will continue even if you're not amused, mocking inconsistent hypocritical religious nutjobs is fun; and it's so easy to do). And if that does not really amuse you, I can always juggle.

I know of no major party of tolerance. I assume that you mean the Liberal,,erm Democratic party. But I don't think this is really a liberal vs conservative, or Democrat vs Republican issue, so that makes your herring red. Even the Libertarian party is intolerant of the use of force(you actually have to sign on that plank to join) as a political or social tool. The Green party is intolerant of SUVs. The Peace and Freedom Party is intolerant of war and slavery.

And while Roman Catholics are told not to use scientific advancements like birth control, I do not recall any type of similar commandment from the Church about life support, in fact, most religion-based commentary I hear on the subject of life support usually sounds very "pro-machine" and very anti-DNR

I have been working in a non profit Catholic hospital for 9 weeks. There are no problems or issues with DNR or partial DNRs.

I would have thought that a hospital partially funded with money from the Roman Catholic church would have many problems with DNR. Not the one I am in...it seems to be standard fare, actually. And I am talking about a hospital with priests walking around saying prayers, statues of saints and stuff, and prayers heard over the PA; so it is not like it is a massively secularized example-there are NO illusions that it is anything but Catholic, is what I am trying to say.

My initial beliefs and generalizations of Catholics(Catholic Hospitals, more specifically) were not accurate. These decisions are made every day, and you don't even know it(neither did I).

Pointing out hypocrisy is never irrelevant, and that was the general point that you are contesting. In fact pointing out hypocrisy is of such importance we could probably have complete threads just on that subject.

Are you really amused?
I am really amused, and there is nothing hypocritcial about being pro-death-penalty but anti-killing unborn children and the disabled. Convicted murderers dont have the same rights as the innocent. My moral brush is capable of fine detail, not just broad swatches of color.

And you know as well as I do, semantics games aside, that the Left, the Democratic Party, has painted itself the 'party of tolerance'.

Stormhaven, you're very right to bring up Phineas Gage, but I completely disagree with your coclusions. Phineas lost a similar amount of cerebral cortex to what terri has lost (if you accept the "dark area on CAT scan = missing cerebral cortex" assertion in the first palce). Therefore, remembering Phineas Gage, as we all should in this case, should make us LESS hesitant to take Terri's life, since Phineas was fine without this.

And you know as well as I do, semantics games aside, that the Left, the Democratic Party, has painted itself the 'party of tolerance'.

Every party has PR. If anyone believes any of it, they are a fool or a child.

Anyway, I did a Google of "party of tolerance", seems that it is mostly right wing tongue in cheek commentators who use that term.

I even went to the Democratic Party website, searched 'party of tolerance', there were no viable hits on that phrase.

Where exactly does it come from? I mean besides Right Wing Blogger nutjobs.

Right Wing Blogger nutjobs
If you read this really while not paying close attention it sounds dirty.

He's the common law husband of another woman with two children. It could be argued that he gave up his husband rights and privileges. That he is her husband in name only, for the sole purpose of killing her. To paraphrase another commentator, would you want your ex-husband or ex-wife deciding whether you were to live or die? :p That's a HUGE stretch. Perhaps you can argue that on religious grounds but in a court of law he is still Terri's husband. And that's the whole problem here... A lot of people seem to be taking the "legal" out and inserting their own idea of morality.

As for "would you want your ex making decisions whether you live or die?" goes... if I was in a situation like Schiavo? Yeah, if he was the one who wanted to end my state of limbo. I'd want to be done with it and stop the pain for all the people surrounding me.

Fyrr, is this really something you want to waste time on? Were you genuinely confused, when I used the phrase 'party of tolerance', exactly which party I was referring to?

I'd be happy to clarify, but I dont think theres really any confusion here.

Actually, Panamah, the more I think about it I think Im gonna have to have a T-shirt made that says that. Cause its right-wing AND sounds kinda dirty.. thats perfect :)

I am really amused, and there is nothing hypocritcial about being pro-death-penalty but anti-killing unborn children and the disabled. Convicted murderers dont have the same rights as the innocent.Oh, but it's hypocritical on multiple levels. Didn't your god allegedly tell you, "thou shalt not kill"? Why are you killing convicts, then, especially when they pose no danger (unlike, say, a war situation, where it's necessary to protect your life)?

And who is "innocent"? Terri Schiavo's condition was, essentially, self-inflicted through an eating disorder. Is she "innocent"? What about all those on death row (or already executed) who were later proven, through DNA evidence, to have been uninvolved in the crime?

I suppose an essential part of religious zealotry is the freedom to pick and choose those religious concepts which suit you at any particular moment.

Number one, Im personally anti-death penalty (I think these people deserve to die, but I think killing a human being harms the killer as well as the killed, and so am unwilling to support a system that allows such harm).

But number two, no, there is no inconsistency, no hypocricy, inherant in that position. Human beings begin life with a right to life, and some choose to forfeit it through immoral actions (i.e. brutal rape/murders etc). I understand that this is different from what you believe, but you havent stated how its hypocritical.

A Christian defense of the death penalty necessarily includes interpreting "Thou shalt not kill" as "Thou shalt not murder" (which according to most linguists is an equally valid translation from the Hebrew). So no, its not hypocritical at all, because if a Christian supports the death penalty they dont think God issued a blanket prohibition of all killings, just unjust ones.

Again, its not my position, I believe God loves humans and doesnt want us to kill each other at all. But Im just pointing out that its not a hypocritical position at all - its an entirely consistent and logical position.

But number two, no, there is no inconsistency, no hypocricy, inherant in that position. Human beings begin life with a right to life, and some choose to forfeit it through immoral actions (i.e. brutal rape/murders etc).Ah, I see. "Thou shalt not kill" really means "Thou shalt not kill (unless you believe it's 'just' to do so, in which case, waste them)". The pope should've been a lawyer. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

The pope should've been a lawyer. http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif

Well, he already knows latin... :whistle:

Two points: Its "Thou Shalt Not Murder". The same document which gave us that commandment also lists numerous incidents when killing is permitted. That's a poor argument, in and of itself. However, the religious right has proposed that all life is sacred, in and of itself, which is a problem with their argument.

Second point:

Don't worry folks, if you want to go peacefully into the night, your friendly dictatorial Governor will attempt to abuse his power to appoint himself your legal guardian and determine how you will live (or not live) for you! Go Bush!

Ah, I see. "Thou shalt not kill" really means "Thou shalt not kill (unless you believe it's 'just' to do so, in which case, waste them)". The pope should've been a lawyer. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>Actually I interpret it to mean parenthetically that it's ok if the general concensus says it's ok to do so. It's kind of a balance of powers... puts humanity on an even stature with God.... well, as long as a state legislature doesn't want a piece of the action too. :D

Two points: Its "Thou Shalt Not Murder". The same document which gave us that commandment also lists numerous incidents when killing is permitted.Is revenge killing (i.e., the death penalty) one of those "numerous incidents"? That sounds like one cruel religion.

On topic, the Supreme Court <a href=http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/24/national/a080110S73.DTL>wisely refused to touch this case</a>. Now unless Jeb screws things up, this woman can finally die in peace.

Posted by Truid:
Why did nursing home workers swear that he at times stormed into the facility asking when "that bitch" would die?
I think he did say it...but we have all gotten it wrong. The bitch he was probably referring to was more likely his mother-in-law. :biggrin:

LOL! Synjinn. :D

LOL Synjinn! You may be exactly right!

Is revenge killing (i.e., the death penalty) one of those "numerous incidents"? That sounds like one cruel religion.

Call it a pragmatic religion. The fact is, there are times when a man needs a-killin. Judaism has never made any bones about it.

Of course, its an interesting counter-point that most Jews are very liberal people. Myself, I'm for a death penalty in theory, but in practice, too many innocent men have been sentenced to death for crimes they may not have committed.

Well, the courtroom actions have pretty much played out as I expected. Given all the prior history in the case, establishing that there was a substantial likelihood of success on the merits was going to be hard (one of the factors needed to obtain a federal court injunction).

Interestingly, it looks to me as if Congress backed off a bit when it passed the legislation. For example, the legislation could have provided for an automatic stay, or changed the standard for these cases. Of course, that probably would make it more likely for the legislation to be found unconstitutional, but if the goal is to get the feeding tube back in, it could have been crafted that way.

In fact, Congress could pass new legislation along those lines and Bush could sign it even now. However, I suspect that the politicians involved are taking note of the polls, and backing off, despite the heated rhetoric from the "right wing blogger nutjobs" about there being "hell to pay." When push comes to shove, I doubt that this particular minority element of the Republican Party will turn against Bush and the neocons (but I can hope, can't I? :)

...politicians involved are taking note of the polls, and backing off, despite the heated rhetoric from the "right wing blogger nutjobs" about there being "hell to pay." When push comes to shove...

Speaking of shove, I was listening to William Bennett yesterday.

He essentially told Randall Terry to "shove it".

However, I suspect that the politicians involved are taking note of the polls, and backing off, despite the heated rhetoric from the "right wing blogger nutjobs" about there being "hell to pay."

In cynical political terms, Bush is in a win-win situation if he campaigns for life but the poor woman dies. He has gained publicity and support from his core voters, he can blame his opponents for her death, but he'll have no ongoing responsibility for the care of this woman. He'll be able to claim justification for appointing new supreme court judges who are "in touch with public opinion", ie very right wing. It also distracts from real political issues for which he is responsible.

...who are "in touch with public opinion"...


60-70%(depending on which poll you believe) of Americans say 'pull the plug', and that lawmakers should have kept their noses out of this family mess.

I am hardly ever in the majority. But in this case I just happen to be. On both counts.

Bush is probably just happy enough that Iraq is now on third page. He does not have a win/win, it's more like a win/win/win position. He really can't lose, except from the Christian Right. If Bill Bennett can tell them to take a hike on Fox, he might too.

I put it in quotes as that's the sort of quote he will say.

Have to give creds to Molt at the MB for this one...

That she is in the condition she is because she was anorexic(she was starving herself).

Anyone else see the IRONY in that?

I heard she was bulemic and a potassium deficiency caused her heart to go into atrial fibrillation where it vibrates instead of beats. :(

Another new bit I heard and this is from one of the court documents, but the parents first tried to get custody of Terry when the malpractice case was resolved. Michael got 250,000 and the rest was for Terry's maintenance. Anyway, the parents demanded half and when he denied them that, they started kicking up the fuss and trying to get custody. Kind of makes you wonder about their motivation.

Speaking of shove, I was listening to William Bennett yesterday.

He essentially told Randall Terry to "shove it".

If you liked that I'm sure you're gonna love this . . .
http://mediamatters.org (http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220001)
Terry's words and personal life have also stirred controversy. As the Fort Wayne (Indiana) News Sentinel reported on August 16, 1993, at an anti-abortion rally in Fort Wayne, Terry said "Our goal is a Christian nation. ... We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. ... Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules." In that same speech, Terry also stated that "If a Christian voted for [former President Bill] Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple."

Every side has their extremists. But that doesn't mean we have to agree with them or their tactics. I can still believe in the sanctity of life without denying you the right to blow your brains out! :frocket:

Truid,

If you are saying that Randall Terry does not speak for you, I can accept that.

Bill Bennett was sure to make sure that he does not speak for him.

Not to say say that Bill Bennett speaks for me, because he does not. Even when he make sense.

I heard she was bulemic...

You missed the irony? Bulimic, anorexic; same fn difference. She did not get enough of what she needed, nutritional wise.

Potassium is a cool element. You need it for the heart to function.

But too much, and it will make the heart stop.

Some things I've been pondering. Not saying there's really any chance of this happening, but let's say that Terri has a miraculous recovery, regains full and complete functions/personality etc.

1. How would she feel about her parents or husband once she sees what a spectacle they made of her?

2. Would she become active in attempting to educate other young women on the problems associated with eating disorders?

3. Would she want to have anything to do either with her parents or her husband anymore?

4. What would she have to say to the politicians and right wing groups who have used her as a pawn in the political arena?

It's interesting that with all the crap that's been going on surrounding her case, very very very very little has been said about bulemia, her previous self esteem issues with her weight or the fact that she wouldn't have had the seizure in the first place if she hadn't felt the overwhelming need to look like a "stick figure with poofy lips".

In terms of blood analyte balances, bulemics tend to have a harder time than anorexics because not only do they not take in as much, but the act of purging takes more nutrients out of the system. If she'd been anorexic, this probably wouldn't have happened.

Truid,

If you are saying that Randall Terry does not speak for you, I can accept that.

Bill Bennett was sure to make sure that he does not speak for him.

Not to say say that Bill Bennett speaks for me, because he does not. Even when he make sense.

I'm glad to know you accept something I've said! The fact of the matter is, I can be pro-life without accepting the things done in the name of "pro-life". I do believe in the sanctity of life, but I also believe a woman has the right to choose between having an abortion and not having one. I think women should have ALL the information on the subject of abortion and not just from one side. As far as Terri Schiavo is concerned, I think there was a time when she might have recovered or partially recovered if given half a chance. But from what I've read her husband denied her that opportunity early on. Today, my personal belief is that it is too late for her and that she should be allowed to die, if that is her wish. Unfortunately, we will never know for sure. I personally don't think anyone should feel like they won when this woman dies. And if you do, then shame on you. :nono:

Have you even read anything about her treatments? I don't think you've read anything past the crap her parents are spreading. I'm not going to try to argue with you about what treatment she recieved or didn't recieve if you are truly interested in knowing you can find it yourself, I've posted enough links previously to give you a good start. Shame on you for not doing your own research and just listening to one side :nono:

Well, the media isn't reporting equally, that's for sure. It's rare that you see anything about the original malpractice suit when the parents DEMANDED half of the settlement for themselves. When Michael Schiavo refused to hand it over but offered to donate half to the charity of their choice, the parents refused. He made the offer repeatedly and they repeatedly refused. That's when her father promised Michael that if he didn't hand them "their share" of the settlement he would make his life a living Hell.

The photo that accompanies every article I have seen on the internet is the one with the mother/daughter heads together. The few times I have seen full shots of Terri, she appears to be withered, curled and distorted, yet these pictures are rare. I'm wondering how "convinced" the right to lifers would be if the reporting had been skewed towards Michael's side than to the parents. Even the pictures have been misleading, and the news reports are all about "the fight to SAVE Terri Schiavo"... how do you SAVE someone who has been gone for years? Elvis HAS left the building. And it's not supposed to be about them anyway. She left the feathered nest and married Michael. She put her life in his hands and legally he is the one who should make the decisions. :/

I think it's sad that the parents refuse to step back and let their daughter die with dignity and instead they have created a media circus with Terri's picture plastered all over the news. Ironic, isn't it? That in life Terri was so concerned with her looks that she caused this? And that she doesn't look at all like the beautiful woman she once was... now with teeth protruding, sunken jaw, darting eyes, palsied hands (and body). THIS is the Terri Schiavo that the world will remember. Not the pretty girl of 15 years ago. Every time I see the parents and siblings on the news my stomach turns. HOW can they profess to love their daughter when they are proving daily just how greedy they are!

I personally don't think anyone should feel like they won when this woman dies. And if you do, then shame on you.

You and I sir, agree.

I don't think anyone is going to win. Not the parents, not the husband, not the patient, not the judges who had to weigh this, not the politicians. Once this personal and private decision became a matter of public debate, it became a no-win situation for everyone involved; I think that holds true whether she was kept on life support or not (a feeding tube is life support if the person has lost their swallow reflex as she has).

I don't think anyone is going to win.The lawyers are. Ca-ching!

I heard she was bulemic and a potassium deficiency caused her heart to go into atrial fibrillation where it vibrates instead of beats. :(


Well, I don't know what her heart did when it was being deprived of potassium, but I can personally attest it wasn't atrial fibrillation. For you see, I have the dubious honor of having that condition. It's not fun, but all that happens is you get light headed, dizzy, and generally feel like crap. I am fortunate because mine is a subset that is episodic, adrenal triggered atrial fibrillation, which means I only get it if I go from one extreme state of heart activity to the other (resting, asleep > running out the door, late for work)

I also researched ALL the beta blockers that are recommended for this condition, and told my doctor to prescribe me a calcium channel specific beta blocker, to minimize side effects, known as metatoprolol succinate. After several episodes, I altered the common diurnal dosage time to nocturnal, and haven't had an episode since.

There are other subsets of this condition, but none of which is life threatening, nor interferes with the left ventricle's strong ability to pump blood to the point of being life threatening. Now, it CAN be a life threatening condition if left by itself for an extended period of time, because the blood that is not being pumped in the atria can clot over time, and then throw clots to various parts of the body, the brain being one. Though the most common complication of extended atrial fibrillation is pulmonary embolism, which again, is not necessarily life threatening, since our lungs have many lobes, and are partially bi-sected to minimize the effects of such a condition.

Being that I have this condition, and am/was premed, I have researched this particular medical facet extensively. Interesting bit of trivia: public figures that have this include: George Bush, Sr, and Dick Cheney.

Sorry for the sidetrack; most of this is only tangential to the tragedy that is the case at hand, but now you know, and . . . knowing is half the battle! or something.

I'm glad to know you accept something I've said! The fact of the matter is, I can be pro-life without accepting the things done in the name of "pro-life". I do believe in the sanctity of life, but I also believe a woman has the right to choose between having an abortion and not having one. I think women should have ALL the information on the subject of abortion and not just from one side. As far as Terri Schiavo is concerned, I think there was a time when she might have recovered or partially recovered if given half a chance. But from what I've read her husband denied her that opportunity early on. Today, my personal belief is that it is too late for her and that she should be allowed to die, if that is her wish. Unfortunately, we will never know for sure. I personally don't think anyone should feel like they won when this woman dies. And if you do, then shame on you. :nono:

From what I've read, her husband spent five years trying everything he could to get his wife back, including some experimental treatments...then after five years with no improvement he said "enough".

And I do think people won. I think freedom won. I think the right wing, who would love to control our lives, and use the Federal and State legislatures to do so, lost, and that makes me happier. The fact is, none of these right wing freaks gave a crap about Teri Schiavo 10 or 15 years ago.

Well, I don't know what her heart did when it was being deprived of potassium, but I can personally attest it wasn't atrial fibrillation.

That sounds bad, Gunny! You're right, I believe it was ventricular fibrillation:http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4784

It's the one you need a defibrillator for... "CLEAR!" ZOT!

Hmm.. I have to watch for atrial fibrillation myself because I'm on a higher dose of thyroid meds now and that is one of the possible side-effects of being hyper-thyroid. But I'd hope the hyperness would show up in another symptom before it got to that state.

Well, looks like this issue is trailing off (had to carefully pick my words there).

But my conservative brother sent me this web site... I was loathe to look at it but was somewhat surprised: http://blog.bioethics.net/

Sorry, just can't let a good thread die . . . unlike some people who want to starve it to death! :-D Yeah, yeah, I know I "should have resisted."
So, now the debate is whether Terri's corpse should be given a "proper" Catholic burial (wanted by her parents) or be cremated (wanted by her husband). What do you think. On a side note, I was watching Fox News this evening reporting on this topic and in the background I saw one of the protesters holding up a sign that said "If Terri's death is painless, why is she on morphine?" Anyone care to answer this question?

One good thing about Michael wanting Terri cremated (which I wonder if he new at the time) is that Florida State law requires and autopsy be performed before the body is cremated. So at least now we can get some definitive answers from forensic science.

It sounds like Terry's parents are just diametrically opposed to anything her husband wants to do and will go to any lengths to thwart him. I heard it all stems from some disagreement about the money from the malpractice suit.

"If Terri's death is painless, why is she on morphine?" Anyone care to answer this question?

Maybe to make the care givers feel better? It is pretty standard procedure in Hospices.

And yes, Michael is aware of that and in fact, his lawyer already announced that they do intend to do an autopsy so that the public can see the extent of the brain damage.

Personally, I am all for cremation. Why would I want my corpse buried in a box, left to decompose and rot like some left-over pet in a shoe box buried in the back yard?

I agree with you Pan. It seems that the parents are hell-bent on wanting the opposite of whatever Michael wants, irregardless of Terri's wishes, perspectives or well-being. I feel like I am participating in a third grade schoolyard brawl.

I can see it now, even after the autopsy. If it validates the assumption that Terri was 'no longer there' they (her parents and others who were against the removal) will only maintain that it was a bad autopsy and if it does (by some slim chance) show there was activity, what will that matter by that point anyways? The whole issue was whether Terri was living...and brain activity or no brain activity, she was not living. She was existing.

"If Terri's death is painless, why is she on morphine?"

Something that doesn't get a lot of press, and hopefully WON'T, is a "pain control" technique called "escalating morphine drip". In theory it is to control pain. In reality, it's used as sort of a euthanasia. Basically the dosage gets increased on a regular basis until the morphine stops the heart and lungs.

One of the issues on the "pain management" side of things is that there are two types of pain recognition. One is at the brainstem/spinal reflex side of things, the other is the cognitive awareness of pain. The first response we are not aware of. The first response is what causes swelling and the rushing of white blood cells to areas of injury. We are not cognitively aware of it. We do not have to think "okay, I need excess fluid in this area and increased blood flow and more white blood cells and maybe some clotting factors".

The second is what most of us think of when we think of pain, the cognitive awareness of it. There are people out there, myself included, who have very little coginitive awareness of pain. It's often referred to as a 'high pain threshold'. I have walked around with a large hunk of glass protruding from my foot, wondering where the blood on my carpet was coming from, and going so far as to carefully check each of my dogs' feet, before noticing that it was my footsteps leaving the blood trail. I didn't feel it at all. The part of Terri's brain which would be responsible for cognitive awareness of pain no longer exists. "She" is not aware of being in pain.

The spinal and brainstem reflexes, however, are still there. She would withdraw from an application of heat (a spinal reflex, which is why you pull your hand away from the hot surface and THEN start feeling it burn). But that does not mean she would be aware of feeling it. To prevent the appearance of suffering (the spinal and brain stem reflexive actions), administering morphine is a good way to go. Escalating the drip just hastens her end. It is not an uncommon practice in hospices with patients at the end of life. Actually, it doesn't sound like a bad way to go to me.

I agree with you Pan. It seems that the parents are hell-bent on wanting the opposite of whatever Michael wants, irregardless of Terri's wishes, perspectives or well-being. I feel like I am participating in a third grade schoolyard brawl.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Same question. Which came first? The parents desire to see their daughter buried according to her Roman Catholic tradition or Michael's desire to see his wife cremated? You have to admit that having her body cremated does look suspiciously like he is trying to cover something up. Of course, once he found out that an autopsy is required (couldn't find the emoticon for the sh!t hitting the fan) before the body can be cremated, then naturally he comes out and says he "authorized it." :bs:

I can see it now, even after the autopsy. If it validates the assumption that Terri was 'no longer there' they (her parents and others who were against the removal) will only maintain that it was a bad autopsy and if it does (by some slim chance) show there was activity, what will that matter by that point anyways? The whole issue was whether Terri was living...and brain activity or no brain activity, she was not living. She was existing.
Not necessarily (regarding the "bad autopsy" comment). Her parents might actually be able to find peace and some closure at knowing the truth. On the other hand, if it shows that Terri's condition was a result of a trauma (like say spousal abuse) which some have speculated and others have even suggested, then I have a sneaky suspician Michael Schiavo's troubles will only get worse.

But either way, it doesn't look like this story will have a happy ending.

Her parents might actually be able to find peace and some closure at knowing the truth.If the parents have made anything clear during this whole saga, it's that they <i>don't</i> want peace.

The spinal and brainstem reflexes, however, are still there. She would withdraw from an application of heat (a spinal reflex, which is why you pull your hand away from the hot surface and THEN start feeling it burn). But that does not mean she would be aware of feeling it. To prevent the appearance of suffering (the spinal and brain stem reflexive actions), administering morphine is a good way to go. Escalating the drip just hastens her end. It is not an uncommon practice in hospices with patients at the end of life. Actually, it doesn't sound like a bad way to go to me.
Thanks. Your explanation makes sense. Without this morphine drip I can only imagine how hard it would be for her family to see her starve to death. But then, who knows, maybe the morphine drip will kill her.

Originally posted by Truid:
On the other hand, if it shows that Terri's condition was a result of a trauma (like say spousal abuse) which some have speculated and others have even suggested, then I have a sneaky suspician Michael Schiavo's troubles will only get worse.
Truid, do you even think for yourself? I mean, people speculate and suggest that Elvis is still alive...doesn't mean he's gonna appear at some wedding chapel in Vegas and sing me down the aisle. Instead of posting speculations and gossip to back up your arguments, do a bit of research and find some actual, factual information. It might help you. It would sure alleviate my annoyances.

Originally posted by Truid:
You have to admit that having her body cremated does look suspiciously like he is trying to cover something up. Of course, once he found out that an autopsy is required (couldn't find the emoticon for the sh!t hitting the fan) before the body can be cremated, then naturally he comes out and says he "authorized it." :bs:
No, actually I don't. Cremation happens quite alot and has nothing to do with some secret plot to hide anything. And, just because her parents want it doesn't mean she may have. My parents like bratwurst...I can't stand the stuff. Second, it is common knowledge that in any death, especially one caused by medical malpractice (which that is the only proven citing for her condition beyond her own bulemia) there will be an autopsy...and I am sure Michael knew this.

I think that no matter what, there will never be closure for the family. They have gone too far to the extreme and have way too many anger issues to ever be able to deal with the death of their daughter. They have proven that they have yet to deal with the results of her condition while she is alive and that happened almost 2 decades ago. I doubt an autopsy will suddenly allow them to accept their daughter's state of being/death.

Cremation is not going against anything within the Catholic Church. Cremation is "legal" within the Catholic Church as long as certain rules are followed which Michael is following. He wants her to be buried at the family plot in PA where both he and she grew up and married, rather than in the local cemetery. This is not some devious coverup. The family can still have a full out Catholic Funeral without the burial process. I would recommend looking up procedures for transportation of a casket prior to calling foul.

As always Truid displays the epitome of conservative Christian brain washing in action /cheer!

Not necessarily (regarding the "bad autopsy" comment). Her parents might actually be able to find peace and some closure at knowing the truth. On the other hand, if it shows that Terri's condition was a result of a trauma (like say spousal abuse) which some have speculated and others have even suggested, then I have a sneaky suspician Michael Schiavo's troubles will only get worse.

But either way, it doesn't look like this story will have a happy ending.

Can you honestly believe that after 15 years of a plethora of medical tests and and assessment, an autopsy is going to magically show that Michael Shiavo was abusing his wife?

Do you really think Doctors can't tell the difference between heart failure and abuse? Or perhaps you think Michael Shiavo had learned the mystic five finger death strike move from Kill Bill 2, which an autopsy will magically reveal?

My question is....

Which side is gonna be the first to publish a book. These days books always surface to cash in on tragedies. I'm betting on the parents and I bet that they use the excuse that it is to help pay for expenses of fighting their son-in-law for so many years. They're gonna need a new hobby now!

From NY Times:

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

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

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

Ok, what I heard today confirms what I was beginning to think was true about the parents. I believe they have been doing this all for money, to harrass the husband and to get into the spot light. The proof? Well, if you were foolish enough to have donated money to their cause you should know that they have SOLD your email address now to a direct marketer and you will be getting a raft of religious conservative spam.

I think the parents are worms.

I'm waiting for the parents to do the book deal thing. Why not? They've already turned their daughter's death into a media circus, might as well make as much money as possible off of it.

Can you honestly believe that after 15 years of a plethora of medical tests and and assessment, an autopsy is going to magically show that Michael Shiavo was abusing his wife?

Do you really think Doctors can't tell the difference between heart failure and abuse? Or perhaps you think Michael Shiavo had learned the mystic five finger death strike move from Kill Bill 2, which an autopsy will magically reveal?
It's not magic. It's forensic science. And YES, it can reveal whether or not any physical injuries occurred prior to her disability. And yes, they CAN tell the difference between heart failure as the cause and say asphyxiation. Now I don't know whether or not the allegations are true. However, unlike you, I'm not afraid to explore the possibility. There's nothing wrong with making a hypothesis based on Michael's actions. If the hypothesis is false then let forensic science prove it false.

Which side is gonna be the first to publish a book.

I don't know about you, but I have noticed a conspicuous absense of blah blah blah from the husbands team.

I also think that it serves him well to keep his mouth shut, and ignoring the plethora of trash his opponents throw his way.

The parents, their lawyers, and their supporters are self-mocking already, he has no real need to help them.



Now watch him open his yap and make a fool of himself.

It's not magic. It's forensic science. And YES, it can reveal whether or not any physical injuries occurred prior to her disability. And yes, they CAN tell the difference between heart failure as the cause and say asphyxiation. Now I don't know whether or not the allegations are true. However, unlike you, I'm not afraid to explore the possibility. There's nothing wrong with making a hypothesis based on Michael's actions. If the hypothesis is false then let forensic science prove it false.
Truid, do you really know anything about forensic science, or are you calling on what you've learned from "CSI Miami"?

Forensic science can show many things. An autopsy will be able to show if her heart was disfunctional, if her brain has areas that 'died' due to lack of use/blood flow/activity. It will even show the damage her body has bore from her long-term condition.

But, in no way, shape or form, is an autopsy going to show if her condition was caused by asphyxia due to her husband abusing her fifteen years ago. Maybe if it had been the cause of her death, but it isn't. That is not something that would even show up in an autopsy, even if it did exist.

On a final note, if the allegations of abuse were remotely true, don't you think that it would have been investigated years ago, when it supposedly happened? Since it wasn't, that would probably be a good sign that it didn't happen.

It's not magic. It's forensic science. And YES, it can reveal whether or not any physical injuries occurred prior to her disability. And yes, they CAN tell the difference between heart failure as the cause and say asphyxiation. Now I don't know whether or not the allegations are true. However, unlike you, I'm not afraid to explore the possibility. There's nothing wrong with making a hypothesis based on Michael's actions. If the hypothesis is false then let forensic science prove it false.


Oh, there will be an autopsy, and I'm not arguing against it.

I'm simply suggesting that it takes a special sort of short bus to hold people who honestly think doctors doing an autopsy 15 years after the incident which, ultimately, lead to death. would find anything new. Sure, forensics might be able to tell if she had physical injuries before her disability, or if she had no oxygen 15 years ago because of heart failure vs her husband choking her. However, I rather suspect, that doctors didn't need to wait for her to die to determine that when she came she wasn't beaten, and that her husband hadn't strangled her. These are all issues that Doctors, maybe, just maybe, may have noticed had they been actual, longr before the right wing dip****s finally got around to thinking of...a decade and a half after the fact.

Well, its rather easy to tell, while she is alive, if the brain damage is due to being beaten or due to her heart stopping. Presumably... her heart was stopped and they restarted it. I would imagine they ran all kinds of blood tests to figure out why her heart stopped and found the potassium deficiency. Then there are things like bruises and fractures. If she were smoothered with a pillow there would be evidence of that as teeth pressing into the lips and causing bruising or cuts. If someone were smothering me with a pillow, I'd be fighting like a cat and they'd be covered with bruises and scratches (and hopefully broken bones and a fractured skull, bite marks, knees to groin, fingers to the eyes, etc). I wouldn't just lie there peacefully.

I'm a huge fan of Dr. G, medical examiner, a real life Coroner who discusses her cases, and she's done autopsies on suffocation victims and she has discussed the various signs of it. You don't have to be dead for them to figure it out.

On a final note, if the allegations of abuse were remotely true, don't you think that it would have been investigated years ago, when it supposedly happened? Since it wasn't, that would probably be a good sign that it didn't happen.

They were investigated years ago, and found to be unsubstanciated. Doctors (hired by the courts) reviewing information x-rays ect.. found that there was no unusual scaring of bone or tissue that would indicate continual abuse. Xrays taken very soon after her accident indicate bone scaring which might indicate abuse but as likely came from resusitaction and transportation of Terri by the ambulance team on the scene. There is also nothing in any statements by friends and family members that would indicate that Micheal was deemed an abusive husband. Her parents did not bring up any arguments about probable abuse when Micheal was first named her guardian (with no objection from her family or others) it was not until four years after her seziure (when he refused to pay them off with the insurance money) that they began there Micheal never loved her, Micheal abused her, Terri was about to leave him, stories which judges have continually found to be unsubstanciated and unlikely based on the families inability to testify in a beliavable manner.

I'm a huge fan of Dr. G, medical examiner, a real life Coroner who discusses her cases, and she's done autopsies on suffocation victims and she has discussed the various signs of it.

Love that show! She's one of the reasons I decided to go into the career I am. That and a quirky fascination with the dead. :cool:

Synjinn, what career are you in? Ever since I've seen Dr. G, I really wished I had become a coroner. Man, its SO fascinating! I can imagine the first few years would be really, really tough, but once you got used to sawing into people and opening their chests with loppers (I swear, I have that EXACT pair of loppers... only I use them for tree branches) and get used to working with decaying corpses... it would be a fascinating job!

Working on my BA in criminal forensics. Still have a few more years, though.

I was lucky, my dad is in law enforcement, so I got to do alot of ride alongs when I was younger. I've been to crime scenes, autopsies...I love it. The whole idea of solving a crime by the clues left behind by a dead body is utterly fascinating to me. Its like a big puzzle that has to be solved, and all you have to do is figure out the language to understand what it says.

I love the gore and stuff. Like I said, a quirky fascination I guess. :lol:

Thanks. Your explanation makes sense. Without this morphine drip I can only imagine how hard it would be for her family to see her starve to death. But then, who knows, maybe the morphine drip will kill her.
Unlike some of you, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I found the following information interesting. The New York Times Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/national/29schiavo.html)

The issue of whether Ms. Schiavo was receiving morphine and why has been a persistent source of concern among the protesters outside her hospice. Some of the placards and statements from supporters have referred to her being on a morphine drip, which many saw as evidence that she was dying in pain.

Mr. Felos said Monday that Ms. Schiavo had never been on a morphine drip. She has received two five-milligram suppository doses of morphine in the last 11 days, most recently two days ago, he said. Each dose was minimal, he said, and would have worn off in about four hours.

"I understand the frustration of the Schindler family, but there is no place for statements such as, 'The hospice is trying to accelerate Terri's death,' " Mr. Felos said.

Dr. R. Sean Morrison, a professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, said the morphine dose was "less than taking one Percocet tablet" and unlikely to have any depressive effect on Ms. Schiavo's breathing or to hasten death.

Another doctor with long experience treating patients at the end of life, Douglas Nelson of Hickory, N.C., said that providing morphine to a patient in a persistent vegetative state was unnecessary because the patient would be unaware of pain or discomfort.

But, Dr. Nelson said, "It's not uncommon for the nurse to suggest, 'Let's just give her a suppository to be on the safe side.' "

From NY Times:

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

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

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

Ok, what I heard today confirms what I was beginning to think was true about the parents. I believe they have been doing this all for money, to harrass the husband and to get into the spot light. The proof? Well, if you were foolish enough to have donated money to their cause you should know that they have SOLD your email address now to a direct marketer and you will be getting a raft of religious conservative spam.

I think the parents are worms.
For those who'd like to read the entire article, from the source, you can find it at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/politics/29donate.html

What Pan didn't quote was:
Direct mail and mass e-mailings are ubiquitous fund-raising tools of interest groups on the left as well as the right, and others in the direct-mail business defended the sale of lists like the roster of donors to the Schindlers as a useful way for potential donors to learn of causes that might appeal to them.

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

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

Ms. Hennessy, who operates the Schindlers' Web site, www.terrisfight.org, said the family had not released any of the names or e-mail addresses gathered there. "Obviously these people are enterprising, and they are taking advantage of this very desperate father," she said. For you to state that you think the "parents are worms" seems pretty judgmental of you Pan. Why is it ok for you to judge them so harshly but yet wrong for anyone else to judge Michael Schiavo in the same harsh manner?

Because, ultimately, every supposed heinous act the right wing has claimed from Michael Schiavo has proven to be misinformation or outright lies.

In doing further research (though not deep research by any means), myself, I'm more and more convinced her parents started all of this soley as an attempt to get their claws on money. They latched themselves onto the right wing agenda in order to help fund a decade of litigation hoping to push Michael Schiavo into submission by draining his time, emotions, and finances.

Ultimately, not one person has given a credible ulterior motive to Michael Schiavo's continual fight for his wife...which naturally leads one to believe he simply is doing what he believes is right. Because, as the right wing is quick to point out for their own reasons, it would have been much easier for him to simply let the parents take her, wipe his hands of the matter, and finally move on with his life. Instead, for what I can only presume is a genuine love of his wife and her wishes, he's fought and fought and fought.

Can anyone believe he's nothing more than some sort of cruel monster who has sat about for 10 years trying to kill his wife just for the hell of it? He had a reason, whatever it may be. Given how easily he could have dropped and forgotten the entire matter, I have to imagine his reasons essentially altruistic and done of out a geniune desire to see the woman he loved finally laid to rest and released from a state she had told her husband, lover, and confidant, that she did not wish to ever remain in.

Essentially, it seems fairly clear to me that Michael Schiavo is simply doing what he believes is right...

It is not so clear to me, that her parents are doing the same...

It just occurred to me that perhaps one of the reasons this case has escalated to such a controversy may be directly related to how we answer the question (see: Where Lies The Soul Thread (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showthread.php?t=11002) ) where lies the soul. In other words, if you have a purely naturalistic world view and don't believe in a soul or spirit or any kind of afterlife, then it would seem reasonable that with Terri's deteriorated brain cells she would be incapable of any cognitive abilities. On the other hand, if you believe she has a soul, then why would we assume she has lost all cognative abilities? Wouldn't that mean that her soul/spirit has somehow lost the ability to see or hear? I must admit I really haven't thought much about how a soul/spirit would be able to see, hear, touch, taste, smell (using the 5 senses) without having a physical body. This is basically me just thinking out loud. Stretching my own faith and belief system. I have to admit it doesn't sound very reasonable and I'm not the type of person who likes to hold onto "blind faith." I've always seen myself as the type of person who has a reasonable faith that can provide reasonable answers, even if others don't want to accept those answers. Sorry for my random musings . . . .

I believe wholeheartedly in the concept of souls. That is one of the reasons I am for allowing Terri to die. Imagine being trapped in your own body? How cruel is that? To hear, feel and see all the nasty things that those you love are doing 'in your name' and yet incapable of voicing what you really think or want?

As I said in an earlier post...reminds me of Metallica's song "One". *shiver* That would be, at least for me, the worst thing imaginable; to be trapped in my own body; to be a prisoner within a shell of what I once was.

Can we please keep the attacks to the arguments raised and stop attacking the person(s) making them. Including from the Moderators. :(

I don't think anyone has attacked any other poster in this thread, Remi. If you see something that you feel is a personal attack, please report it.

It just occurred to me that perhaps one of the reasons this case has escalated to such a controversy may be directly related to how we answer the question (see: Where Lies The Soul Thread (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showthread.php?t=11002) ) where lies the soul.It occurred to me that perhaps the reason this case has escalated to such a controversy may be directly related to GREED. If her parents loved her and TRULY believed that she was cognitively aware, why would they force their own daughter to go through the ordeal that they have for FIFTEEN YEARS?!??!!. I can only hope that MY parents aren't so "loving". I FIRMLY believe that they are silently convinced that she is NOT aware and they saw an opportunity to make some kind of statement (er... financial statement) when they saw the malpractice settlements.

By the way, according to all I have read the trust for Terri was exhausted several (3+) years ago with no resolve to her medical state.

For you to state that you think the "parents are worms" seems pretty judgmental of you Pan. Why is it ok for you to judge them so harshly but yet wrong for anyone else to judge Michael Schiavo in the same harsh manner?

Because anyone who sells your email address or mailing list address after you have made a donation, without your permission, is a worm. It tells people, don't make donations, your personal information will be sold. If I ever tracked done someone doing that sort of thing with my info, I'd try to sue them. You can bet I won't make donations on the web any longer unless there is a clear privacy statement and a promise that my information won't be sold.

It also indicates to me the parents are in this for money and attention, especially in light of their response with that malpractice award and demanding half of the money.

Why is it ok for you to judge them so harshly but yet wrong for anyone else to judge Michael Schiavo in the same harsh manner?

You can judge anyone in any way you want. However, I will get the opportunity to debate you in that in these forums.

I don't see Michael being motivated by money, he's trying to carry out his wife's wishes. The parents have just shown themselves to be plain wrong to interfere, and now greedy. The large batch of judges, conservative and liberal, who heard this agree with Michael. Every single one of them.

I could be utterly wrong and we'll find out Michael is greedy too; it seems to be a common human failing. However even under all that I think most reasonable people (as shown by polls) think that extending Terri's life is a futile and possibly just cruel. Most of us wouldn't want that for ourselves. Thus we find this interference from her parents to be just really wrong especially in light of the fact that her husband has been judged to know what her wishes were and his motivations have been scrutinized in court.

On the other hand, if you believe she has a soul, then why would we assume she has lost all cognative abilities? Wouldn't that mean that her soul/spirit has somehow lost the ability to see or hear?

The brain is fascinating and one of the ways it gets understood is when people have brain damage. For instance, I've read accounts of people with specific damage (like damage caused by a stroke or by a physical injury that actually intersects a part of the brain) and they lose certain functions like short term memory. They can tell you everything that happened to them... except what happened yesterday. Or there are some people that have lost the ability to feel fear so they lack those insticts that keep us able to react really quickly to dangerous situations.

Lots of people lose the ability to see, hear, and smell. Their souls don't provide those senses for them.

NYTimes Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/national/31cnd-schiavo.html?hp&ex=1112331600&en=9a3735df723459c0&ei=5094&partner=homepage)
Rest In Peace Terri

I hope she is at peace and I hope that those who are left behind can find peace of their own in their lives. I somehow doubt that this is the last we'll hear of it though.

I somehow doubt that this is the last we'll hear of it though.It isn't, <a href=http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/31/national/a142854S82.DTL>they're now fighting about the burial</a>.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=716&e=19&u=/washpost/20050401/ts_washpost/a15454_2005mar31

And the stage is being set to make "Terri Shiavo" an electoral pledge to make sure that the government controls every aspect of our dying process. Joy.

It's enough to make me think that putting a bullet through my head when I hit 70 will be better for everyone involved.

What I find even sadder is that the word "conservative" is now a reference to someone who wants government to stick it's nose into our personal business. I think I liked conservatives better when they were more interested in protecting our individual constitutional rights to live our lives as unencumbered by government as possible. I guess there aren't any REAL conservatives left in the government these days. They ALL want to legislate and live our lives for us. A "Constitutionalist" can't even be considered a "conservative" these days. I remember when the two terms were practically synonymous

I found the following pretty amusing over at UGO forums so I thought I'd share it with you all here.
From Sshadow: http://forums.ugo.com/showthread.php?t=24190

They did a satire of the whole thing on South Park last night and nailed it squarely.

There was a will that stated something like: If ever I am in a persistent vegetative state and kept alive with artificial means please…

And of course the lawyer had lost the last page.

After the whole political, judicial, and press frenzy was in full swing the lawyer comes into the hospital room where the two opposing sizes are literally shouting at each other over the vegetative individual (yes, it was Kenny) while being observed by the media shouting that he's found the last page to the will!!!

It says: If ever I am in a persistent vegetative state and kept alive with artificial means please… for the love of God don't show me in such a state on national television! :devil-lau

Arienne, I don't think conservatives ever really were for not sticking their noses into your personal business. They've always been trying to legislate your bedroom activities, your rights over your own body, they've been the true busy bodies when it comes to drug use, unless it is tobacco or alcohol, then they don't want to meddle. They have always come down on the side of less privacy ala J. Edgar Hoover, the Patriot act, etc. I don't know how monitoring your telephone lines, snooping your library interests lends itself to smaller government.

I remember they always talked about small government but I think that had more to do with privatizing lots of stuff and deregulating things.

As far as protecting the constitution... ha! Right now they're trying to change the rules of congress such that fillibustering judicial nominations can't happen any longer. It's so ironic. Does anyone remember how they held up Clinton's nominations? They just refused to convene the judicial sub-committee. I think there were dozens and dozens of nominations that were held up using rules like fillibustering. Bush has had I think 10 nominations unapproved, Clinton had something like 60 of them.

Oh well, what goes around, comes around.

Actually, you're confusing Falwell and his "Moral Majority" with "conservative" government. "Conservative" government is NOT government that wants to get involved in your bedroom and legislate your "morality". Conservative government is the group who wants less government intervention in the daily life and understands the constitutionally stated purpose of the federal government. I guess we need more Constitutionalists and Libertarians and fewer Democrats and Republicans. The "big two" have become one in the same with minor "twists" to make them seem different.

But don't mistake those who want to foist their own sense of morality on you and every other American to be "political conservatives". They are FAR from it!

I guess we need more Constitutionalists and Libertarians and fewer Democrats and Republicans.


hehe.

Anytime.

Actually, you're confusing Falwell and his "Moral Majority" with "conservative" government. "Conservative" government is NOT government that wants to get involved in your bedroom and legislate your "morality". Conservative government is the group who wants less government intervention in the daily life and understands the constitutionally stated purpose of the federal government. I guess we need more Constitutionalists and Libertarians and fewer Democrats and Republicans. The "big two" have become one in the same with minor "twists" to make them seem different.

But don't mistake those who want to foist their own sense of morality on you and every other American to be "political conservatives". They are FAR from it!

I think you're confusing conservative with libertarians. I usually consider libertarians to be half democrat (on the social freedoms issues like sex, drugs, end-of-life, reproduction, privacy) and half republican (on the no taxes, no welfare, no regulation).

Well, lets look at some presidents... I wouldn't put Bush Senior or Regan in the same league with the Moral Majority but they both did a lot a lot of meddling in that regard. I remember Regan really pushed the anti-drug campaign to a level it had never been in and started to put a lot of drug users in jail. In fact, I think it was during his administration that the US started to have the largest prision population (% of people in prison) of any country in the world. He also started with the purity programs which were oriented to getting people to have less sex. I don't recall gay issues from that period.

In the senate the republicans have always pushed to be legislating their brand of morality. Look at the sodomy laws that have recently been repealed by courts in the typically heavily conservative south.

Which states generally have the most progressive laws regarding marijuana use, gay marriage and end-of-life issues? Heavily democrat states. Nope, I can't recall any major republicans (conservatives) that were willing to live people alone over reproduction, sex, drugs and privacy. I know there are some out there, maybe even Arnold is, but it seems like he's trying to toe the party line so he stays pretty quiet on those issues.

If you want to restrict the use of a recreational drug that damages the health of the user you might be a conservative, unless the drug is tobacco in which case you're not conservative but liberal. This is seemingly quite contradictory, until you realise that conservative actually means resistant to change.

In terms of the US, I suppose that makes the pro-choice campaigners conservative and the pro-life campaigners liberal reformists, when you think about it. Do you think it would be a shock if we told them?

There's a lot of cross-over too. Lots of democrats want to either appear tough on drugs or else they really believe it (hard to tell). Although I think a lot of the enthusiams for the war on drugs has fallen off.

I've always felt, I'm biased admitedly, that Republicans were always trying to impose more restrictions on personal freedoms and privacy: J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarthy, Bush Jr. (Patriot act) just to name a few.

In the senate the republicans have always pushed to be legislating their brand of morality. Look at the sodomy laws that have recently been repealed by courts in the typically heavily conservative south.
You have any idea who passed those southern sodomy laws in the first place Panamah?

Considering the south was almost totally Democratic from the end of the civil war until the last 20 years or so. I can guarantee you that all of those laws were passed by Democratic state legislatures. So do not lay those on the Republicans.

J. Edgar Hoover
Not even sure was his polical affliation was - think it was the "J. Edgar Hoover" party to be honest. Hoover was in fact appointed by a Republican but he served more years under Democratic Presidents who could have easily replaced him and Hoover was made FBI Director for life by a Democrat - LBJ. So again please do not lay something on the Republicans than is not necessarily thiers.

The white South became republican en masse after the civil rights movement and integration of schools was enforced. Suppose there's a connection there?

Obviously there is a connection there - the Democratic party became too liberal for the conservative Democrats that lived there and they switched parties. How many times does one hear new Republicans say they did not leave the Democratic party, but that the party left them?

And it is the reason the Dems will thankfully lose the south in Presidential ections for the forseeable future unless there is a really strong "favorite" son/daughter on the Demcratic ticket.

Gore in 2000 and Edwards in 2004 apparently did not meet that acid test.

I'd say the connection is the southern democracts didn't like the northern democrats saying you can't segregate people based upon their color, or religion. Perhaps they felt the Republicans would be more likely to look the other way when it came to issues like racial discrimination. It certainly was the case when Regan was govenor of CA. My father was harrassed by Regan appointees when he sold property to blacks in white neighborhoods. They threatened to revoke his realtor's license.

A very good article about the hypocrisy of this whole case. (http://csmonitor.com/2005/0404/p09s02-coop.html)

Note that while the article is published in the notoriously right wing Christian Science Monitor, the author is a democrat (and two term former governer of Oregon). A couple quick exerpts:

On the same day that the US House of Representatives voted to involve the federal courts in her case, it also approved a 10-year $92-billion cut in Medicaid funding - $30 billion deeper than the cut recommended by President Bush.

In 2003, for example, in an effort to balance the budget in the face of falling revenue due to the recession, the Oregon legislature discontinued prescription-drug coverage for certain categories of citizens covered by the state's Medicaid program. This action was apparently based on the assumption - widespread in legislative circles - that if we just stop paying for the healthcare needs of the poor, they'll somehow go away and the public sector can avoid the cost.

As a consequence of this decision, Douglas Schmidt, a man in his mid-30s suffering from a seizure disorder, was no longer able to afford to purchase the medication that controlled his seizures. He subsequently had a grand mal seizure and suffered severe brain damage. He was put on a ventilator in a Portland hospital, where he remained for several months. Eventually he was transferred to a long-term care facility where he died after life support was withdrawn - following a court order to do so.

I still say I don't want the political machinations practicing medicine on me unless they have an M.D. to back up their decision making. Kitzhaber has an M.D. I'm okay with him making these sorts of decisions.

Thank you for the article Jin.

Good read.



/aside
We should look into the reasons why Mr. Schmidt's medicines(those he took before he died, that is) cost $14 a day.

/aside
I had a Christian Scientist friend once, he would not use Head and Shoulders Shampoo because it was 'medicated'.

I still say I don't want the political machinations practicing medicine on me unless they have an M.D. to back up their decision making. Kitzhaber has an M.D. I'm okay with him making these sorts of decisions.

Careful what you wish, hun! Bill Frist, one of the Republicans that pushed through that Shiavo thing, I think the Senate majority leader, is a doctor, an MD actually. He diagnosed her from the video segments he saw on TV.

Careful what you wish, hun! Bill Frist, one of the Republicans that pushed through that Shiavo thing, I think the Senate majority leader, is a doctor, an MD actually. He diagnosed her from the video segments he saw on TV.

Really?!! That is just plain scary. Its bad enough we have backseat drivers and arm chair quarterbacks...now we have newsclip physicians. Ugh. What next?

Wasn't that whacko Dean an MD in a previous life?

I sure am glad you all did not elect him. He was more looney than Ross Perot.

Heh, I would have rather seen Dean than Kerry last election.

Hell, I wish we could have Bill back, at this stage. Unfortunately, I suspect we're going to end Hillary, which scares me alot.

Honestly, I fear it going Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush (Jeb), Clinton (Chelsea), Bush (fill in the blank)..we'll become the worlds first two party monarchy. I'll end up in Israel, at that stage.

As much as I don't want to see another Republican in the White House, I think the odds of Hillary making president are slim to none. Huge hunks of this country just aren't ready for a woman in the White House.

Hillary might as well be a republican, she toadies up to them an awful lot.

And do you think Hillary's drift in the last few years from left to right is just a coincidence in her build up to running for Pres in 2008?

Bill Clinton's Presidency was run based on opinion polls down to where to go on vacation, and guess who was running that show in the first place. It surely was not Willy.

Huge hunks of this country just aren't ready for a woman in the White House.

Margaret Hilda Thatcher once said she wouldn't see a female Prime Minister in her lifetime.

Isn't Condaleeza Rice as likely to be the first female President as Hillary Clinton? In the UK there's a clear pecking order amongst the politicians but I just can't work out the US heirachy at all.

I don't think Hillary will win, not because she's a woman, but because a lot of people dislike her.

Hilary has a better chance than Ms Rice but only because she's white. I think the American people would have an extremely tough time voting in the first black president at the same time they were voting in the first female president. Ms Rice has an advantage since she is a republican. I feel that the first Black president will be a conservative probably the first female President will be as well, but I doubt they will be the same person.

I personally feel we will have a Black or Hispanic Male Conservative as President before a female. Unfortunatly I believe that Colin Powell is still refusing to run. I think he would have the best shot currently at breaking the barrier.

Originally posted by Ndainye:
Unfortunatly I believe that Colin Powell is still refusing to run. I think he would have the best shot currently at breaking the barrier.

I so agree. I would have (and still will if he ever does) vote for him. He's probably one of the few people who I believe could be a politician with morals and honor, a rare commodity in today's US political society.

Colin Powell will not run for president. His wife suffers from depression. He has stated numerous times, sometimes more publicly than others, that he would not ever put his family through the gristmill that is running for president.

I would vote for him. In a heartbeat. I think it's sad that our elections are so horrible (and always have been) as to prevent more sane individuals from wanting to put themselves or their family through the process, even though the individual might be extremely well qualified.

Colin Powell will not run because he would not win, and it would have nothing to do with his race.

I for one would vote for Attorney General Rice for Prez, in fact I wish that they would have eased Dick Cheney from the ticket in 2004 and put her as VP instead in order to facilitate it.

And I think you would be very surprised to find out how many Republicans, who do truly believe in judging one not by the color of thier skin but the content of thier character, would also.

Unfortunately too many Democrats do not believe in this concept and feel it necessary to denigrate any minority that strays for the reservation. They do refer to her as the Bush administration's "house whore" after all.

I never stated that republican's or democrats as a whole would not vote for someone due to race. There are bigots all over the place, they don't necessarily follow party lines.

Colin Powell would have an extremely good chance of winning despite his race. He is a conservative, and yet he has the respect of many Democrats. Some of the worst bigots I am unfortunate enough to know have stated that they would vote for him. But it's a futile debate because he will not run.

I'm glad you would vote for Rice if you feel she represents what you feel is important in a President. There are too many men that feel that women are too emotional to handle the responsibility of the White House. Combine that with the number of racial bigots on both sides and it wouldn't matter what issues she choose to run on she wouldn't win. Same thing with Clinton, issues would have nothing to do with whether she was able to win.

Isn't Condaleeza Rice as likely to be the first female President as Hillary Clinton?Rice is a n00b. Hillary Clinton is loathsome. It's unfortunate there aren't good female candidates showing interest.

No matter what, I think a necessary first step would be to first have a minority/female as vice president, to make people comfortable with the idea of having him or her as president.

It's unfortunate there aren't good female candidates showing interest.

Sadly, the same can be said for male candidates.

And do you think Hillary's drift in the last few years from left to right is just a coincidence in her build up to running for Pres in 2008?

Bill Clinton's Presidency was run based on opinion polls down to where to go on vacation, and guess who was running that show in the first place. It surely was not Willy.

Hehe, it certainly was Willy. Say what you want about him...the man was a political genius.

Hilary has a better chance than Ms Rice but only because she's white. I think the American people would have an extremely tough time voting in the first black president at the same time they were voting in the first female president. Ms Rice has an advantage since she is a republican. I feel that the first Black president will be a conservative probably the first female President will be as well, but I doubt they will be the same person.

I personally feel we will have a Black or Hispanic Male Conservative as President before a female. Unfortunatly I believe that Colin Powell is still refusing to run. I think he would have the best shot currently at breaking the barrier.

Can't blame the man for not running...myself, he's a Republican I'd actually vote for, but the first Black President may as well paint a bullseye on himself, and he'd best have a spotless record...something I suspect a four star general does not have.

Colin Powell will not run because he would not win, and it would have nothing to do with his race.

I for one would vote for Attorney General Rice for Prez, in fact I wish that they would have eased Dick Cheney from the ticket in 2004 and put her as VP instead in order to facilitate it.

And I think you would be very surprised to find out how many Republicans, who do truly believe in judging one not by the color of thier skin but the content of thier character, would also.

Unfortunately too many Democrats do not believe in this concept and feel it necessary to denigrate any minority that strays for the reservation. They do refer to her as the Bush administration's "house whore" after all.

Rice is scary. She'll never get elected because she makes Bush look like a liberal hippie.

As for the rest of your post, pure and utter rubbish.

After reading the following article, do you consider this case similar to the Schiavo case? Keyword being similar not exactly the same. Also, who do you support in this instance, the husband (who wants to keep the wife alive) or the family (who wants to 'pull the plug')?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1340152.htm

No, not all that similar actually. First of all, she hasn't been a PSV for 15 years. Her husband might have caused her to be in that state. He has a motive for not wanting her unplugged, he could be faced with murder charges since he allegedly put her in that state. And his crime gets bigger if she's unplugged.

In this case, its not a husband trying to see his wife's wishes versus her families wishes. It is about a husband trying to save himself from a murder trial.

/nod. In the Shiavo case, he was not going to be charged with anything, and financially stood nothing to gain much by it all.

This guy has a LOT riding on her NOT dying.