PDA

View Full Version : Terry Shiaivo feeding tube has been removed


Pages : [1] 2

Duck Dog
03-18-2005, 02:13 PM
Fox News Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150878,00.html)

:shake:

What a horrible way to die.

Cochise
03-18-2005, 02:19 PM
We don't even do that to stray animals or death row inmates. :shake:

No one deserves to die like that.

RaiderH8r
03-18-2005, 02:22 PM
That's just freakin great. Her husband is truly a piece of vile worthless scum.

Duck Dog
03-18-2005, 02:22 PM
We don't even do that to stray animals or death row inmates. :shake:

No one deserves to die like that.

Exactly. It's not hard to imagine why libs are so far behind the evolution scale when they have Sens. Barbara Boxer, Ron Wyden, and Carl Levin blasting our service members for embarrasing prisoners, yet they defend the barbaric practice's of abortion and slow deaths like this one.

Saulbadguy
03-18-2005, 02:24 PM
Shoulda euthanized her. JMO.

RaiderH8r
03-18-2005, 02:24 PM
Why not have her husband wheel in there with a pillow and end it that way? What a puke.

Cochise
03-18-2005, 02:25 PM
maybe the President could issue an executive order? :shrug:

Brock
03-18-2005, 02:26 PM
But what if she gets hungry?

Duck Dog
03-18-2005, 02:26 PM
Shoulda euthanized her. JMO.


I kinda agree with that. It would seem her husband is pretty sure this is what she wanted, but for gods sake there has to be a better way of doing it. Hell we don't even make our most vicious criminals suffer, why the innocent?

Saulbadguy
03-18-2005, 02:27 PM
I've heard that she won't even notice she is starving, from a doctor on Fox News. She will just die. Still sounds pretty disturbing.

RaiderH8r
03-18-2005, 02:27 PM
maybe the President could issue an executive order? :shrug:
Ironically, if she were on death row he could issue a stay of execution.

Duck Dog
03-18-2005, 02:28 PM
I've heard that she won't even notice she is starving, from a doctor on Fox News. She will just die. Still sounds pretty disturbing.


My question to the good doctor on Fox is;

HTF do you know that?

Cochise
03-18-2005, 02:28 PM
I've heard that she won't even notice she is starving, from a doctor on Fox News. She will just die. Still sounds pretty disturbing.

If she laughs and responds to people like in the videos on her website how the hell would she not notice her stomach digesting itself?

It has to be one of the most cruel and painful ways to die. Seems hard to believe.

Saulbadguy
03-18-2005, 02:29 PM
My question to good doctor on Fox is;

HTF do you know that?
He explained that the parts of her brain that would register those types of feelings were either gone, or dead.

Cochise
03-18-2005, 02:29 PM
Ironically, if she were on death row he could issue a stay of execution.

Yeah, too bad she doesn't get the same protections under the law that a mass murderer would get.

Saulbadguy
03-18-2005, 02:29 PM
If she laughs and responds to people like in the videos on her website how the hell would she not notice her stomach digesting itself?

It has to be one of the most cruel and painful ways to die. Seems hard to believe.
Post 14..the parts of the brain that control those feelings/emotions are different than the ones that trigger hunger.

I'm no doctor, or an expert on the matter, but thats what I heard.

Duck Dog
03-18-2005, 02:31 PM
He explained that the parts of her brain that would register those types of feelings were either gone, or dead.

That would make more sense. I still can't fathom it. I'm all for the right to die, but there has to be an easier way. Give her something that puts her to sleep.

Even if she doesn't suffer any pain, her family will.

RaiderH8r
03-18-2005, 02:32 PM
He explained that the parts of her brain that would register those types of feelings were either gone, or dead.
Longitudinal studies on stroke survivors show that the brain has an ability to create new neural pathways over time to compensate for dead, dying, or malfunctioning areas. And since communication is a problem in this situation in that she can't communicate her wishes, wants or desires. And since the hypocratic oath is to "do no harm" the positon of the Dr. seems to fly in the face of all of that. Doctors are not supposed to harm people they are supposed to help. Her husband only wants the $$ associated with her life insurance and the movie of the week deal. He's a piece of scum. Her parents were caring for her, visiting her, they cared whether she lived or died and this piece of sh!t fought to kill her. WTF?

Donger
03-18-2005, 02:33 PM
Oddly enough, I imagine that thi is the only way that they'll find out whether she really is a vegetable.

If she reacts to the starvation, she's not a vegetable, IMO.

DenverChief
03-18-2005, 02:35 PM
I find it insteresting noboday seems to care that HER WISHES were to not be kept alive like this....

Saulbadguy
03-18-2005, 02:35 PM
That would make more sense. I still can't fathom it. I'm all for the right to die, but there has to be an easier way. Give her something that puts her to sleep.

Even if she doesn't suffer any pain, her family will.
Problem is its noones right to do such a thing. Its within someones right to pull someone off life support. The problem with this case was the "life support" was food. This could set some sort of precedent for future cases similar to this. I think it was proven that her condition would only get worse. Ah well, I wouldn't want to be in any of these peoples shoes right now..the family, or the judges.

Simplex3
03-18-2005, 02:36 PM
I find it insteresting noboday seems to care that HER WISHES were to not be kept alive like this....
Dude, it's not about what she wants, it's about other people feeling better about the whole situation.

Brock
03-18-2005, 02:36 PM
I find it insteresting noboday seems to care that HER WISHES were to not be kept alive like this....

Hearsay, your honor.

Saulbadguy
03-18-2005, 02:37 PM
Oddly enough, I imagine that thi is the only way that they'll find out whether she really is a vegetable.

If she reacts to the starvation, she's not a vegetable, IMO.
That would be terrible. But, I dont think she will feel it. JMO.

RaiderH8r
03-18-2005, 02:37 PM
I find it insteresting noboday seems to care that HER WISHES were to not be kept alive like this....
Her wishes were not clear in this case. If they were this wouldn't be an issue.

Saulbadguy
03-18-2005, 02:40 PM
Its not clear, but damn. I can't fathom anyone who would want to go on living like that for years on end, with no chance of recovering.

Duck Dog
03-18-2005, 02:43 PM
Hearsay, your honor.

Let this be a lesson. Write your wishes down.

I am of the opinion she probably did tell her husband she wouldn't want to live like that.

RaiderH8r
03-18-2005, 02:45 PM
Let this be a lesson. Write your wishes down.

I am of the opinion she probably did tell her husband she wouldn't want to live like that.
Yeah, there's a difference between bs'ing over hypotheticals at morning coffee and having a living will to address these things.

Duck Dog
03-18-2005, 02:47 PM
Yeah, there's a difference between bs'ing over hypotheticals at morning coffee and having a living will to address these things.


I imagine every one of us at one time or another have told someone that they wouldn't want to live like that.

Iowanian
03-18-2005, 02:53 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about this issue.

I know for a fact, that If "I" were her, I'd want to die. I've made that clear to my family...smother me with a pillow, donate my organs....whatever.

If they're going to let her die by starvation, it'd make a lot more sense to just give her a shot, let her go to sleep peacefully and die. If she said she wouldn't want to live like that, and its believable that she did.....Let her die.

I understand her families side of the story and they have my sympathy...but what she is doing, is not Living.

Simplex3
03-18-2005, 02:57 PM
Her wishes were not clear in this case. If they were this wouldn't be an issue.
Don't forget, part of her parent's claim was that had she known, she would have changed her mind, so even if she had written it down they'd be doing this crap. As if anyone can predict the behavior of another person in extreme situations like this.

RaiderH8r
03-18-2005, 02:59 PM
I imagine every one of us at one time or another have told someone that they wouldn't want to live like that.
Exactly. Drafting a living will is recognized as an act of intent and purpose. You don't blithlely draft a living will to be signed, witnessed and notorized.

memyselfI
03-18-2005, 03:01 PM
Fox News Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150878,00.html)

:shake:

What a horrible way to die.

Yeah, well karma might be a bitch for those who've strenuously fought to kill her this way. :hmmm:

Cochise
03-18-2005, 03:02 PM
Exactly. Drafting a living will is recognized as an act of intent and purpose. You don't blithlely draft a living will to be signed, witnessed and notorized.

What's the point in the law requiring a living will if one of your relatives can just say that you said you didn't want to be kept alive and that will be good enough? Makes no sense at all.

memyselfI
03-18-2005, 03:03 PM
I find it insteresting noboday seems to care that HER WISHES were to not be kept alive like this....

According to here-say...

here-say cannot put someone on death row and yet it can for Terry Schiavo? :shake:

RaiderH8r
03-18-2005, 03:04 PM
What's the point in the law requiring a living will if one of your relatives can just say that you said you didn't want to be kept alive and that will be good enough? Makes no sense at all.
A living will is a strong indicator of intent. With a living will the relatives could still file suit to keep you alive, but they would be in a position to disprove your intent, the validity of the will or other legal maneuver. But they would be in the weaker legal position. It would be like trying to break a contract.

Donger
03-18-2005, 03:04 PM
What's the point in the law requiring a living will if one of your relatives can just say that you said you didn't want to be kept alive and that will be good enough? Makes no sense at all.

She didn't/doesn't have a living will, does she?

Cochise
03-18-2005, 03:11 PM
She didn't/doesn't have a living will, does she?

All that exists is her husband claiming that she said it, there's no legal document.

Simplex3
03-18-2005, 03:16 PM
All that exists is her husband claiming that she said it, there's no legal document.
No legal documents except for all those pesky court orders issued after the trials which say to take out the tube.

memyselfI
03-18-2005, 03:20 PM
No legal documents except for all those pesky court orders issued after the trials which say to take out the tube.

Seems to me that court orders and even laws were enacted that made slavery seem fine as well... :rolleyes: :shake:

Baby Lee
03-18-2005, 03:22 PM
Hearsay, your honor.
Worse than that. Hearsay that has been accepted as credible evidence by the judge, while all countervailing hearsay has been rejected.

DenverChief
03-18-2005, 03:26 PM
A few intresting tid bits

We have now reached the endgame in the case of Terri Schiavo. Her husband, Michael, remains unwavering in his view that she would not want to live in the state she is in. Despite the fact that he has been made the target of an incredible organized campaign of vilification, slander and just plain nastiness, he remains unmoved. Even a pathetic effort to bribe him into changing his mind with the offer of $1 million did not budge him.

The Schindler parents and their other children remain equally convinced that Michael is wrong. They say that Terri would want to live, that she is not as brain-damaged as Michael contends(I thought it was court appointed doctors?), and that there is still hope for her recovery despite the fact that she has failed to show any real improvement in 16 years. They argue that there are still more treatments to be tried and that as a Catholic Terri would want to honor recent Papal teachings that feeding tubes should not be removed from those in permanent vegetative states.

The authority to make that decision has fallen to those closest to the person who cannot make their own views known. First come husbands or wives, then adult children, then parents and other relatives.

That is why Michael Schiavo, despite all the hatred that is now directed against him, has the right to decide his wifeís fate. The decision about Terriís life does not belong to the U.S. Congress, President Bush, Rep. Tom Delay of Texas, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the Florida Legislature, clerics in Rome, self-proclaimed disability activists, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, conservative commentators, bioethicists or Terriís parents. The decision is Michaelís and Michaelís alone.


But, isnít it true that tough questions have been raised about whether he has her best interests at heart? They have. But, these charges against Michael Schiavo have been heard in court again and again and again. And no court has found them persuasive.

Has there really been careful review of this case? Is Terri really unable to think or feel or sense? Will she never recover? The flurry of activity in Washington and Tallahassee might make you think there has not. But that is not so.

There have been at least 11 applications to the Florida Court of Appeal in this case resulting in four published decisions; four applications to the Florida Supreme Court with one published decision (Bush v. Schiavo); three lawsuits in federal district court; three applications to the U.S. Supreme Court and nearly untold motions in the trial court. This has got to be the most extensively litigated "right-to-die" case in U.S. history. No one looking at what has gone on in the courts in this case could possibly deny that all parties have had ample opportunity for objective and independent review by earnest and prudent judges of the facts and trial court orders.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7231440/page/2/

Saggysack
03-18-2005, 03:34 PM
That would make more sense. I still can't fathom it. I'm all for the right to die, but there has to be an easier way. Give her something that puts her to sleep.

Even if she doesn't suffer any pain, her family will.

From what I understand is it is considered nature taking it's course. I know it sounds cruel. The other option is hiring in essense, an executioner. And the last time I looked, the last doctor that did that was sentenced to 20yrs. I don't think you will find any doctors willing to take that step for a long, long, time.

Cochise
03-18-2005, 03:41 PM
A few intresting tid bits
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7231440/page/2/

So you're the guy who is watching/reading msnbc ROFL

Clint in Wichita
03-18-2005, 03:49 PM
Fox News Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150878,00.html)

:shake:

What a horrible way to die.


WTF are you talking about? You could slowly remove her head with an x-acto knife and she wouldn't know the difference.

A horrible way to die? What a horrible way to f_cking live.

Saggysack
03-18-2005, 03:53 PM
A horrible way to die? What a horrible way to f_cking live.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Duck Dog
03-18-2005, 03:56 PM
WTF are you talking about? You could slowly remove her head with an x-acto knife and she wouldn't know the difference.

A horrible way to die? What a horrible way to f_cking live.

It is a terrible way to live. But how do you know people in that state don't feel themselves starving and dehydrating to death?

That's WTF I'm talking about.

dirk digler
03-18-2005, 03:56 PM
From what I understand is it is considered nature taking it's course. I know it sounds cruel. The other option is hiring in essense, an executioner. And the last time I looked, the last doctor that did that was sentenced to 20yrs. I don't think you will find any doctors willing to take that step for a long, long, time.

Exactly.

My grandma died 3 months ago at the age of 93. She broke her hip and while she was rehabbing developed a staph infection that could not be cured. She was in and out of concious alot and was on morphine and antibotics at the same time. The last several weeks of her life she hardly eat at all and when my mother or me would feed her she would just cough and hack and it acted like it hurt her. The doctors did some tests and it showed that her swallowing mechanism had stopped.

She had a living will which said no life saving or feeding tubes so they stopped feeding her because if the fed her she would just choke to death. They kept fluids in her via IV but in 10 days she passed away. I spent alot of time with her those last days and there was no pain that I could see though she was on a little morphine.

I wanted to share my story because just from reading some of these posts people have a general misconception about what happens when they stop feeding a patient. I don't know what goes through the patients mind but I have a feeling if they can think I believe they know the end is near and they want it to be as pain free as possible for everybody involved.

Saggysack
03-18-2005, 04:11 PM
Exactly.

My grandma died 3 months ago at the age of 93. She broke her hip and while she was rehabbing developed a staph infection that could not be cured. She was in and out of concious alot and was on morphine and antibotics at the same time. The last several weeks of her life she hardly eat at all and when my mother or me would feed her she would just cough and hack and it acted like it hurt her. The doctors did some tests and it showed that her swallowing mechanism had stopped.

She had a living will which said no life saving or feeding tubes so they stopped feeding her because if the fed her she would just choke to death. They kept fluids in her via IV but in 10 days she passed away. I spent alot of time with her those last days and there was no pain that I could see though she was on a little morphine.

I wanted to share my story because just from reading some of these posts people have a general misconception about what happens when they stop feeding a patient. I don't know what goes through the patients mind but I have a feeling if they can think I believe they know the end is near and they want it to be as pain free as possible for everybody involved.

I'm very sorry for your loss.

I'm glad to hear her doctors kept her pain free. In a time like that a doctor can't be liberal enough with pain meds on terminal patients IMO. Who cares if they are high. They are dying, let's make them as comfortable as possible and let nature take it's course.

BIG_DADDY
03-18-2005, 04:12 PM
Thank god, let her die already.

alnorth
03-18-2005, 04:33 PM
It is a terrible way to live. But how do you know people in that state don't feel themselves starving and dehydrating to death?

That's WTF I'm talking about.

Terri's upper brain has deteriorated into spinal fluid. No human being who has fallen into a persistent vegetative state like Terri has EVER recovered.

In order to feel something, think something, or remember something, you need to have an organ to store that information in. Her upper brain is gone. Not malfunctioning, not dead, GONE. It has transformed into fluid over the past 15 years.

Anyone who states that this is cruel should also be against the dismantling of robots.

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 12:58 PM
This former human being is going to know she's starving to death about as much as that bowl of clam chowder realizes you're heating it up in the microwave....

The people clamoring to have her feeding tube left in are thinking only of themselves, not of her.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 01:28 PM
This former human being is going to know she's starving to death about as much as that bowl of clam chowder realizes you're heating it up in the microwave....

The people clamoring to have her feeding tube left in are thinking only of themselves, not of her.
Define human being.

And if she is "former" why not simply shoot her as you would a wounded dog or horse? Hell it is illegal to starve a horse, I guess it is cool to do to people as long as you can imagine them being "former" without any real legal definition.

jAZ
03-19-2005, 01:38 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong - I have paid zero attention to this story until yesterday - but wasn't her family following her wishes in taking her off life support?

Certainly starvation is an ugly way to die, but isn't the point here that it's not really for you, me or others to judge how she chose to die? Shouldn't that be an issue between her, her family, her doctors and her God?

It's a shitty situation, but why all the scorn towards her family?

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 01:40 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong - I have paid zero attention to this story until yesterday - but wasn't her family following her wishes in taking her off life support?

Certainly starvation is an ugly way to die, but isn't the point here that it's not really for you, me or others to judge how she chose to die? Shouldn't that be an issue between her, her family, her doctors and her God?

It's a shitty situation, but why all the scorn towards her family?
You are wrong. Her blood relatives who visit her constantly want her to live. Her estranged husband living with another woman and rarely seeing Terry is the one who wants to starve her to death

jAZ
03-19-2005, 01:40 PM
Define human being.

And if she is "former" why not simply shoot her as you would a wounded dog or horse? Hell it is illegal to starve a horse, I guess it is cool to do to people as long as you can imagine them being "former" without any real legal definition.
Medically assisted euthanasia should be legal. Christian conservatives won't allow it. You might be able to change their mind from the inside though. Give it a shot.

Brock
03-19-2005, 01:40 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong - I have paid zero attention to this story until yesterday - but wasn't her family following her wishes in taking her off life support?

Certainly starvation is an ugly way to die, but isn't the point here that it's not really for you, me or others to judge how she chose to die? Shouldn't that be an issue between her, her family, her doctors and her God?

It's a shitty situation, but why all the scorn towards her family?

You should make at least a cursory attempt to get up to speed.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 01:43 PM
Medically assisted euthanasia should be legal. Christian conservatives won't allow it. You might be able to change their mind from the inside though. Give it a shot.
When should it be legal? I have seen your fellow liberals viewpoint on the topic. Kevorkian was killing those clinically depressed and determined that to be a factor in their non-terminal conditions. Hooray for your side yet again.

Too bad your extremists from your side of the fence want to make it justified by asking a doctor to kill them and supposedly take away the guilt of their own actions.

jAZ
03-19-2005, 01:43 PM
You are wrong. Her blood relatives who visit her constantly want her to live. Her estranged husband living with another woman and rarely seeing Terry is the one who wants to starve her to death
Nice dance around my question.

I said "her wishes". You talk about her husband's and her blood relative's wishes. You ignored the central question.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 01:45 PM
Nice dance around my question.

I said "her wishes". You talk about her husband's and her blood relative's wishes. You ignored the central question.
What were her wishes?


Ohhh, I see, you believe a man who is in another long term relationship regarding a side conversation they supposedly had at one point with no proof whatsoever?

On planet Earth, and in reality, her wishes were never conveyed. So obviously, you are wrong on the subject. Just correcting you as you asked.

Furthermore, if heresay is a reason to go forth in the medical and legal field, you have a stellar career ahead of you.

jAZ
03-19-2005, 01:50 PM
When should it be legal? I have seen your fellow liberals viewpoint on the topic. Kevorkian was killing those clinically depressed and determined that to be a factor in their non-terminal conditions. Hooray for your side yet again.

Too bad your extremists from your side of the fence want to make it justified by asking a doctor to kill them and supposedly take away the guilt of their own actions.
Personally, I think it's colossally stupid that regular suicide is illegal. If you want to kill yourself, WTF should it be against the law? It's certainly no ones business but your own.

Dr. assisted suicide is merely a more controlled extention of actual suicide.

Euthanasia is a slightly different story, because it's not "suicide". Certainly the euthenasia should be regulated heavily. Maybe a panel of independent Dr's must agree with the family. But I don't believe it should be banned.

Doing so gives greater respect and care to horses than people.

jAZ
03-19-2005, 01:53 PM
What were her wishes?


Ohhh, I see, you believe a man who is in another long term relationship regarding a side conversation they supposedly had at one point with no proof whatsoever?
Actually, I believe that she made her wishes public to several people in her family. Not just her husband. At least that's my understanding. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure you will have a link posted in a matter of seconds.

In either case, I do think that people need to plan for exactly these situations. Sign legal documents making their wishes known publicly, so as to avoid this kind of aweful mess.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 01:56 PM
Actually, I believe that she made her wishes public to several people in her family. Not just her husband. At least that's my understanding. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure you will have a link posted in a matter of seconds.

In either case, I do think that people need to plan for exactly these situations. Sign legal documents making their wishes known publicly, so as to avoid this kind of aweful mess.
I am sure you have links of your own supporting your position?

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 01:58 PM
Personally, I think it's colossally stupid that regular suicide is illegal. If you want to kill yourself, WTF should it be against the law? It's certainly no ones business but your own.

Dr. assisted suicide is merely a more controlled extention of actual suicide.

Euthanasia is a slightly different story, because it's not "suicide". Certainly the euthenasia should be regulated heavily. Maybe a panel of independent Dr's must agree with the family. But I don't believe it should be banned.

Doing so gives greater respect and care to horses than people.
Why is it stupid? If you don't succeed, you are hospitalized and treated for your mental illness. If you succeed, you aren't going to be spending any time in prison. Either way, you are not incarcerated and it does not go on your arrest record.

Asking a doctor to kill you (in most circumstances) is just simple cowardice on behalf of the person who wants to die.

jAZ
03-19-2005, 02:13 PM
Why is it stupid? If you don't succeed, you are hospitalized and treated for your mental illness. If you succeed, you aren't going to be spending any time in prison. Either way, you are not incarcerated and it does not go on your arrest record.
Hence the value of properly controlled suicide.
Asking a doctor to kill you (in most circumstances) is just simple cowardice on behalf of the person who wants to die.
I love it when you present contradicting views in a single post. It makes it very clear what you are around here... someone trying to win a debate. Not someone holding principled positions.

Obviously assisted suicide is more than just "cowardice on behalf of the person who wants to die". You made the case yourself that if nothing else, it's a way to lower the risk of associated with a failed suicide attempt.

Not to mention that there those people who might be the most obvious candidates for assisted suicide are terminally ill patients who want to escape their own suffering and end the suffering of their families. Often times, those patients are the least capable of filling their own wishes because of physical limitations.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 02:36 PM
Hence the value of properly controlled suicide.

I love it when you present contradicting views in a single post. It makes it very clear what you are around here... someone trying to win a debate. Not someone holding principled positions.

Obviously assisted suicide is more than just "cowardice on behalf of the person who wants to die". You made the case yourself that if nothing else, it's a way to lower the risk of associated with a failed suicide attempt.

Not to mention that there those people who might be the most obvious candidates for assisted suicide are terminally ill patients who want to escape their own suffering and end the suffering of their families. Often times, those patients are the least capable of filling their own wishes because of physical limitations.
Ahh, the personal attacks when logic fails once more. jAZ is almost back to normal.

Not a single person killed by Jack Kevorkian was unable to kill themselves. Had you actually read my post instead of just reacted you would have clearly seen IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES.

Creating a law to encompass the entire population for a small percentage of those who are incapable of swallowing an overdose or pulling a trigger and attempting to sully further the medical profession is just assinine.

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 02:39 PM
Asking a doctor to kill you (in most circumstances) is just simple cowardice on behalf of the person who wants to die.

People who tell others they must continue to live and suffer despite their wish to die is simply the most colossal hubris imaginable, all based on their superstitions and myths.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 02:42 PM
People who tell others they must continue to live and suffer despite their wish to die is simply the most colossal hubris imaginable, all based on their superstitions and myths.
I am not telling anyone they should live at all. If you want to go hang yourself - more power to you. I think it is disgusting you are such a coward to you attempt to bring legitimacy to your cowardice by involving a professional in your own sad attempts.

jAZ
03-19-2005, 02:54 PM
Ahh, the personal attacks when logic fails once more. jAZ is almost back to normal.

Not a single person killed by Jack Kevorkian was unable to kill themselves. Had you actually read my post instead of just reacted you would have clearly seen IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES.

Creating a law to encompass the entire population for a small percentage of those who are incapable of swallowing an overdose or pulling a trigger and attempting to sully further the medical profession is just assinine.
ROFL

"Creating a law"?

ROFL

"Ecompass an entire population for a small percentage"?

ROFL

Desperation on your part has you reaching deep into an empty bag searching for one last trick to make your case.

Actually, it's elminating a law.

And it certainly isn't creating a law forcing people to commit suicide. Nor is it forcing anyone to assist in suicide. Nor it is forcing anyone to commit euthanasia.

But I guess in a sad way, I enjoy it when you dance like this...

jAZ
03-19-2005, 02:55 PM
I am not telling anyone they should live at all. If you want to go hang yourself - more power to you. I think it is disgusting you are such a coward to you attempt to bring legitimacy to your cowardice by involving a professional in your own sad attempts.
So you are in favor of eliminating the laws banning suicide?

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 02:58 PM
ROFL

"Creating a law"?

ROFL

"Ecompass an entire population for a small percentage"?

ROFL

Desperation on your part has you reaching deep into an empty bag searching for one last trick to make your case.

Actually, it's elminating a law.

And it certainly isn't creating a law forcing people to commit suicide. Nor is it forcing anyone to assist in suicide. Nor it is forcing anyone to commit euthanasia.

But I guess in a sad way, I enjoy it when you dance like this...
No, a law would have to be created making assisted suicide legal. As usual, you have mixed two issues together attempting to garner some reason in your own mind to your failed logic.

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 02:58 PM
I am not telling anyone they should live at all. If you want to go hang yourself - more power to you. I think it is disgusting you are such a coward to you attempt to bring legitimacy to your cowardice by involving a professional in your own sad attempts.

I find it disgusting how often religious people have trouble discerning between themselves and their diety...

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:00 PM
So you are in favor of eliminating the laws banning suicide?
Which laws? Regarding what issues?

I certainly don't think insurance companies should be required for payouts for cowards. Nor do I believe property and debt should be alleviated from the surviving spouse of the quitter. However, if you feel good about not locking up dead people or jailing those who have failed, yes I agree there is no reason for laws regarding incarceration of suicides and attempted suicides.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:01 PM
I find it disgusting how often religious people have trouble discerning between themselves and their diety...
Ahh, the logic leaves you as well. I find when many of you have no arguments you resort to attacking my religion which has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever./

Again, why are doctors required to kill people who can kill themselves?

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:02 PM
Ahh, the logic leaves you as well. I find when many of you have no arguments you resort to attacking my religion which has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever./

Again, why are doctors required to kill people who can kill themselves?

Why do people have experts fix their brakes when they can do it themselves?

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:03 PM
Why do people have experts fix their brakes when they can do it themselves?
Because fixing your brakes isn't illegal and doesn't destroy a human life?

Furthermore, your analogy should be why do people have their brakes destroyed by experts when they can do it themselves. As far as I know, they don't.

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:04 PM
Ahh, the logic leaves you as well. I find when many of you have no arguments you resort to attacking my religion which has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever./

Again, why are doctors required to kill people who can kill themselves?

And for you to even pretend this has nothing to do with your religion is as disingenuous as I have ever seen you.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:05 PM
And for you to even pretend this has nothing to do with your religion is as disingenuous as I have ever seen you.
Have I mentioned God?

Why is this some sort of tactic many of you resort to when you run out of ammo? It belittles your owned failed arguments and makes you look petty.

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:07 PM
Because fixing your brakes isn't illegal and doesn't destroy a human life?

Furthermore, your analogy should be why do people have their brakes destroyed by experts when they can do it themselves. As far as I know, they don't.

So your only objection is it's illegality?

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:08 PM
Have I mentioned God?

Why is this some sort of tactic many of you resort to when you run out of ammo? It belittles your owned failed arguments and makes you look petty.

Please tell me what possible objection anyone could have other than religious grounds.

jAZ
03-19-2005, 03:08 PM
Which laws? Regarding what issues?

I certainly don't think insurance companies should be required for payouts for cowards. Nor do I believe property and debt should be alleviated from the surviving spouse of the quitter. However, if you feel good about not locking up dead people or jailing those who have failed, yes I agree there is no reason for laws regarding incarceration of suicides and attempted suicides.
Ok.

I think we will get your actual opinions pinned down here after a few more posts.

So you are
1) ... in favor a legalizing suicide
2) ... not in favor of extending the "benefits" of death (debts, etc) to those who's families commit suicide.
3) ... against the costs to society associated with failed suicide attempts.
4) ... against voluntary particiapation by Dr's who choose to assist in said suicide even when that participation all but eliminates your concerns (#3) about the costs to society, and even though you agree that in principle (#1) suicide should be legal.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:09 PM
So your only objection is it's illegality?
Nope, you obviously didn't read the entire statement you quoted.

Who pays someone else to destroy their brakes?

And as long as you are answering questions, why didn't you answer the first one I posed of you?

If she is "former" human why not simply shoot her as you would a wounded dog or horse? Hell it is illegal to starve a horse, I guess it is cool to do to people as long as you can imagine them being "former" without any real legal definition?

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:11 PM
Ok.

I think we will get your actual opinions pinned down here after a few more posts.

So you are
1) ... in favor a legalizing suicide
2) ... not in favor of extending the "benefits" of death (debts, etc) to those who's families commit suicide.
3) ... against the costs to society associated with failed suicide attempts.
4) ... against voluntary particiapation by Dr's who choose to assist in said suicide even when that participation all but eliminates your concerns (#3) about the costs to society, and even though you agree that in principle (#1) suicide should be legal.
#1. I never stated I was in favor of any such thing. I stated if the laws changed, they would have no real effect if the other 3 conditions are met. Personally, I don't have a dog in the fight for #1. As long as the other 3 conditions are met, the first doesn't matter at all.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:11 PM
Please tell me what possible objection anyone could have other than religious grounds.
You mean involving the medical profession in a field where it truly doesn't belong?

jAZ
03-19-2005, 03:13 PM
#1. I never stated I was in favor of any such thing. I stated if the laws changed, they would have no real effect if the other 3 conditions are met. Personally, I don't have a dog in the fight for #1. As long as the other 3 conditions are met, the first doesn't matter at all.
What's keeping you for saying your ok with elminiating the ban on suicide?

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:14 PM
Nope, you obviously didn't read the entire statement you quoted.

Who pays someone else to destroy their brakes?

And as long as you are answering questions, why didn't you answer the first one I posed of you?

If she is "former" human why not simply shoot her as you would a wounded dog or horse? Hell it is illegal to starve a horse, I guess it is cool to do to people as long as you can imagine them being "former" without any real legal definition?

I'd have no trouble with anyone ending her life. She is a former human being whether you like it or can admit it to yourself or not. Whatever there was of her essence, her consciousness, long ago left this sphere when her cerebral cortex dissolved into mush.

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:15 PM
You mean involving the medical profession in a field where it truly doesn't belong?

Why don't you let the medical profession decide that issue, God?...I mean, Russ?

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:20 PM
I'd have no trouble with anyone ending her life. She is a former human being whether you like it or can admit it to yourself or not. Whatever there was of her essence, her consciousness, long ago left this sphere when her cerebral cortex dissolved into mush.
So you support simply shooting her in the head instead of starving her?

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:20 PM
Who pays someone else to destroy their brakes?



Obviously, ending a life can be a medical procedure. We're not talking about the doctor feeding someone into a wood chipper....

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:21 PM
So you support simply shooting her in the head instead of starving her?

I think that would be an extremely messy way to do it, don't you? I mean, what kind of animal are you?

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:22 PM
Why don't you let the medical profession decide that issue, God?...I mean, Russ?
Again with the religious slam.

I wonder how many blacks you ask if they actually like fried chicken?

You are truly a dumbass sometimes, Mike. Your prejudice makes you a blathering idiot.

The medical profession has chosen. There is no branch of medicine called "killing". The Hippocratic Oath does not include "killing someone" for any reason at all. Become informed before you make more stupid prejudicial remarks, "genious".

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:23 PM
I think that would be an extremely messy way to do it, don't you? I mean, what kind of animal are you?
So either people who shoot their livestock are "animals" or starving them should be okay?

Damn, you have created quite the conundrum, haven't you?

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:24 PM
Obviously, ending a life can be a medical procedure. We're not talking about the doctor feeding someone into a wood chipper....
It is not a medical procedure. It is stupid for you to suggest it. There is no "killing" in the fields of medicine.

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:26 PM
There is release of suffering in the medical field, Russ...And your frustration is really showing....

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:27 PM
So either people who shoot their livestock are "animals" or starving them should be okay?

Damn, you have created quite the conundrum, haven't you?

So now you're equating people with animals?...I find that repulsive.

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:28 PM
Again with the religious slam.

I wonder how many blacks you ask if they actually like fried chicken?

You are truly a dumbass sometimes, Mike. Your prejudice makes you a blathering idiot.

The medical profession has chosen. There is no branch of medicine called "killing". The Hippocratic Oath does not include "killing someone" for any reason at all. Become informed before you make more stupid prejudicial remarks, "genious".

Perhaps I am using this "slam" to try and illustrate to you how incredibly pompous you are making yourself sound.

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:30 PM
It is not a medical procedure. It is stupid for you to suggest it. There is no "killing" in the fields of medicine.

How much would you like to bet there are many, many doctors who would disagree with you?

alnorth
03-19-2005, 03:30 PM
KCWolfman, she doesnt have an upper brain, its dissolved into spinal fluid. I can understand the outrage if she were some 15 year coma patient with very low brain activity, at least then theres still a chance.

Terri does not have the required equipment for thoughts, feeling, or emotions. You could slowly cut her head off with an X-acto knife and shed continue to stare at you with that fixed grin on her face.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:33 PM
So now you're equating people with animals?...I find that repulsive.
Ah, so now she is a "person". I thought she was a "former" person?

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:33 PM
Perhaps I am using this "slam" to try and illustrate to you how incredibly pompous you are making yourself sound.
Better to sound pompous than an uninformed bigot.

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:34 PM
Ahh, Russ I have to run somewhere for a while, so let me say this: I didn't mean to get personal in this. I do feel strongly about the issue.

However, we certainly agree far more than disagree on many issues, and I think you're a helluva guy and great poster.

Sorry for any slams or insults.

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:35 PM
Ah, so now she is a "person". I thought she was a "former" person?

Now you're just playing silly semantical games.

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 03:36 PM
KCWolfman, she doesnt have an upper brain, its dissolved into spinal fluid. I can understand the outrage if she were some 15 year coma patient with very low brain activity, at least then theres still a chance.

Terri does not have the required equipment for thoughts, feeling, or emotions. You could slowly cut her head off with an X-acto knife and shed continue to stare at you with that fixed grin on her face.

I have seen you continue to maintain her brain is 'liquid' and yet I've not seen this portrayal anywhere else. Do you have a link that backs up your assertion?

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:36 PM
How much would you like to bet there are many, many doctors who would disagree with you?
It isn't a matter if an individual or a group of individuals disagree with me. It matters that the medical profession does not have a group called killing to go along with radiology, ears/nose/and throat, and internal medicine.

There is no CPT-4 code for killing someone. There is no ICD-9 for terminal suicide.

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:36 PM
Let's end it on a high note, dude...Talk to you later.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:36 PM
Now you're just playing silly semantical games.
No, you are adjusting the terms as you see fit as you no longer have a semblance of an argument.

mikey23545
03-19-2005, 03:38 PM
No, you are adjusting the terms as you see fit as you no longer have a semblance of an argument.

Russ, if you can't shake hands as friends, and agree to disagree, then I am sorry.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:44 PM
KCWolfman, she doesnt have an upper brain, its dissolved into spinal fluid. I can understand the outrage if she were some 15 year coma patient with very low brain activity, at least then theres still a chance.

Terri does not have the required equipment for thoughts, feeling, or emotions. You could slowly cut her head off with an X-acto knife and shed continue to stare at you with that fixed grin on her face.

I am not sure where you are getting your data, but videos clearly show her responding. Healthcare workers have testified under oath that she has said words like "mommy" and "help me". Speech is an upper brain function in cerebellum. She focuses on objects and tracks them. The occiptal lobe is an upper brain area.

Several physicians have agreed that the upper brain is not mush at all.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 03:49 PM
Russ, if you can't shake hands as friends, and agree to disagree, then I am sorry.
I don't mind disagreeing. I have done that with several people.

I find it offensive that your only argument is "you must be a condescending person because you are a devote person in your religion, even though you haven't spoke a word of your religion on this thread."

#1. I find your bigotry as offensive as any Latino called a wetback or any Asian called a slope simply because you disagree with them.

#2. I wonder how you would react if I said you must feel this way because your wife is an idiot, your father is a dumbass, and your mother is a mouth breathing schmuck and have obviously tainted your viewpoint on the topic.

Take the above out of the equation, and yes, I can disagree with you and smile. I have done so with many people here and in "real" life. Stop judging my statements based upon my religious preferences and I can talk all day regarding the topic.

alnorth
03-19-2005, 04:03 PM
I have seen you continue to maintain her brain is 'liquid' and yet I've not seen this portrayal anywhere else. Do you have a link that backs up your assertion?

Well, for starters, we have this gem from the Second District's first opinion on the case:

Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs.

alnorth
03-19-2005, 04:07 PM
I am not sure where you are getting your data, but videos clearly show her responding.

From the Second District Court opinion:

At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.

Basically, we have Terri who randomly and without any pattern, has reflexive movements. We had a very long videotape with no reaction whatsoever, and then all of a sudden the parents were able to get her to reflex coincidently along with their prompting. They cut out the hours of failure and show the few seconds of fake "success".

Healthcare workers have testified under oath that she has said words like "mommy" and "help me".

Thats new, care to link it? I hadnt even heard of that before.

She doesnt physically have the organs required to do what you claim she did.

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 04:17 PM
Well, for starters, we have this gem from the Second District's first opinion on the case:

So we are basing our decision now on nearly ten year old CAT scans? :shake:

alnorth
03-19-2005, 04:21 PM
So we are basing our decision now on nearly ten year old CAT scans? :shake:

Uhhh... what is wrong with you? Are you simply that desperate to "win" this arguement? Your not really thinking anymore, but reacting emotionally, perhaps something about Michael has pegged a feminist hotspot and you single-mindedly refuse to entertain the thought that perhaps Michael is right.

First of all, this was an old decision. With the parents constantly screaming about wild new therapies, they most certainly have continued to examine her.

Secondly, do you honestly think that her missing cerebral cortex is miraculously going to re-appear in a flash of light and magic? We arent starfish, if you chop off an arm, it wont grow back.

alnorth
03-19-2005, 04:24 PM
This brought a laugh, especially after reading about how the GOP would face a political backlash if they dont "save" Terri.

ABC News poll:

1. When a married person is on life support, and that patient's family can not agree on whether life support should be continued or whether life support should be stopped, who do you think should have the final say in the matter? The patient's parents? The patient's spouse? Or someone else?

24% Parents

60% Spouse

9% Someone Else

7% Not Sure

3. Are you familiar with the Terri Schiavo case?

86% Yes

12% No

2% Not Sure


4. Based on what you know, should Terry Schiavo's feeding tube be kept in place? Or removed?

32% Kept In Place

58% Removed

10% Not Sure

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 04:26 PM
Uhhh... what is wrong with you? Are you simply that desperate to "win" this arguement? Your not really thinking anymore, but reacting emotionally, perhaps something about Michael has pegged a feminist hotspot and you single-mindedly refuse to entertain the thought that perhaps Michael is right.

First of all, this was an old decision. With the parents constantly screaming about wild new therapies, they most certainly have continued to examine her.

Secondly, do you honestly think that her missing cerebral cortex is miraculously going to re-appear in a flash of light and magic? We arent starfish, if you chop off an arm, it wont grow back.

Is it you that are nuts?

MS has not allowed ANY therapy let alone brain xray for five years. He's not allowed her outside of the Hospice for three years. She has bascially been left without treatment except for the feeding tube. How do we KNOW what her condition is if they've not been allowed to actually check it in five years?

If Michael Schiavo were REALLY devoted to Terry he'd still be fighting this fight without the extra woman and offspring.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 04:36 PM
From the Second District Court opinion:



Basically, we have Terri who randomly and without any pattern, has reflexive movements. We had a very long videotape with no reaction whatsoever, and then all of a sudden the parents were able to get her to reflex coincidently along with their prompting. They cut out the hours of failure and show the few seconds of fake "success".



Thats new, care to link it? I hadnt even heard of that before.

She doesnt physically have the organs required to do what you claim she did.
Who cares if they cut out four years. If they received a response and speech, that is proof there is upper brain activity.

alnorth
03-19-2005, 04:37 PM
Is it you that are nuts?

MS has not allowed ANY therapy let alone brain xray for five years. He's not allowed her outside of the Hospice for three years. She has bascially been left without treatment except for the feeding tube. How do we KNOW what her condition is if they've not been allowed to actually check it in five years?

If Michael Schiavo were REALLY devoted to Terry he'd still be fighting this fight without the extra woman and offspring.

So we know that as of 5 years ago Terri had no upper brain. Given this, why do you think she has miraculously recovered in a flash of light and magic?

When Terri had her heart attack, Michael became a professional respiratory therapist and worked in a nearby hospital in an effort to be able to personally care for her more effectively back when he still held out hope.

He sued her doctors for failing to see her eating disorder and used that award to place her in a nursing home for an aggressive array of speech and physical rehabilitation, which was met with nothing but failure for 7 long years.

When the doctors showed him all the evidence in the world showing that her brain was simply gone, that Terri would never be back, he gave up hope.

Terri's nutty parents refuse to let go with a tenacity that could only be called pathetic and insane.

The woman is gone meme, there is ethically and morally no reason why he should swear an oath of celebacy while he tries to carry out her final wish. IF her parents werent so God damned SELFISH, yes selfish, they arent doing this for Terri, they are doing this for THEMSELVES and NO
ONE ELSE, then this would have been taken care of long ago.

Frankly, the parents should be ashamed of themselves, and I hope someday they come to realize and regret their selfish idiocy, but that will likely not occur untill they find out the truth in the afterlife.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 04:37 PM
From the Second District Court opinion:



Basically, we have Terri who randomly and without any pattern, has reflexive movements. We had a very long videotape with no reaction whatsoever, and then all of a sudden the parents were able to get her to reflex coincidently along with their prompting. They cut out the hours of failure and show the few seconds of fake "success".



Thats new, care to link it? I hadnt even heard of that before.

She doesnt physically have the organs required to do what you claim she did.
http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/video_of_terri/index.php

realplayer required for link

alnorth
03-19-2005, 04:38 PM
Who cares if they cut out four years. If they received a response and speech, that is proof there is upper brain activity.

THERE IS NO F***ING PROOF.

She randoml;y moves her eyes without pattern, and suddenly she just happens to do it while a balloon is being moved across her face. SHE STILL WOULD HAVE DONE THIS WITHOUT the damned balloon.

SHE HAS NO UPPER BRAIN, what is wrong with you people?

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 04:41 PM
One would think without an upper brain that a human being would need more than food - such as assisted breathing, cardio prompting, hell even sweating and defecating are controlled more by people with supposedly more brain function in a coma.

The fact is that MANY MANY many physicians disagree with the diagnosis of PVS as Terry has not deteriorated as every other human being on the planet diagnosed with PVS has. It is silly to assume that she has PVS and even sillier to assume she won't recover without a true DX of her illness.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 04:42 PM
THERE IS NO F***ING PROOF.

She randoml;y moves her eyes without pattern, and suddenly she just happens to do it while a balloon is being moved across her face. SHE STILL WOULD HAVE DONE THIS WITHOUT the damned balloon.

SHE HAS NO UPPER BRAIN, what is wrong with you people?
The same thing that is wrong with Terry's physicians hired by her parents?

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 04:52 PM
THERE IS NO F***ING PROOF.

She randoml;y moves her eyes without pattern, and suddenly she just happens to do it while a balloon is being moved across her face. SHE STILL WOULD HAVE DONE THIS WITHOUT the damned balloon.

SHE HAS NO UPPER BRAIN, what is wrong with you people?
No, either you have been lied to, or you simply refuse to find accurate information on your own.

There is no break in the 5 minute video (as you stated), Terri looks at her mom and starts humming when she comes into the room.

There is no balloon in the video at all.

And again, if she can't feel anything, why does the court deem it necessary to starve her to death instead of ending her life quickly? If for nothing else, than for the comfort of everyone around Terri? The woman has been starved three times now, what the courts are doing is cruel and unusual by making such moves.

alnorth
03-19-2005, 04:55 PM
One would think without an upper brain that a human being would need more than food - such as assisted breathing, cardio prompting, hell even sweating and defecating are controlled more by people with supposedly more brain function in a coma.

Yeah, well be careful about assumptions, because one would be wrong. It is extremely well-documented that the lower brain controls heart, breathing, etc functions. PVS patients require a feeding tube because swallowing is an upper brain function.

Coma patients have reduced overall activity and need help with everything. PVS patients have a perfectly ok Lower brain and nothing upstairs.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 04:56 PM
Yeah, well be careful about assumptions, because one would be wrong. It is extremely well-documented that the lower brain controls heart, breathing, etc functions. PVS patients require a feeding tube because swallowing is an upper brain function.

Coma patients have reduced overall activity and need help with everything. PVS patients have a perfectly ok Lower brain and nothing upstairs.
PVS patients deteriorate within months, let alone years. Terri hasn't.

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 04:58 PM
Terri's nutty parents refuse to let go with a tenacity that could only be called pathetic and insane.

The woman is gone meme, there is ethically and morally no reason why he should swear an oath of celebacy while he tries to carry out her final wish. IF her parents werent so God damned SELFISH, yes selfish, they arent doing this for Terri, they are doing this for THEMSELVES and NO
ONE ELSE, then this would have been taken care of long ago.

Frankly, the parents should be ashamed of themselves, and I hope someday they come to realize and regret their selfish idiocy, but that will likely not occur untill they find out the truth in the afterlife.

Look, as wigged out as I think Catholics are, I have to point out that Terry and her parents are Catholic and that is one reason they feel pulling her tube is wrong.

And, I know my wedding vows did not include 'until death do us part or until I am unable to satisfy sexual or reproductive biological urges...'

alnorth
03-19-2005, 05:00 PM
No, either you have been lied to, or you simply refuse to find accurate information on your own.

There is no break in the 5 minute video (as you stated), Terri looks at her mom and starts humming when she comes into the room.

There is no balloon in the video at all.

And again, if she can't feel anything, why does the court deem it necessary to starve her to death instead of ending her life quickly? If for nothing else, than for the comfort of everyone around Terri? The woman has been starved three times now, what the courts are doing is cruel and unusual by making such moves.

I did watch it and saw nothing. She is reflexive, she blinks reflexively, her eyes move reflexively, she does this all the time when people are in the room or out of the room, and that is on record.

The courts have also reviewed this video in its entirety, not the carefully edited version, and it is clear that her mother utterly fails to get a reaction the vast majority of the time. This video is nothing more than the product of random chance with her occasional random reflexes coinciding with prompting.

That still doesnt deal with the fact that she has no upper brain. Your trying to convince yourself that it is possible for her missing coerebral cortex to magically appear in a flash of light.

alnorth
03-19-2005, 05:02 PM
PVS patients deteriorate within months, let alone years. Terri hasn't.

If your talking about her brain, yes she has. If your talking about the fact that she has not yet died from an infection, WE HAVE had many documented cases of PVS patients who robotically keep ticking for years.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 05:04 PM
I did watch it and saw nothing. She is reflexive, she blinks reflexively, her eyes move reflexively, she does this all the time when people are in the room or out of the room, and that is on record.

The courts have also reviewed this video in its entirety, not the carefully edited version, and it is clear that her mother utterly fails to get a reaction the vast majority of the time. This video is nothing more than the product of random chance with her occasional random reflexes coinciding with prompting.

That still doesnt deal with the fact that she has no upper brain. Your trying to convince yourself that it is possible for her missing coerebral cortex to magically appear in a flash of light.
Again, this tape wasn't edited. Why do you keep saying it was edited and cut? It hardly lends credence to your position.

And yes, the courts have reviewed the tape, and different judges have obviously seen different things.

Finally, as I have stated several times and you have conveniently ignored, are you stating that Terri is the only recorded case of PVS in the history of mankind that has not suffered degeneration of her condition?

alnorth
03-19-2005, 05:04 PM
And again, if she can't feel anything, why does the court deem it necessary to starve her to death instead of ending her life quickly?

You know damned well why not. Because witholding food is legal, but administering a lethal dose of drugs is not. If our laws allowed for it, we would.

Why do you continue to insist that someone without an upper brain is alive? She may be "alive" in a manner similar to a plant, but a dog has more life than her.

alnorth
03-19-2005, 05:05 PM
And yes, the courts have reviewed the tape, and different judges have obviously seen different things.

Name a judge. The decisions have been damned near unanimous

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 05:05 PM
If your talking about her brain, yes she has. If your talking about the fact that she has not yet died from an infection, WE HAVE had many documented cases of PVS patients who robotically keep ticking for years.
No, she hasn't. Twelve different physicians in speciality fields say you are wrong.

alnorth
03-19-2005, 05:07 PM
Finally, as I have stated several times and you have conveniently ignored, are you stating that Terri is the only recorded case of PVS in the history of mankind that has not suffered degeneration of her condition?

What are you talking about? If your saying that PVS patients can not survive more than a few months, you are flat-out wrong.

alnorth
03-19-2005, 05:09 PM
No, she hasn't. Twelve different physicians in speciality fields say you are wrong.

We also have physicians selling miracle diet pills. I'm sure if you scrounge around the vast numbers of doctors in the world, youll find a few who will say anything you can think of. The independant doctors appopinted by the courts have all verified her condition.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 05:09 PM
Something else interesting from Michael Schiavo:

During a 1992 civil trial, he sues for negligence on Terri's behalf for 1.7 mil. His words verbatim "I believe in the vows that I took with my wife. Through sickness, in health, for richer for poorer. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her and I am going to do that. I will insure she gets the best of rehabilitation and care."

After the settlement, he goes to live with someone else, refuses to even allow Terri to have music in her room, let alone ANY type of rehabilitation and has denied treatment for something as simple as a urinary tract infection.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 05:10 PM
We also have physicians selling miracle diet pills. I'm sure if you scrounge around the vast numbers of doctors in the world, youll find a few who will say anything you can think of. The independant doctors appopinted by the courts have all verified her condition.
What independent docs?

The only physicians I know of have been paid by Michael, the state, or by Terri's family. And one of the two hired by the state is active in attempting to pass "mercy killing" legislation - hardly independent at all.

alnorth
03-19-2005, 05:11 PM
Something else interesting from Michael Schiavo:

During a 1992 civil trial, he sues for negligence on Terri's behalf for 1.7 mil. His words verbatim "I believe in the vows that I took with my wife. Through sickness, in health, for richer for poorer. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her and I am going to do that. I will insure she gets the best of rehabilitation and care."

After the settlement, he goes to live with someone else, refuses to even allow Terri to have music in her room, let alone ANY type of rehabilitation and has denied treatment for something as simple as a urinary tract infection.

Cool, care to fill in the number of years that elapsed between event A and event B? He slowly realized that Terri was dead and began to carry out her final wish.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 05:13 PM
Cool, care to fill in the number of years that elapsed between event A and event B? He slowly realized that Terri was dead and began to carry out her final wish.
If she was diagnosed with PVS immediately, why didn't he remember her wish then? I would venture to say that it was because of the civil action and a chance at losing a couple of mil.

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 05:13 PM
Cool, care to fill in the number of years that elapsed between event A and event B? He slowly realized that Terri was dead and began to carry out her final wish.

After he won the money, right?

alnorth
03-19-2005, 05:13 PM
What independent docs?

The only physicians I know of have been paid by Michael, the state, or by Terri's family.

The docs, paid by the state or not, are independant. They arent paid to come up with a specific result, they are paid to report their findings, whatever they may be. Test results going ojne way or the other would have been fine for the court.

I suppose you can argue that Michael's doctors and the family's doctors are theoretically biased, but to argue that the court's doctors are all biased is idiotic.

alnorth
03-19-2005, 05:14 PM
After he won the money, right?

Which went to Terri's care and rehabilitation?

There is no monetary motive in this case whatsoever. If there were, Michael would have taken the million dollars recently offered to him as a pathetic attempt at a bribe a few weeks ago and save himself the trouble.

alnorth
03-19-2005, 05:16 PM
If she was diagnosed with PVS immediately, why didn't he remember her wish then? I would venture to say that it was because of the civil action and a chance at losing a couple of mil.

Thats the point, she wasnt diagnosed as PVS immediately, she still had her brain intact, they just didnt know how damaged it was and what parts may have been dead, so they tried therapy for many years.

When her upper brain disintegrated, that basically meant she was PVS by default. Without an upper brain, you are PVS, period.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 05:21 PM
Hmm, looking into PVS, I find that many studies have been done and several interesting facts on those studies:

1. As many as 40% of patients have recovered from supposed PVS

2. PVS patients bodies deteriorate and major systems fail

3. A woman named Christine Busalacchi from Missouri was diagnosed as PVS even though she would regularly greet her doctor and use a remote to watch a videotape of her father.

4. Michigan State Medical professors have studied and found that anyone diagnosed as PVS should be given sedation for any type of surgery as the DX is consistently incorrect and the patients can suffer unmeasurable pain without aneasthesia.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 05:23 PM
The docs, paid by the state or not, are independant. They arent paid to come up with a specific result, they are paid to report their findings, whatever they may be. Test results going ojne way or the other would have been fine for the court.

I suppose you can argue that Michael's doctors and the family's doctors are theoretically biased, but to argue that the court's doctors are all biased is idiotic.
They are not independent. Again, why choose a physician whose goal is to create a mercy killing law? Why not get someone without a dog in the fight?

If there is no bias of the physicians, then why hire such a controversial physician? Better yet, why not hire a neurologist as an independent viewpoint? Funny that neither of the "independent" docs were.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 05:24 PM
Thats the point, she wasnt diagnosed as PVS immediately, she still had her brain intact, they just didnt know how damaged it was and what parts may have been dead, so they tried therapy for many years.

When her upper brain disintegrated, that basically meant she was PVS by default. Without an upper brain, you are PVS, period.
I find your first paragraph very very hard to believe. Are you stating that no medical tests were done on Terri at all in the first few years? And what wonder occurred that gave them the introspection today that they couldn't find years before?

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 05:28 PM
Which went to Terri's care and rehabilitation?

There is no monetary motive in this case whatsoever. If there were, Michael would have taken the million dollars recently offered to him as a pathetic attempt at a bribe a few weeks ago and save himself the trouble.

BS, at this point if the takes the money he looks like a baboon for dragging his wife, her family, and now the country through this tragedy when all he wanted all along was the money.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 05:33 PM
Which went to Terri's care and rehabilitation?



Really? There is no payment of rehabilitation for Terri Schiavo. He received only 700,000 of the initial request of 1.7 mil, but I can find no proof of your statement above.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 05:35 PM
BS, at this point if the takes the money he looks like a baboon for dragging his wife, her family, and now the country through this tragedy when all he wanted all along was the money.
...which explains why he turned down the offer of $1M to sign over his legal rights to her.

Moron.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 05:36 PM
...which explains why he turned down the offer of $1M to sign over his legal rights to her.

Moron.
He also took 700,000 and never paid a dime for her "rehabilitation".

Baby Lee
03-19-2005, 05:44 PM
I have seen you continue to maintain her brain is 'liquid' and yet I've not seen this portrayal anywhere else. Do you have a link that backs up your assertion?
I think the term you're looking for is Cognitive Dissonance.

Baby Lee
03-19-2005, 05:50 PM
to argue that the court's doctors are all biased is idiotic.
To argue that any doctor is or isn't biased based solely on who retained him is idiotic.

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 05:56 PM
...which explains why he turned down the offer of $1M to sign over his legal rights to her.

Moron.

Get back with me when you know the facts of the case, moron.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 05:57 PM
He also took 700,000 and never paid a dime for her "rehabilitation".
I hear lots of talk about all the money he's taken yet I never see any evidence either way. Until someone can show me the cancelled check and then show me a fat bank account or some lavish expenditures it's all hooey.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 05:59 PM
Get back with me when you know the facts of the case, moron.
Whatever you do, don't adress the fact that this "money grubbing asshole" passed up on a huge settlement to just walk away.

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 06:00 PM
I hear lots of talk about all the money he's taken yet I never see any evidence either way. Until someone can show me the cancelled check and then show me a fat bank account or some lavish expenditures it's all hooey.


Pull your head out of your azz...MS' attorney alone has cashed checks for nearly 400k dollars.




:shake: :cuss: :banghead:

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 06:01 PM
Whatever you do, don't adress the fact that this "money grubbing asshole" passed up on a huge settlement to just walk away.

So what, he's a hero now? F*ck him. He's a bastard who's dragged this woman and her family through hell and if there is any justice in the universe he'll get treated the same way, someday, somewhere, somehow.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 06:02 PM
Pull your head out of your azz...MS' attorney alone has cashed checks for nearly 400k dollars.




:shake: :cuss: :banghead:
And "MS" benefitted from this how? He's gotten to spend months in court? Woohoo, sign me up twice!

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 06:03 PM
So what, he's a hero now? F*ck him. He's a bastard who's dragged this woman and her family through hell and if there is any justice in the universe he'll get treated the same way, someday, somewhere, somehow.
She had an eating disorder that caused a massive chemicle imbalance in her body, causing a massive heart attack, during which her brain got fried.

Yeah, he's such a bastard.

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 06:03 PM
And "MS" benefitted from this how? He's gotten to spend months in court? Woohoo, sign me up twice!

Oh, I'm sure he'll write a book or a movie deal or something. Just watch.

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 06:04 PM
She had an eating disorder that caused a massive chemicle imbalance in her body, causing a massive heart attack, during which her brain got fried.

Yeah, he's such a bastard.

Yeah, he is. He supposedly is so devoted and caring for this woman that in order to honor and care for her he shacked up with another woman and had two kids while simultanously spending years trying to kill her. :thumb:

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 06:08 PM
Oh, I'm sure he'll write a book or a movie deal or something. Just watch.
Yeah, it's not like he's been villified throughout this process. I'm sure he has an easy time getting a job because of all this attention.

How about the one where she was in her current condition because he beat her? Furthered by the "he wants to kill her so she won't wake up and testify against him" line? Yeah, people who hit their wife once generally kill them to try and get out of the fine and/or warning and/or community service that you usually get for a first offense.

Her family has totally screwed up this guy's life. If he was the selfish, heartless prick you claim he is he would have walked away from this crap a decade ago.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 06:10 PM
Yeah, he is. He supposedly is so devoted and caring for this woman that in order to honor and care for her he shacked up with another woman and had two kids while simultanously spending years trying to kill her. :thumb:
I would hope to hell my wife would move on. I'm concerned with her happiness. Sitting around staring at some corpse who happens to be breathing probably wouldn't make her happy.

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 06:10 PM
Yeah, it's not like he's been villified throughout this process. I'm sure he has an easy time getting a job because of all this attention.

How about the one where she was in her current condition because he beat her? Furthered by the "he wants to kill her so she won't wake up and testify against him" line? Yeah, people who hit their wife once generally kill them to try and get out of the fine and/or warning and/or community service that you usually get for a first offense.

Her family has totally screwed up this guy's life. If he was the selfish, heartless prick you claim he is he would have walked away from this crap a decade ago.

He did walk away...right into the arms of another woman. Thus, he should do the right thing and let her family decide her fate.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 06:11 PM
He did walk away...right into the arms of another woman. Thus, he should do the right thing and let her family decide her fate.
"Right into"? ROFL Wasn't it years after she killed herself with her eating disorder that he met his current flame?

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 06:11 PM
I would hope to hell my wife would move on. I'm concerned with her happiness. Sitting around staring at some corpse who happens to be breathing probably wouldn't make her happy.

I hope that too. But then I would not expect that my husband would also pretend to still care about me if he did. Sorry, I don't believe you can be in love with a 'dead person' and a live person the same at the same time. One becomes more important than the other and in this case the one isn't Terry.

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 06:12 PM
"Right into"? ROFL Wasn't it years after she killed herself with her eating disorder that he met his current flame?

Well he has two kids so it can't have been that short a period of time.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 06:13 PM
I hope that too. But then I would not expect that my husband would also pretend to still care about me if he did. Sorry, I don't believe you can love a dead person and a live person the same at the same time. One becomes more important than the other and in this case the one isn't Terry.
It couldn't be because he accepted reality years ago? It HAS to be because he's a bastard? You don't even know the man.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 06:14 PM
Well he has two kids so it can't have been that short a period of time.
She's been out for 15 years.

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 06:14 PM
It couldn't be because he accepted reality years ago? It HAS to be because he's a bastard? You don't even know the man.

No, and presumably neither do you. So we are in the same speculative boat. And if it's all based on speculation and heresay then IN THIS CASE I say err on the side of life.

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 06:15 PM
She's been out for 15 years.

How old are his kids?

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 06:22 PM
How old are his kids?
I googled it for a few minutes and thankfully I didn't find it. I hope noone finds out those kid's names or ages.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 06:25 PM
I hear lots of talk about all the money he's taken yet I never see any evidence either way. Until someone can show me the cancelled check and then show me a fat bank account or some lavish expenditures it's all hooey.
What's to show you? He won a court case. Your expectations are ridiculous.

I guess I could say, unless you bring Terri Schiavo to my house and I can look at her myself, your viewpoint is all hooey.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 06:26 PM
No, and presumably neither do you. So we are in the same speculative boat. And if it's all based on speculation and heresay then IN THIS CASE I say err on the side of life.
Yeah, but I'm sitting down in my boat saying "let the people who've been dealing with this in court for years do what the court decided."

You're standing up in your boat declaring he's a bastard trying to kill his wife after cheating on her.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 06:29 PM
What's to show you? He won a court case. Your expectations are ridiculous.

I guess I could say, unless you bring Terri Schiavo to my house and I can look at her myself, your viewpoint is all hooey.
He was a wife beater until that was proven false. He was cheating on her when she had the heart attack, which has never been substantiated.

All I'm saying is that until some of the charges in this non-stop stream of charges are actually substantiated I think we have reasonable doubt. Her family has said some incredibly jacked up s**t that was proven false and it's only going to get worse once the Internet crowd gets involved.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 06:59 PM
He was a wife beater until that was proven false. He was cheating on her when she had the heart attack, which has never been substantiated.

All I'm saying is that until some of the charges in this non-stop stream of charges are actually substantiated I think we have reasonable doubt. Her family has said some incredibly jacked up s**t that was proven false and it's only going to get worse once the Internet crowd gets involved.
How about a court order? Since he didn't file a charge of libel or slander against the Schindler's and the settlement is on file, I would venture to state it is accurate as it can be.

jettio
03-19-2005, 07:00 PM
So we know that as of 5 years ago Terri had no upper brain. Given this, why do you think she has miraculously recovered in a flash of light and magic?

When Terri had her heart attack, Michael became a professional respiratory therapist and worked in a nearby hospital in an effort to be able to personally care for her more effectively back when he still held out hope.

He sued her doctors for failing to see her eating disorder and used that award to place her in a nursing home for an aggressive array of speech and physical rehabilitation, which was met with nothing but failure for 7 long years.

When the doctors showed him all the evidence in the world showing that her brain was simply gone, that Terri would never be back, he gave up hope.

Terri's nutty parents refuse to let go with a tenacity that could only be called pathetic and insane.

The woman is gone meme, there is ethically and morally no reason why he should swear an oath of celebacy while he tries to carry out her final wish. IF her parents werent so God damned SELFISH, yes selfish, they arent doing this for Terri, they are doing this for THEMSELVES and NO
ONE ELSE, then this would have been taken care of long ago.

Frankly, the parents should be ashamed of themselves, and I hope someday they come to realize and regret their selfish idiocy, but that will likely not occur untill they find out the truth in the afterlife.

I can't imagine that she said give therapy a shot for several years and then give up completely when the money form the lawsuit starts to run low.

I can see no reason other than inheritance for him to remain married to Terri while starting a family with another woman.

I tend to give the beneift of the doubt to the fact finder in a case as to who presented the most convincing evidence, but if divorce divests Michael Schiavo of the decision, he should have got a divorce.

If starving her is supposedly painless because of her condition, I can't imagine that letting her remain alive is cruel in any way.

I just doubt that she said anything like if I am a vegetable use artificial means to keep me alive for a long time, and then say screw it because, I don't want to live like that more than a decade.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 07:09 PM
How about a court order? Since he didn't file a charge of libel or slander against the Schindler's and the settlement is on file, I would venture to state it is accurate as it can be.
Or he's a nice guy and he feels bad for what her family is going through.

Or he's respecting the fact that Terri loved them.

Or he grew to care for them while he and Terri were engaged and then married.

Or he grew to care for them during the time they spent together trying to get her rehabilitated after she had her heart attack and he's too nice a guy to drag them into court on that.

The point is you don't know but you've just assumed the worst.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 08:19 PM
Or he's a nice guy and he feels bad for what her family is going through.

Or he's respecting the fact that Terri loved them.

Or he grew to care for them while he and Terri were engaged and then married.

Or he grew to care for them during the time they spent together trying to get her rehabilitated after she had her heart attack and he's too nice a guy to drag them into court on that.

The point is you don't know but you've just assumed the worst.
I really don't care about him at all. I do know that while he was fighting for a big payoff, he said that he honored his wedding vows and would stay with Terry forever as well as pay for any rehabilitation she needed. Then after the settlement, he suddenly remembered she didn't want to live and didn't pay a dime of the settlement for rehab. In fact, he demanded that she not even be treated for simple urinary tract infections.

He has his own demons to answer for, as we all do. My point is that there is no conclusive evidence agreed upon by physicians that Terry will not recover or is a PVS. Therefore, we should not be killing her based upon the word of another human being.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 03:12 AM
I really don't care about him at all. I do know that while he was fighting for a big payoff, he said that he honored his wedding vows and would stay with Terry forever as well as pay for any rehabilitation she needed. Then after the settlement, he suddenly remembered she didn't want to live and didn't pay a dime of the settlement for rehab. In fact, he demanded that she not even be treated for simple urinary tract infections.

He has his own demons to answer for, as we all do. My point is that there is no conclusive evidence agreed upon by physicians that Terry will not recover or is a PVS. Therefore, we should not be killing her based upon the word of another human being.
I told the first girl I slept with I'd love her forever because I thought I would (at least one of my heads did). Then I found out she was a f**king psycho. Does that make me evil?

Maybe he figured once the doctors were telling him that her brain was toast that he had fulfilled his promise.

I just can't fault the guy for moving on 15 years later. Hell, 3 or 4 years later. I know I wouldn't want to go through that.

memyselfI
03-20-2005, 07:54 AM
I told the first girl I slept with I'd love her forever because I thought I would (at least one of my heads did). Then I found out she was a f**king psycho. Does that make me evil?

Maybe he figured once the doctors were telling him that her brain was toast that he had fulfilled his promise.

I just can't fault the guy for moving on 15 years later. Hell, 3 or 4 years later. I know I wouldn't want to go through that.


Did you marry her and swear to be faithful and loving in sickness and in health? If you did then you are obliged to do so. Seems Michael wants to accept some parts of his vows (marital contract) while ignoring others.

Nice and convenient. :rolleyes: :shake:

KCWolfman
03-20-2005, 08:26 AM
I told the first girl I slept with I'd love her forever because I thought I would (at least one of my heads did). Then I found out she was a f**king psycho. Does that make me evil?

Maybe he figured once the doctors were telling him that her brain was toast that he had fulfilled his promise.

I just can't fault the guy for moving on 15 years later. Hell, 3 or 4 years later. I know I wouldn't want to go through that.
Nope, I understand.

I also understand that he conveniently forgot Terri's supposed intentions until after he received a payoff that was not forwarded for Terri's care.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 08:31 AM
Did you marry her and swear to be faithful and loving in sickness and in health? If you did then you are obliged to do so. Seems Michael wants to accept some parts of his vows (marital contract) while ignoring others.

Nice and convenient. :rolleyes: :shake:
She doesn't have any culpability? She's the one that was barfing up all her food and caused herself to have a massive heart attack. Frankly the dude has every right to be pissed off at her. None of this s**t would have happened if she'd just kept her finger out of her throat.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 08:33 AM
Nope, I understand.

I also understand that he conveniently forgot Terri's supposed intentions until after he received a payoff that was not forwarded for Terri's care.
Once again, I have yet to see ANY evidence that this claim is true. The only people I've seen quoted or sourced on this theory are her family. The same ones that have been leveling charge after charge after charge, none of which have been substantiated. (See: "The Boy Who Cried Wolf")

KCWolfman
03-20-2005, 08:37 AM
Once again, I have yet to see ANY evidence that this claim is true. The only people I've seen source as pimping this story are her family. The same ones that have been leveling charge after charge after charge, none of which have been substantiated. (See: "The Boy Who Cried Wolf")
And once again, there is documented court case evidence that he went to trial and won the civil suit. Also note the second time the government was petitioned, the fact that the 700k was mentioned would have left anyone open to libel and slander by Michael Schiavo.

And finally, I personally have not seen proof of Terri's PVS. Using your logic above, I must assume that it is not real until I see it myself, right?

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 08:42 AM
And once again, there is documented court case evidence that he went to trial and won the civil suit. Also note the second time the government was petitioned, the fact that the 700k was mentioned would have left anyone open to libel and slander by Michael Schiavo.

And finally, I personally have not seen proof of Terri's PVS. Using your logic above, I must assume that it is not real until I see it myself, right?
If you actually believe that the entire Florida court system is overlooking the facts so that they can off this chick then I feel sorry for you. Do you honestly believe that every one of these videos wasn't show to the judge? If her family didn't present some killer evidence then shame on them.

I can't imagine that anyone, her family, MS, the judges, the doctors, or even the freaking balifs wanted to get anywhere near this case. The easiest way out for any of these people, MS included, was to say "f**k it, let her lie there with that goofy grin on her face". I have to believe there was some pretty compelling evidence to get them to decide otherwise.

Saggysack
03-20-2005, 08:46 AM
She doesn't have any culpability? She's the one that was barfing up all her food and caused herself to have a massive heart attack. Frankly the dude has every right to be pissed off at her. None of this s**t would have happened if she'd just kept her finger out of her throat.


That is a mans fault, don't you know? ;)

KCWolfman
03-20-2005, 08:53 AM
If you actually believe that the entire Florida court system is overlooking the facts so that they can off this chick then I feel sorry for you. Do you honestly believe that every one of these videos wasn't show to the judge? If her family didn't present some killer evidence then shame on them.

I can't imagine that anyone, her family, MS, the judges, the doctors, or even the freaking balifs wanted to get anywhere near this case. The easiest way out for any of these people, MS included, was to say "f**k it, let her lie there with that goofy grin on her face". I have to believe there was some pretty compelling evidence to get them to decide otherwise.
Funny, I thought the exact same thing about you regarding your failure to admit facts regarding the near million dollar payoff.

Here you go, however:

CNN - Joseph Magri, Attorney for Schindlers, speaks on 700K settlement (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0105/03/bp.00.html)

JOSEPH MAGRI, ATTORNEY FOR THE SCHINDLERS: I think the two are interrelated. The $700,000 got there because of a medical malpractice trial that went on in 1992. During that trial, the lawyers for Michael Schiavo requested damages from that jury based on Terri's life expectancy, both opening statement and closing arguments, they wanted care for her for life.

Michael got on the witness stand in that case, cried in front of that jury, told that jury he was going to nursing school so that he could take care of his wife for the rest of her life. The plaintiff's attorney asked him, why? You are a young man, Michael.

And he said, well, my wedding vows mean a lot to me. Then he referred to that those vows said, and said that he wanted to take care of Terri for the rest of her life. At no time did those lawyers or did Michael ever mention that Terri had a desire to die in these circumstances.

The first time that anyone heard about that came a few months after the money came in from that trial, which netted Terri somewhere over three quarters of a million, I believe, to care for her. Some months thereafter, Michael Schiavo asked a nursing home not to treat an infection and admitted in a deposition that he understood that the failure to treat the infection with antibiotics could lead to sepsis and her death.

If the above were false, then Michael Schiavo would have a helluva court case against these people as it was discussed on national television.

I don't mind someone having to provide proof about their opinions, but when facts are laid out and simple to see and you deliberately ignore them, then you honestly don't intend to have a serious discussion at all.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 09:10 AM
JOSEPH MAGRI, ATTORNEY FOR THE SCHINDLERS: I think the two are interrelated. The $700,000 got there because of a medical malpractice trial that went on in 1992. During that trial, the lawyers for Michael Schiavo requested damages from that jury based on Terri's life expectancy, both opening statement and closing arguments, they wanted care for her for life.

Michael got on the witness stand in that case, cried in front of that jury, told that jury he was going to nursing school so that he could take care of his wife for the rest of her life. The plaintiff's attorney asked him, why? You are a young man, Michael.

And he said, well, my wedding vows mean a lot to me. Then he referred to that those vows said, and said that he wanted to take care of Terri for the rest of her life. At no time did those lawyers or did Michael ever mention that Terri had a desire to die in these circumstances.

The first time that anyone heard about that came a few months after the money came in from that trial, which netted Terri somewhere over three quarters of a million, I believe, to care for her. Some months thereafter, Michael Schiavo asked a nursing home not to treat an infection and admitted in a deposition that he understood that the failure to treat the infection with antibiotics could lead to sepsis and her death.
Is it unreasonable to believe he figures now that her brain is liquified he's lived up to that bargain?

KCWolfman
03-20-2005, 09:18 AM
Is it unreasonable to believe he figures now that her brain is liquified he's lived up to that bargain?
Nope, again I agree with you. I have no legal problem with his decision. However, if you TRULY believe he has lived up to his obligation, why hasn't he divorced her for his other live-in girlfriend?

However, the fact is that he does stand to make a great deal of money when she dies. He did agree to pay for her rehab and failed to do so. Failure to pay the rehab insures that the 700k pool is not depleted. He did not ever mention Terri's supposed statement regarding her living will until AFTER he was awarded the settlement.

He has something to gain by his decision.

Legally, he has done everything correctly. Morally, I don't know enough to judge him. On the surface, though, it is apparent that either he had a huge lapse of memory that was somehow jogged after the payoff or he is a liar attempting to scam some cash from his dead wife.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 09:28 AM
Nope, again I agree with you. I have no legal problem with his decision. However, if you TRULY believe he has lived up to his obligation, why hasn't he divorced her for his other live-in girlfriend?
It could be that he wants the money. After years of having a carrot for a wife and then being demonized and villified maybe he thinks he deserves some. It could also be that he know divorcing her would put him in a position where he couldn't help her carry out her last wish. Nobody but him knows for sure.
However, the fact is that he does stand to make a great deal of money when she dies. He did agree to pay for her rehab and failed to do so. Failure to pay the rehab insures that the 700k pool is not depleted.
I'm pretty sure a huge portion of that settlement has gone to legal fees. As for rehab, he lived with her parents for years while they tried to rehab her. However, if her brain is liquified (like the doctors say) then rehab would be as useful for her as me taking a celery stalk down to my treadmill.
He did not ever mention Terri's supposed statement regarding her living will until AFTER he was awarded the settlement.

He has something to gain by his decision.

Legally, he has done everything correctly. Morally, I don't know enough to judge him. On the surface, though, it is apparent that either he had a huge lapse of memory that was somehow jogged after the payoff or he is a liar attempting to scam some cash from his dead wife.
Sounds like we're on the same page, mostly. I wouldn't want to have a beer with this guy, but I wouldn't spit on him if I saw him on the street, either.

whoman69
03-20-2005, 09:48 AM
Is she living or merely existing?

How much does her care cost each day? 700K given 14 years ago was gone so long ago there isn't anything for him to be greedy about.

memyselfI
03-20-2005, 12:44 PM
She doesn't have any culpability? She's the one that was barfing up all her food and caused herself to have a massive heart attack. Frankly the dude has every right to be pissed off at her. None of this s**t would have happened if she'd just kept her finger out of her throat.

Oh, so now he's pissed at her for her diet methods and thus is justified for moving on...

and yet he's rational and level headed when making the decision to kill her.

Nice. :thumb: ROFL

Baby Lee
03-20-2005, 01:00 PM
I can't imagine that anyone, her family, MS, the judges, the doctors, or even the freaking balifs wanted to get anywhere near this case. The easiest way out for any of these people, MS included, was to say "f**k it, let her lie there with that goofy grin on her face". I have to believe there was some pretty compelling evidence to get them to decide otherwise.
All those in favor of converting over to a rule of law based on what Simplex3 can and can't imagine, raise your hands.

Saggysack
03-20-2005, 01:09 PM
Oh, so now he's pissed at her for her diet methods and thus is justified for moving on...

and yet he's rational and level headed when making the decision to kill her.

Nice. :thumb: ROFL

Diet methods? ROFL

Is that what they call bulimia nowadays?\

Quit beind a dumbass and let this woman die in peace.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 03:35 PM
All those in favor of converting over to a rule of law based on what Simplex3 can and can't imagine, raise your hands.
ROFL

...I promise to be a benevolent dictator. :evil:

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 03:40 PM
Oh, so now he's pissed at her for her diet methods and thus is justified for moving on...

and yet he's rational and level headed when making the decision to kill her.

Nice. :thumb: ROFL
I'm not claiming to know what is going on in any of their tiny, pointy little heads. All I'm saying is that there are lots of plausible options based on the little information we get and not all of them point to him being a bastard.

She f**ked herself up beyond all recognition. Her husband and her family have been paying for it for well over a decade.

Has anyone stopped to consider that mayber her parents beat her and her siblings called her names and teased her incessently? Maybe that's what caused her bulimia in the first place. They might know they're responsible and feel so guilty that they just can't let her go in peace....

Those bastards!

:shake:

The Pedestrian
03-20-2005, 03:49 PM
Removed the feeding tube, huh? It's not exactly the most moral way to end her life, but the liberals can't whine about it...such a death is better than being ripped apart slowly and pulled into a dangerous environment by forceps.

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 06:15 AM
Is she living or merely existing?

How much does her care cost each day? 700K given 14 years ago was gone so long ago there isn't anything for him to be greedy about.
Not a penny of the 700K has been spent to date.

The money was specifically for rehabilitation, not daily care.

bkkcoh
03-21-2005, 06:40 AM
Oh, so now he's pissed at her for her diet methods and thus is justified for moving on...

and yet he's rational and level headed when making the decision to kill her.

Nice. :thumb: ROFL


I heard that she was the dutiful wife in trying to maintain that wonderful body because he hated fat girls........ :banghead: If that is the case, another reason to hate the bastage.

Dr. Facebook Fever
03-21-2005, 08:04 AM
What a horrible way to die.
What a horrible way to live.

Dr. Facebook Fever
03-21-2005, 08:05 AM
No one deserves to die like that.
No one deserves to live like that. Her wish was not to be kept alive in a vegitative state. I'd want the same thing.

mlyonsd
03-21-2005, 08:13 AM
It's an ugly situation from either side. Pray that it never happens to you or someone in your family.

That being said, I couldn't pull the plug if it were my wife.

Duck Dog
03-21-2005, 08:28 AM
No one deserves to live like that. Her wish was not to be kept alive in a vegitative state. I'd want the same thing.

Agreed. Too bad she didn't write it down.

Simplex3
03-21-2005, 09:15 AM
Agreed. Too bad she didn't write it down.
Wrong. The law in FL is that absent the patient being able to express their will their spouse has first say, then any children, then parents, then siblings, etc.

Notice how spouse is first on that list? He LEGALLY HAS THE RIGHT to tell them to pull that tube. He isn't fighting FOR the right, he HAS the right. The fight is to REMOVE his legal right to make that decision for his wife.

Dr. Facebook Fever
03-21-2005, 09:21 AM
It's an ugly situation from either side. Pray that it never happens to you or someone in your family.

That being said, I couldn't pull the plug if it were my wife.
My wife and I have an agreement that we will pull the plug on the other in such a case. It's what we both want.

Simplex3
03-21-2005, 09:23 AM
I heard that she was the dutiful wife in trying to maintain that wonderful body because he hated fat girls........ :banghead: If that is the case, another reason to hate the bastage.
I heard he ate live kittens. I also heard he has starred in German scheisse videos while he and Terri were still married. And I heard he posts naked pictures on his kids on the Internet. Also, I heard he mutated the eboli virus to give her bulimia.

Simplex3
03-21-2005, 09:24 AM
My wife and I have an agreement that we will pull the plug on the other in such a case. It's what we both want.
Well if MS doesn't win this your rights to decide for eachother won't mean s**t until some federal judge and Congress make up their minds.

bkkcoh
03-21-2005, 09:24 AM
I heard he ate live kittens. I also heard he has starred in German scheisse videos while he and Terri were still married. And I heard he posts naked pictures on his kids on the Internet. Also, I heard he mutated the eboli virus to give her bulimia.


What is wrong with the eating of live kittens?????? :p

Simplex3
03-21-2005, 09:27 AM
What is wrong with the eating of live kittens?????? :p
On second thought that one isn't so bad. Make that "live puppies".

bkkcoh
03-21-2005, 09:30 AM
On second thought that one isn't so bad. Make that "live puppies".


I draw the line there.. puppies are better keep, not kittens.

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 03:56 PM
No one deserves to live like that. Her wish was not to be kept alive in a vegitative state. I'd want the same thing.
There is no record of such a wish excluding an imaginary conversation by her estranged husband who stands to inherit several hundred thousand dollars upon her death.

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 03:56 PM
Wrong. The law in FL is that absent the patient being able to express their will their spouse has first say, then any children, then parents, then siblings, etc.

Notice how spouse is first on that list? He LEGALLY HAS THE RIGHT to tell them to pull that tube. He isn't fighting FOR the right, he HAS the right. The fight is to REMOVE his legal right to make that decision for his wife.
There is no such law of which I am aware.

Do you have a link?

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 04:04 PM
Wrong. The law in FL is that absent the patient being able to express their will their spouse has first say, then any children, then parents, then siblings, etc.

Notice how spouse is first on that list? He LEGALLY HAS THE RIGHT to tell them to pull that tube. He isn't fighting FOR the right, he HAS the right. The fight is to REMOVE his legal right to make that decision for his wife.
Ahh, you are correct.

765.401 Lists actually a Court Assigned Guardian first, not the spouse. Which is what is actually occurring.

However, if you are truly concerned about Florida law, I recommend reading 765.309 as well:

765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished.--
(1) 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.

Starving is not a natural process of dying.

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 04:05 PM
Well if MS doesn't win this your rights to decide for eachother won't mean s**t until some federal judge and Congress make up their minds.
Not true. If they have an Adm Dir in Mo, or a Living Will in most states, the point is moot.
Then the spouse can have the right to take hundreds of thousands of dollars while watching the other die.

dirk digler
03-21-2005, 04:09 PM
Ahh, you are correct.

765.401 Lists actually a Court Assigned Guardian first, not the spouse. Which is what is actually occurring.

However, if you are truly concerned about Florida law, I recommend reading 765.309 as well:

765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished.--
(1) 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.

Starving is not a natural process of dying.

Hasn't Florida already said the husband is the legal guardian? I think they have.

My grandma that just passed away couldn't no longer eat and she had a living will that said no feeding tubes or life saving techniques. She basically starved to death or her body just shut down either way she wasn't in any pain that any of us could see.

To the doctor and our family this was a natural way to die. But our opinions probably aren't important.

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 04:15 PM
Hasn't Florida already said the husband is the legal guardian? I think they have.

My grandma that just passed away couldn't no longer eat and she had a living will that said no feeding tubes or life saving techniques. She basically starved to death or her body just shut down either way she wasn't in any pain that any of us could see.

To the doctor and our family this was a natural way to die. But our opinions probably aren't important.
She had the living will, that is what the crux is here.

The point is Michael Schiavo didn't want his wife to die and never mentioned her supposed intentions until YEARS after she went into the state, well after he received a settlement. Only then did he conveniently remember she didn't want to live, and only after he found out the settlement was in the form of a trust for Terri until she died - untouchable by him.

I can believe that he was distraught. I can believe it was agonizing. I can't believe he forgot her wishes for 2 years.

dirk digler
03-21-2005, 04:24 PM
She had the living will, that is what the crux is here.

The point is Michael Schiavo didn't want his wife to die and never mentioned her supposed intentions until YEARS after she went into the state, well after he received a settlement. Only then did he conveniently remember she didn't want to live, and only after he found out the settlement was in the form of a trust for Terri until she died - untouchable by him.

I can believe that he was distraught. I can believe it was agonizing. I can't believe he forgot her wishes for 2 years.

I understand but even if she didn't have a living will I don't think we would have allowed them to put a feeding tube in her. She no longer could swallow or eat any food and she was never awake.

I don't about Michael Schiavo's intentions or lack thereof but I don't believe the Congress of the US should get involved in this.

Just my opinion.

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 04:27 PM
I understand but even if she didn't have a living will I don't think we would have allowed them to put a feeding tube in her. She no longer could swallow or eat any food and she was never awake.

I don't about Michael Schiavo's intentions or lack thereof but I don't believe the Congress of the US should get involved in this.

Just my opinion.
Congress is making a mess of this. I agree with everyone one of you on the opposite side of this fence. Nothing good can come of it.

However, this is a man who wanted Terri to live until a payoff was made and then decided she should die. Perhaps, that is why it is not a good idea to let the spouse have free reign?

Phobia
03-21-2005, 04:34 PM
I heard that she was the dutiful wife in trying to maintain that wonderful body because he hated fat girls........ :banghead: If that is the case, another reason to hate the bastage.

What? WTF is wrong with a husband who wants his wife to take care of herself?

Simplex3
03-21-2005, 05:33 PM
Not true. If they have an Adm Dir in Mo, or a Living Will in most states, the point is moot.
Then the spouse can have the right to take hundreds of thousands of dollars while watching the other die.
Don't forget, part of the parent's claim is "if she'd known she would have changed her mind."

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 05:38 PM
Don't forget, part of the parent's claim is "if she'd known she would have changed her mind."
Again, if it is documented, that is all that matters.

In the Emergency Department we have taken processes and steps to insure that every patient is offered an AD or Living Will - at all five facilities. Watch this become standard practice over the next 3 years for all facets of care.

Simplex3
03-21-2005, 05:43 PM
Again, if it is documented, that is all that matters.
In FL if it isn't documented the spouses gets to dictate, so that is what matters next, right?
In the Emergency Department we have taken processes and steps to insure that every patient is offered an AD or Living Will - at all five facilities. Watch this become standard practice over the next 3 years for all facets of care.
I think that's great, but you'd still have people hysterically screaming that people can't be expected to make those decisions under those circumstances, blah, blah, blah.

I think this all stems from our society's exagerated fear of death.

Raiderhader
03-21-2005, 09:07 PM
Congress is making a mess of this. I agree with everyone one of you on the opposite side of this fence. Nothing good can come of it.

However, this is a man who wanted Terri to live until a payoff was made and then decided she should die. Perhaps, that is why it is not a good idea to let the spouse have free reign?


I was waffling on this issue until I came across something on Rush's website. If you look at Article III section two where it states, "In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Congress is well with in their Constitutional right here. Actually, it is a right that they do not use enough. The judiciary is not the sole authority of the land, that postion is split equally between that branch, the legislative branch, and the executive branch. Check and balances is supposed to be the name of the game, and the judiciary just got checked. I hope to see more of this in the future.

Mr. Kotter
03-21-2005, 10:04 PM
I was waffling on this issue until I came across something on Rush's website. If you look at Article III section two where it states, "In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Congress is well with in their Constitutional right here. Actually, it is a right that they do not use enough. The judiciary is not the sole authority of the land, that postion is split equally between that branch, the legislative branch, and the executive branch. Check and balances is supposed to be the name of the game, and the judiciary just got checked. I hope to see more of this in the future.

Good post, Jamie. A lot of people are whining incessantly about Congressional over-reach....or "breach of federalism"....that's all bull shit.

If you look at Article III section two where it states, "In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Those wienies need to read the damn Constitution; they seem oblivious to this fact...regardless of what one may personally think of the case.

Simplex3
03-21-2005, 10:42 PM
Congress is well with in their Constitutional right here. Actually, it is a right that they do not use enough. The judiciary is not the sole authority of the land, that postion is split equally between that branch, the legislative branch, and the executive branch. Check and balances is supposed to be the name of the game, and the judiciary just got checked. I hope to see more of this in the future.
I'm not upset that Congress is stepping on the courts. The legislative branches are supposed to smack the courts around, they're the only ones that can.

My issue is that Congress isn't smacking around the courts, they're trying to smack around a state. There is no reason what-so-ever to get in FL's way on this. FL has their laws governing this. If those laws were unconstitutinoal then the US Supreme Court would have taken the Shaivo case when it was presented. Since they didn't the feds should sit down and STFU.

It's sad that our children are no longer told that this country was supposed to be a conglomeration of countries, each running seperately yet joining for common goals and with an over-arching set of rights to protect us from the Imperial Federal Govt. If each state was allowed to forge it's own way you would have the CHOICE to live in a state that suited your needs. Instead we have the far right wackos fighting the far left wackos for control over everyone and everything.

KCWolfman
03-22-2005, 06:23 AM
I'm not upset that Congress is stepping on the courts. The legislative branches are supposed to smack the courts around, they're the only ones that can.

My issue is that Congress isn't smacking around the courts, they're trying to smack around a state. There is no reason what-so-ever to get in FL's way on this. FL has their laws governing this. If those laws were unconstitutinoal then the US Supreme Court would have taken the Shaivo case when it was presented. Since they didn't the feds should sit down and STFU.

It's sad that our children are no longer told that this country was supposed to be a conglomeration of countries, each running seperately yet joining for common goals and with an over-arching set of rights to protect us from the Imperial Federal Govt. If each state was allowed to forge it's own way you would have the CHOICE to live in a state that suited your needs. Instead we have the far right wackos fighting the far left wackos for control over everyone and everything.
With that, I can agree.

However, the FL were circumvented when Jeb Bush's enacted was taken to court for perusal as well, weren't they?

Honestly, I hope Terri has heart failure due to the lack of nutrition and dies quickly. Unfortunately, I am betting she lingers for days.

mlyonsd
03-22-2005, 06:33 AM
With that, I can agree.

However, the FL were circumvented when Jeb Bush's enacted was taken to court for perusal as well, weren't they?

Honestly, I hope Terri has heart failure due to the lack of nutrition and dies quickly. Unfortunately, I am betting she lingers for days.

She'll die of dehydration before starving to death, so yea, I hope you're right and something shuts down quickly and spares her any agony. The 'experts' say the pain sensing part of the brain is part of what is damaged in her but who really knows?

KCWolfman
03-22-2005, 06:40 AM
She'll die of dehydration before starving to death, so yea, I hope you're right and something shuts down quickly and spares her any agony. The 'experts' say the pain sensing part of the brain is part of what is damaged in her but who really knows?
The experts also told us that there are no long term effects from cocaine usage, that going faster than 20 mph would burst our hearts, and that leeches pulled the evil humours from our bodies.

The physicians I work with state they honestly don't know what Terri feels.

mlyonsd
03-22-2005, 06:45 AM
The experts also told us that there are no long term effects from cocaine usage, that going faster than 20 mph would burst our hearts, and that leeches pulled the evil humours from our bodies.

The physicians I work with state they honestly don't know what Terri feels.

Dang that CBS, they lied to us again.

Actually, I've been watching Bob Scheifert the past couple of nights I've watched the news, he's doing a pretty good job so far of turning CBS around.

Saulbadguy
03-22-2005, 06:50 AM
She'll die of dehydration before starving to death, so yea, I hope you're right and something shuts down quickly and spares her any agony. The 'experts' say the pain sensing part of the brain is part of what is damaged in her but who really knows?
Morphine helps as well.

Amnorix
03-22-2005, 07:38 AM
I was waffling on this issue until I came across something on Rush's website. If you look at Article III section two where it states, "In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Congress is well with in their Constitutional right here. Actually, it is a right that they do not use enough. The judiciary is not the sole authority of the land, that postion is split equally between that branch, the legislative branch, and the executive branch. Check and balances is supposed to be the name of the game, and the judiciary just got checked. I hope to see more of this in the future.

Yes, Congress decides the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. There is no argument that what Congress has done here is illegal or a violation of the Constitution or anything. What it is, however, is improper interference in a case that has been thoroughly analyzed by the Florida state court system. Injecting a new round of judges is bad policy.

Mr. Kotter
03-22-2005, 07:45 AM
Yes, Congress decides the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. There is no argument that what Congress has done here is illegal or a violation of the Constitution or anything. What it is, however, is improper interference in a case that has been thoroughly analyzed by the Florida state court system. Injecting a new round of judges is bad policy.

Strictly a 'devil's advocate" question:

Is allowing a handful of judges to decide a case like this in favor of death, when others argue they should choose in favor of life....is that good legal precedent? Or does it open a Pandora's box where judges now get to determine life and death decisions when the law is ambiguous?

Is allowing judges to become "God" really a good idea, if there are disagreements over what should be done in a particular case? Or would it be wiser to "err in favor of life?" :hmmm:

Coach
03-22-2005, 08:58 AM
I'm really torn in between this issue.

One side of me thinks that this is just cruel inhumanity just to pull it out and leave the person to dehydrate (or starving to death.) One thing makes me wonder that she can breathe on her own, but has to rely on the feeding tube to keep her alive. I'm thinking to myself, that my grandma, who was in her early 60's could not feed herself because of stroke and a loss of muscle. She can breathe on her own, but would have to rely for her husband to feed her. I'm thinking to myself "What the f**k is the difference in this situation?" Other than that Terri is partially brain damaged of course.

Another thing that makes me really wonder is the loyality and faithfulness of the husband. I'm trying to figure out why is this clown is still with Terri, only to see that he's also boinking some other girl as well. Obviously, that's pretty much "adultry" to me. Well, if he feels that she can no longer be his wife, then why the f**k not get a divorce and get it over with? So what if you have to pay for it, just do it and move the f**k forward. I know that he's saying "It's never about the money, etc etc." I think it's silly to think of that, because there's the possibility that there is life insurance money involved that he would get is my best guess. During a 1992 civil trial, he sues for negligence on Terri's behalf for $1.7 mil. His words verbatim "I believe in the vows that I took with my wife. Through sickness, in health, for richer for poorer. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her and I am going to do that. I will insure she gets the best of rehabilitation and care."

After the settlement, he goes to live with someone else.

Finally, I guess the real thing is that I'm a religious guy (of course, my profanity on here pretty much disagree, but still, my emotions get the best out of me once in awhile) is the fifth commandment. Thou shall not kill. People do not have the right to kill another human being, whether it be to take their life, their will, their dignity, their skill, their mind, their hope, their trust, their integrity. People can be depleted of physical energy, emotional control and spiritual strength by another person's lack of self-discipline, emotional instability, greed, hate, lust, anger, lack of charity.

To kill is to rob a person of the great privilege reserved for God alone. Only God has the right to judge when the physical must end."

However, on the other side, to live in like that, words cannot really describe on how Terri is feeling. I can't fathom anyone who would want to go on living like that for years on end, with little to no chance of recovering. Of course, there is the part where she may have the one-on-one with her husband before her accident about what to do during certain situations. I'm sure that some of you guys and gals have talked to your loved ones about what to do if one of you get seriously injured or killed. The bad thing about this is, there is no legal written document to prove it. Plus the husband did walk away...right into the arms of another woman. Thus, he should do the right thing and let her family decide her fate. Not him.

I'm not trying to start a firestorm over this thing, but I'm just torn between this issue. Let this be a lesson to all of us, to make sure we write our will, no matter how old we are. It's just a sad and unfortunate thing that's happening right now.

Simplex3
03-22-2005, 10:02 AM
Strictly a 'devil's advocate" question:

Is allowing a handful of judges to decide a case like this in favor of death, when others argue they should choose in favor of life....is that good legal precedent? Or does it open a Pandora's box where judges now get to determine life and death decisions when the law is ambiguous?

Is allowing judges to become "God" really a good idea, if there are disagreements over what should be done in a particular case? Or would it be wiser to "err in favor of life?" :hmmm:

1. 15 judges is a "handful"?
2. The law says MS gets to stop persistent life support of any kind because he, as her husband, is her legal gaurdian. All the judge can do is read the law, intrepret it, and apply it. They've done that.
3. What is all this "err on the side of life" BS? There is no error.
4. The judge isn't the one saying MS can pull the tube, the duly elected legislature passed the law saying he could do that.

Simplex3
03-22-2005, 10:11 AM
To kill is to rob a person of the great privilege reserved for God alone. Only God has the right to judge when the physical must end."
In that case weren't they f**king with God's will when they put the feeding tube in 15 years ago? Are they f**king with God's will when they use a defibrulator on a 32 year old man? After all, God was killing them and we stopped it. What's worse, stopping someone from going to see God or pulling the feeding tube that was stopping them in the first place?

///adding fuel to the fire\\\

bkkcoh
03-22-2005, 10:16 AM
In that case weren't they f**king with God's will when they put the feeding tube in 15 years ago? Are they f**king with God's will when they use a defibrulator on a 32 year old man? After all, God was killing them and we stopped it. What's worse, stopping someone from going to see God or pulling the feeding tube that was stopping them in the first place?

///adding fuel to the fire\\\

One might say that if it wasn't for God, we wouldn't have the ability to keep someone alive with a feeding tube or too revive them with cpr or a defibrulator.

///here is the spark\\\\

Simplex3
03-22-2005, 10:23 AM
One might say that if it wasn't for God, we wouldn't have the ability to keep someone alive with a feeding tube or too revive them with cpr or a defibrulator.

///here is the spark\\\\
In that case we also wouldn't be able to clone a baby without God's will and help, right? So He must be cool with that.

:p

bkkcoh
03-22-2005, 11:12 AM
In that case we also wouldn't be able to clone a baby without God's will and help, right? So He must be cool with that.

:p

If we were able to create life without serious defects, I would then agree the premise, but the defect maybe a sign to us that we shouldn't play God..... :hmmm:

Raiderhader
03-22-2005, 12:06 PM
I'm not upset that Congress is stepping on the courts. The legislative branches are supposed to smack the courts around, they're the only ones that can.

My issue is that Congress isn't smacking around the courts, they're trying to smack around a state. There is no reason what-so-ever to get in FL's way on this. FL has their laws governing this. If those laws were unconstitutinoal then the US Supreme Court would have taken the Shaivo case when it was presented. Since they didn't the feds should sit down and STFU.

It's sad that our children are no longer told that this country was supposed to be a conglomeration of countries, each running seperately yet joining for common goals and with an over-arching set of rights to protect us from the Imperial Federal Govt. If each state was allowed to forge it's own way you would have the CHOICE to live in a state that suited your needs. Instead we have the far right wackos fighting the far left wackos for control over everyone and everything.


Unless of course Florida is not acting appropriately. Since when has heresay been allowed as fact in a court of law? Because Terri saying that she wanted the plug pulled is just that, heresay (7 years and a marriage proposal to another woman later). Yet the Florida courts decided to accept it as fact. The Florida courts have acted inappropriately, thus they deserve to get stepped on here.

This situation is not as cut and dry as one would think watching the evening news, there is a lot of back story, and side stories that are not widely reported.

Raiderhader
03-22-2005, 12:10 PM
Yes, Congress decides the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. There is no argument that what Congress has done here is illegal or a violation of the Constitution or anything.

Actually there is with in certain circles. Maybe not in this thread, but the theory that Congress has over stepped its bounds has been floated more than once the past couple of days.

What it is, however, is improper interference in a case that has been thoroughly analyzed by the Florida state court system. Injecting a new round of judges is bad policy.

If the Florida courts had acted in good faith, I would be tempted to agree with you. Since they have not, a new round of judges sounds like a necessity to me.

Adept Havelock
03-22-2005, 12:24 PM
Now the Far Right has gone from "we hate activist judges" to "we want our own activist judges".

Pathetic.

Raiderhader
03-22-2005, 12:34 PM
Now the Far Right has gone from "we hate activist judges" to "we want our own activist judges".

Pathetic.



:spock: Please, try again.

Amnorix
03-22-2005, 12:39 PM
Actually there is with in certain circles. Maybe not in this thread, but the theory that Congress has over stepped its bounds has been floated more than once the past couple of days.

I'd certainly agree that Congress has overstepped its bounds as to what it SHOULD be doing. But procedurally/legally, they're within their rights. But just because a thing can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

If the Florida courts had acted in good faith, I would be tempted to agree with you. Since they have not, a new round of judges sounds like a necessity to me.

It's ridiculous to say that the Florida courts have not acted "in good faith". What possible reason would they have to act in bad faith?? You're saying 16 (or whatever) judges have just shirked their professional responsibilities to help a scam artist kill his wife and steal her money. That's insane.

Raiderhader
03-22-2005, 12:48 PM
I'd certainly agree that Congress has overstepped its bounds as to what it SHOULD be doing. But procedurally/legally, they're within their rights. But just because a thing can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

I would say the same thing about pulling the feeding tube when there are people who want to take care of the woman, and experts who still say there might be a chance for her. Let the family exhaust all possible avenues and put their minds to ease.

After all, we aren't hurting Terri any are we, I mean, it's not like she can feel anything anyway.....

It's ridiculous to say that the Florida courts have not acted "in good faith". What possible reason would they have to act in bad faith?? You're saying 16 (or whatever) judges have just shirked their professional responsibilities to help a scam artist kill his wife and steal her money. That's insane.

I could only guess, but that is not what I am getting at. My point is that you have ONE person with questionable motives saying something that another person might or might not have said and not one witness to confirm it. That is heresay, and is not usually allowed as evidence in a court of law. Why so in this case? There is no good reason for it.

dirk digler
03-22-2005, 01:01 PM
Unless of course Florida is not acting appropriately. Since when has heresay been allowed as fact in a court of law? Because Terri saying that she wanted the plug pulled is just that, heresay (7 years and a marriage proposal to another woman later). Yet the Florida courts decided to accept it as fact. The Florida courts have acted inappropriately, thus they deserve to get stepped on here.

This situation is not as cut and dry as one would think watching the evening news, there is a lot of back story, and side stories that are not widely reported.

Your definiton of hearsay is wrong.

hearsay
n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her. 2) a common objection made by the opposing lawyer to testimony when it appears the witness has violated the hearsay rule. 3) scuttlebutt or gossip.

It can't be hearsay if she told him she wanted to die which she did. That is why the courts said that he is the legal guardian and allowed that testimony.

Raiderhader
03-22-2005, 01:03 PM
For those who say there is no recovery possible for the woman -

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151148,00.html

dirk digler
03-22-2005, 01:07 PM
For those who say there is no recovery possible for the woman -

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151148,00.html

That is Terri's parents doctor. Of course Hannity would never put on the other doctor that Michael uses which says the opposite of this guy.

Also the court appointed doctor who has no interest in this case said she is in PVS and that her brain is liquid. But don't mind him either.

Edit - The court appointed doctor will be on tonight on Hannity and Colmes so I stand corrected.

Raiderhader
03-22-2005, 01:11 PM
Your definiton of hearsay is wrong.

hearsay
n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her. 2) a common objection made by the opposing lawyer to testimony when it appears the witness has violated the hearsay rule. 3) scuttlebutt or gossip.

It can't be hearsay if she told him she wanted to die which she did. That is why the courts said that he is the legal guardian and allowed that testimony.


With out corroborating testimony from another witness confirming the alleged conversation, it is the equivilant of heresay.

Raiderhader
03-22-2005, 01:14 PM
That is Terri's parents doctor. Of course Hannity would never put on the other doctor that Michael uses which says the opposite of this guy.

Also the court appointed doctor who has no interest in this case said she is in PVS and that her brain is liquid. But don't mind him either.

Edit - The court appointed doctor will be on tonight on Hannity and Colmes so I stand corrected.


I do not need to mind any of them, everyone else already is. I am pointing out another professional opinion that you, as well as many others, are not minding.

dirk digler
03-22-2005, 01:19 PM
With out corroborating testimony from another witness confirming the alleged conversation, it is the equivilant of heresay.

Not according to the law it isn't. That is why they allowed the testimony and granted Michael guardianship.

Raiderhader
03-22-2005, 01:21 PM
Not according to the law it isn't. That is why they allowed the testimony and granted Michael guardianship.


When was Michael awarded gaurdianship?