Hugely ironic twist in Schiavo case

[alnorth]

I'm not a lawyer and I'm just typing what I understand the legal facts to be based on a press conference from Michael's lawyer.

Apparently when Jeb Bush and the Dept of Children and Families filed another motion this morning asking to take custody of Terri based on suspicions of abuse, the law in Florida automatically gives the Florida government the right to take custody of Terri while the court considers the merits of the case.

Michael's lawyer knew about this fact, but amazingly, the government lawyers apparently did not. For 3 hours this legal window was open this morning for the Florida DCF to take Terri, but when Michael's lawyer filed a motion 3 hours later asking the judge to vacate the FL government's ability to automatically take custody of Terri, the Govt lawyers immediately realized the opportunity they had, and failed to take advantage of. The DCF lawyers and the parent's lawyers immediately tried to stall the court while the DCF mobilized to take Terri, but the judge realized what was going on and vacated the government's ability to automatically take Terri.

During the press conference when Michael's lawyer explained why they filed the motion to not let the government take Terri, the press asked him why they didnt do that during the 3 hours they could have, and the lawyer explained that this was an obscure arcane point in the law that the government was apparently unaware of.

[Amnorix]

Honestly, about the only thing that could make this fiasco any worse would be to have the state government essentially muscling in to kidnap Ms. Schiavo before the court could act, and then having it turn into some kind of standoff between the court and the state.

Honestly, it's become some kind of hopeless, hapless sad parody of the way government and the executive branch should function.

[jettio]

That surprising poll that came out on Monday is what knocked the pins out of any chance that the GOP opportunists would keep fighting.

Never was about principle for many of them.

[patteeu]

That surprising poll that came out on Monday is what knocked the pins out of any chance that the GOP opportunists would keep fighting.

Never was about principle for many of them.

Finally an issue on which I might find common ground with Jettio and he ruins the moment with his inability to pass up an opportunity to take a partisan cheap shot. Talk about opportunists.

[Taco John]

I cannot how blinded with hate the Democrats are. I never thought I'd see the day that these whacked out extremists would be willing to murder someone to spite Tom Delay.

[jAZ]

The really embarassing thing about this is that the rule isn't at all "arcane". For any practicing family law attorney working for the state (ie, at the DCF)... it's fairly standard procedure. It's the basis of having your kids "taken away".

[jAZ]

I cannot how blinded with hate the Democrats are. I never thought I'd see the day that these whacked out extremists would be willing to murder someone to spite Tom Delay.
Karl Rove? Is that you?

[Taco John]

Karl Rove? Is that you?



WTF ever... You can't prove this woman would rather die than live. You can just tell me that YOU would rather die than live. If there is no proof of her will, the law should give a deference to life, *ESPECIALLY* in a case where the individual has the personal support structure of a family to provide her with care.

As far as I'm concerned, this woman is being murdered in front of our very eyes. It's disgusting.

[jAZ]

WTF ever... You can't prove this woman would rather die than live. You can just tell me that YOU would rather die than live. If there is no proof of her will, the law should give a deference to life, *ESPECIALLY* in a case where the individual has the personal support structure of a family to provide her with care.

As far as I'm concerned, this woman is being murdered in front of our very eyes. It's disgusting.
What's that have to do with you trying to make political hay against the Democrats by claiming there position is merely to "spite Tom DeLay"? Your opinion on what should happen is your's and is totally defensible, IMO.

You're attempting to attack & trivialize the "opposition" in the way you choose to, is an absolute shill-move.

[jAZ]

What's that have to do with you trying to make political hay against the Democrats by claiming there position is merely to "spite Tom DeLay"? Your opinion on what should happen is your's and is totally defensible, IMO.

You're attempting to attack & trivialize the "opposition" in the way you choose to, is an absolute shill-move.
I mean talk about letting your emotions dictate your opinion on something!

[Cochise]

blah blah, political hay, bush sucks, delay sucks, i know what I would do in that spot so we should do it to her too :rolleyes:

same thing democratia as a whole has been doing in the press for a week

[Taco John]

What's that have to do with you trying to make political hay against the Democrats by claiming there position is merely to "spite Tom DeLay"? Your opinion on what should happen is your's and is totally defensible, IMO.

You're attempting to attack & trivialize the "opposition" in the way you choose to, is an absolute shill-move.


Whatever. I call it like I see it based on the discussions that I've had. I don't care about your "schill moves" and "trivialize the opposition" bullshit. There is a woman's life at stake here, and all the Democrats can talk about is Tom ****ing Delay. I don't care about Tom Delay. I care about due process. I care about the family who is watching their daughter legally murdered on live TV, with a government helpless to do anything to save this woman because the Democrats are throwing whatever roadblocks they can. They might as well be stepping on her throat.

It's bullshit, and when this woman is dead, America will realize it's bullshit. And Bush will get his nominations confirmed. You idiots are playing right into his hands too. Damned morons.

[Phobia]

I don't know anything about which side I'm supposed to be on, but the woman should have been dead 15 years ago. She has no hope for recovery or even interacting with her family. What are they waiting for?

[dirk digler]

Whatever. I call it like I see it based on the discussions that I've had. I don't care about your "schill moves" and "trivialize the opposition" bullshit. There is a woman's life at stake here, and all the Democrats can talk about is Tom ****ing Delay. I don't care about Tom Delay. I care about due process. I care about the family who is watching their daughter legally murdered on live TV, with a government helpless to do anything to save this woman because the Democrats are throwing whatever roadblocks they can. They might as well be stepping on her throat.

It's bullshit, and when this woman is dead, America will realize it's bullshit. And Bush will get his nominations confirmed. You idiots are playing right into his hands too. Damned morons.

TJ I have to respectfully disagree. When I see the poll numbers of even Fox showing that over 70% disagree what Congress and did and that they believe the courts are doing the right thing it leads me to believe that Bush and the right are on the wrong side of the issue.

This is a personal family decision that is now being used as a political football and it is disgusting. The right is fueling this and the Democratic party has all but disappered this week because they don't want to touch this issue.

[Taco John]

What are they waiting for?



A miracle.

[dirk digler]

I don't know anything about which side I'm supposed to be on, but the woman should have been dead 15 years ago. She has no hope for recovery or even interacting with her family. What are they waiting for?

I feel for the family and for Michael but the courts are making the right judgement here and the parents are really the ones to blame for this whole mess.

[Phobia]

A miracle.

Aren't miracles faith based? If you have faith a miracle is gonna happen, pull the damn plug. If she dies, play the "God's will" card.

[Metrolike]

I don't know anything about which side I'm supposed to be on, but the woman should have been dead 15 years ago. She has no hope for recovery or even interacting with her family. What are they waiting for?

I don't know man, that's your opinion. How do you know SHE wants to die? I didn't want to say anything until Taco spoke up - not to be "the only douchebag with the opposite viewpoint" again. You only get to live once, even though she can't function she's feeling the love of her family and is at some level happy. Besides, how would you feel about government deciding the fate of YOUR daughter?

[dirk digler]

I don't know man, that's your opinion. How do you know SHE wants to die? I didn't want to say until Taco spole up - not to be "the only douchebag with the opposite viewpoint" again. You only get to live once, even though she can't function she's feeling the love of her family and is at some level happy. Besides, how would you feel about government deciding the fate of YOUR daughter?

I don't want the government deciding the fate that is the point.

[Phobia]

I don't know man, that's your opinion. How do you know SHE wants to die? I didn't want to say until Taco spole up - not to be "the only douchebag with the opposite viewpoint" again. You only get to live once, even though she can't function she's feeling the love of her family and is at some level happy. Besides, how would you feel about government deciding the fate of YOUR daughter?

My daughter wouldn't be hopeless pile of machine maintained flesh for 15 years. She's been lying there for 15 years. Nobody wants to go through that. Nobody. Nobody. Let the woman die in peace. Remove the cameras and scribes, it's none of our business. Remove the courts, it's none of their business.

[dirk digler]

My daughter wouldn't be hopeless pile of machine maintained flesh for 15 years. She's been lying there for 15 years. Nobody wants to go through that. Nobody. Nobody. Let the woman die in peace. Remove the cameras and scribes, it's none of our business. Remove the courts, it's none of their business.

:bravo:

[dirk digler]

87% of Americans (ABC News and Washington Post poll) want their feeding tubes removed if they were in Terri Schiavo's condition.

[Metrolike]

My daughter wouldn't be hopeless pile of machine maintained flesh for 15 years. She's been lying there for 15 years. Nobody wants to go through that. Nobody. Nobody. Let the woman die in peace. Remove the cameras and scribes, it's none of our business. Remove the courts, it's none of their business.

Machine maintained? Dude, all she needs is that tube to give her food and water. It's not like she's totally commatose. She freaking responds to people. She isn't brain dead.

[Metrolike]

87% of Americans (ABC News and Washington Post poll) want their feeding tubes removed if they were in Terri Schiavo's condition.

How do you know she's not one of the 13%? This isn't a f*cking majority issue. If 87% percent of people said they were going to kill themselves tomorrow, would you do it?

[dirk digler]

Machine maintained? Dude, all she needs is that tube to give her food and water. It's not like she's totally commatose. She freaking responds to people. She isn't brain dead.

Metrolike would you want to live like Terri? How about your son or daughter or your wife?

[Phobia]

Machine maintained? Dude, all she needs is that tube to give her food and water. It's not like she's totally commatose. She freaking responds to people. She isn't brain dead.

Dude - she hasn't wiped her own ass in 15 years. How about you come over to my place and I'll wipe your ass for a couple days. See if you don't want to die. She's living under the most awful of conditions. I'd rather be brutally raped daily in an Iraqi prison for the remainder of my life than live 6 months as this woman.

[Metrolike]

Metrolike would you want to live like Terri? How about your son or daughter or your wife?

I honestly don't know. We only get one chance at life.

[Phobia]

How do you know she's not one of the 13%? This isn't a f*cking majority issue. If 87% percent of people said they were going to kill themselves tomorrow, would you do it?

Because the other 13% were also on feeding tubes and unable to respond to the affirmative. If we'd let some of these people actually die, the results would reflect a more accurate 100%.

[dirk digler]

How do you know she's not one of the 13%? This isn't a f*cking majority issue. If 87% percent of people said they were going to kill themselves tomorrow, would you do it?

The point I am making is that no one wants the government sticking their nose in a personal family decison and 87% of America agrees with me.

[dirk digler]

I honestly don't know. We only get one chance at life.

I am good with that. How do you feel about the death penalty then?

[Metrolike]

Because the other 13% were also on feeding tubes and unable to respond to the affirmative. If we'd let some of these people actually die, the results would reflect a more accurate 100%.

What are you talking about?

[dirk digler]

Because the other 13% were also on feeding tubes and unable to respond to the affirmative. If we'd let some of these people actually die, the results would reflect a more accurate 100%.

I can't imagine anyone saying they would want to live via a feeding tube.

[Phobia]

What are you talking about?

Here's a picture for you:

http://www.uno.edu/~asoble/images/cinder.jpg

NOW do you understand?

[Metrolike]

I can't imagine anyone saying they would want to live via a feeding tube.

Obviously 13 pecent were either unsure or would want to live. Like I said, just because a majority feels one way, doesn't mean everybody feels the same.

[patteeu]

WTF ever... You can't prove this woman would rather die than live. You can just tell me that YOU would rather die than live. If there is no proof of her will, the law should give a deference to life, *ESPECIALLY* in a case where the individual has the personal support structure of a family to provide her with care.

As far as I'm concerned, this woman is being murdered in front of our very eyes. It's disgusting.

What do you mean by proof? If you mean evidence, then we have the husband's testimony and that of his brother and sister-in-law which the trial judge found credible and which he determined rose to the level of clear and convincing.

The problem is that I suspect you require either certainty or proof beyond a reasonable doubt and I agree that you don't have that. The Florida legislature only required clear and convincing evidence though. If you were writing the laws, you could set a higher standard. Unfortunately, clear and convincing is not an objective standard, so reasonable people can, and no doubt will, differ.

Keep in mind that at the original trial, the testimony of the husband, his brother, and his sister-in-law was countered only by the testimony of the mother and a friend of TS. The mother admitted that the statement she remembered TS making was made when TS was only 11 or 12 years old. The friend's testimony was viewed as questionable because her level of confidence somehow improved between the deposition and the trial. There is also some question about whether the statements TS made to the friend were made as a young adult or as a child. OOH, the judge had the word of the person closest to TS (her husband) about her beliefs as an adult and corroborating testimony from two other witnesses that he found very credible and OTOH he had testimony on the other side about things TS might have said as a child.

[dirk digler]

Obviously 13 pecent were either unsure or would want to live. Like I said, just because a majority feels one way, doesn't mean everybody feels the same.

Agreed. Some people want to get run over by a train but I have a feeling most people don't.

[Simplex3]

I can't imagine anyone saying they would want to live via a feeding tube.
If I were otherwise healthy and mentally intact, a feeding tube wouldn't be so bad.

If I was a carrot it would suck.

[dirk digler]

If I were otherwise healthy and mentally intact, a feeding tube wouldn't be so bad.

If I was a carrot it would suck.

Does that happen? I can't imagine you being healthy and having a feeding tube but I could be wrong.

[patteeu]

Machine maintained? Dude, all she needs is that tube to give her food and water. It's not like she's totally commatose. She freaking responds to people. She isn't brain dead.

Is your MD from KU or something? :p

At least that's better than one quote I saw on another discussion board today. Some guy actually called TS "a relatively healthy 41 year old woman."

[Simplex3]

Does that happen? I can't imagine you being healthy and having a feeding tube but I could be wrong.
If you had some issues with swallowing it could I assume.

[dirk digler]

If you had some issues with swallowing it could I assume.

Yep you are right. I guess I always thought of feeding tubes for people like TS.

Tube Feeding

When surgery or treatment for oral cancer affects the patient's ability to eat, a feeding tube is inserted to facilitate meeting nutritional needs. First introduced in 1980, today more than 200,000 patients every year receive this form of therapy. The location of oral cancers, and the resulting damage to the oral / esophageal tissues from treatments, makes weight maintenance and obtaining proper nutrition especially difficult.


For patients who are unable to chew and swallow food, tube feeding can safely and significantly increase the quality of life, maintaining appropriate weight levels and nutritional requirements.

[Metrolike]

Is your MD from KU or something? :p

At least that's better than one quote I saw on another discussion board today. Some guy actually called TS "a relatively healthy 41 year old woman."

"Is Terri receiving life support?

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

http://www.terrisfight.net/


Are you saying she's brain dead? Or commatose? Or what?

[Phobia]

If you had some issues with swallowing it could I assume.

This is going to speed diagnosis for a lot of dudes' wives. Fortunately, my wife(s) have never had that problem.

Choose wisely my young friends.

[patteeu]

"Is Terri receiving life support?

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

http://www.terrisfight.net/


Are you saying she's brain dead? Or commatose? Or what?

I think I'm saying that you aren't qualified to make a diagnosis anymore than I am.

But I'll also add that the courts after hearing expert testimony subject to cross examination and refutation by an adverse party came to the conclusion that TS is "beyond all doubt" in a PVS. That judgement has withstood multiple appellate reviews and a second full hearing of the facts including new evidence offered by the parents. The court has been informed during the process by numerous doctors, some selected by the husband, some selected by the parents, and at least one selected by the court. TS has not shown verifiable signs of recovery over the course of 15 years.

And BTW, she was receiving a "life prolonging proceedure" as defined by Florida statute until the feeding tube was removed. If you don't want to call it "life support" that's fine by me, but Judge Altenbernd of the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals does:

In this case, Michael Schiavo used the first approach. Under these circumstances, the two parties, as adversaries, present their evidence to the trial court. The trial court determines whether the evidence is sufficient to allow it to make the decision for the ward to discontinue life support.

[Frankie]

THANK GOD for the ignorance of government lawyers.

[Metrolike]

I think I'm saying that you aren't qualified to make a diagnosis anymore than I am.

But I'll also add that the courts after hearing expert testimony subject to cross examination and refutation by an adverse party came to the conclusion that TS is "beyond all doubt" in a PVS. That judgement has withstood multiple appellate reviews and a second full hearing of the facts including new evidence offered by the parents. The court has been informed during the process by numerous doctors, some selected by the husband, some selected by the parents, and at least one selected by the court. TS has not shown verifiable signs of recovery over the course of 15 years.

And BTW, she was receiving a "life prolonging proceedure" as defined by Florida statute until the feeding tube was removed. If you don't want to call it "life support" that's fine by me, but Judge Altenbernd of the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals does:

Feeding a paralyzed person with a spoon is life support too in that case. Nobody seems to be complaining about that. To me - life support is a machine that is there to function as one's organ/s where by shutting it off the unconscious person dies within an hour. Taking the tube out and starving a conscious person to death over a period of a few days is ihnumane, IMO.

[Phobia]

Feeding a paralyzed person with a spoon is life support too in that case. Nobody seems to be complaining about that. To me - life support is a machine that is there to function as one's organ/s where by shutting it off the unconscious person dies within an hour. Taking the tube out and starving a conscious person to death over a period of a few days is ihnumane, IMO.

There's a lot of inhumane shit that happens in hospitals these days - none worse than keeping some poor vegetable alive for 15 years when there is no hope for recovery.

If the lawmakers in this country would open their minds to euthenasia, we could be much more humane. But we're not nearly as advanced as a society as some european countries.

[Metrolike]

There's a lot of inhumane shit that happens in hospitals these days - none worse than keeping some poor vegetable alive for 15 years when there is no hope for recovery.

If the lawmakers in this country would open their minds to euthenasia, we could be much more humane. But we're not nearly as advanced as a society as some european countries.

Define vegetable? I thought being brain dead was a big part of the definition.

[Phobia]

Define vegetable? I thought being brain dead was a big part of the definition.

Depends who you ask, I guess. Look it up and draw your own conclusions. I made it a point to reference information published prior to the whole Schiavo controversy.

http://www.cwu.edu/~chem/courses/Chem564/finalpapers/PVSfinal.html

[Metrolike]

I don't know. The issue is complicated. I just don't want to see that woman starve to death because some people thought it was better for her that way.

[Phobia]

I don't know. The issue is complicated. I just don't want to see that woman starve to death because some people thought it was better for her that way.

Nothing is good for that woman today. If she were born 20 years earlier, we wouldn't even be having the discussion because she wouldn't have made it. Sometimes the miracle of modern medicine isn't a gift at all. In this woman's case, it's a curse.

If you're starving to death, but aren't aware that you're hungry are you really alive?

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Nothing is good for that woman today. If she were born 20 years earlier, we wouldn't even be having the discussion because she wouldn't have made it. Sometimes the miracle of modern medicine isn't a gift at all. In this woman's case, it's a curse.

If you're starving to death, but aren't aware that you're hungry are you really alive?


Pretty much sums it up IMO

[patteeu]

Define vegetable? I thought being brain dead was a big part of the definition.

Here's one definition:

765.101 (12) "Persistent vegetative state" means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind.

(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

[Taco John]

They're arresting people for bringing this girl water. They're not even letting her drink water, though she's capable of it. This is murder.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

They're arresting people for bringing this girl water. They're not even letting her drink water, though she's capable of it. This is murder.


I have purposely stayed the f*ck away from this twisted new reality show in American pop culture. So let me get this straight. This girl can physically drink water, and they are denying it to her?

[Taco John]

Two people have been arrested for trying to bring her a glass of water. Her parents are able to get her to respond to their voices. Granted, it's an incoherent response... But it's a response.

There should be no reason, short of tangible and conclusive evidence that she would choose to starve herself if left in this situation. Just some hearsay... seven years AFTER the initial collapse.

[Taco John]

THANK GOD for the ignorance of government lawyers.



Meanwhile, extremist liberals driven by nothing but political hate celebrate every defeat of this woman and her family because in their twisted hate, they think that by murdering this girl they are punishing Bush and Delay.

[Chief Henry]

Meanwhile, extremist liberals driven by nothing but political hate celebrate every defeat of this woman and her family because in their twisted hate, they think that by murdering this girl they are punishing Bush and Delay.


Thats very sad, but very accurate as well too.

[Simplex3]

Feeding a paralyzed person with a spoon is life support too in that case.
That would be a good analogy if it wasn't a bad one. If the paralyzed person asked to not be fed then you'd have a comparable situation. The courts determined that TS asked not to be kept alive in this type of situation.

[Simplex3]

They're arresting people for bringing this girl water. They're not even letting her drink water, though she's capable of it. This is murder.
Then trot your happy ass down there and make some citizen's arrests.

[Iowanian]

I still don't know how I feel about it.........I do know its nothing more than a twisted, political Reality show where her life/death are the Prize.

I'm heading to a service this afternoon and tomorrow for a 31 year old with a couple of kids. He was going to be paralized from the neck/chest down........and died of Pnuemonia. Its a blessing and I'm sure that, outside of his kids and the whole life thing......he'd prefer it this way, as would I.

If I can't wipe my own but and take a drink of water.......Put a pillow over my face.

[alnorth]

Meanwhile, that pesky annoying little fact that Terri has no upper brain, no cerebral cortex keeps popping up and the other side sticks their fingers in their ears yelling "La La La, I cant hear you!"

She does not respond to her parents because she doesnt have the required equipment. Every single doctor who performed a brain scan, without exception, says her upper brain is gone, replaced by fluid. A few opportunistic quacks looking for a lab rat to test dubious recovery schemes with no record of success, and who have not perfrmed any brain scans, say they think she isnt PVS based on viewing a video tape or looking at her for a day or two.

[Iowanian]

Its been long enough Now, I think she'd be gone if they put the tube back in right now.

Just let the woman die in peace at this point.

[jettio]

Finally an issue on which I might find common ground with Jettio and he ruins the moment with his inability to pass up an opportunity to take a partisan cheap shot. Talk about opportunists.

Huh?

You seem to have lost your mind.

The only opportunity I seize upon is the same as every other post, that is the opportunity to express my opinion about a matter of public interest.

If you do not think that the poll that came out Monday showing that 3/4 of the polled thought that Congress was being political opportunists on this issue hasn't caused many to leap from the bandwagon, you are a fool.

There are some true believers carrying the cause forward, but they are on their own now. Congress did not even know the law well enough to realize that the law they passed would provide no relief.

[alnorth]

What amazed me was the fact that the Republicans thought this would be a key popular issue for them. What the hell were they smoking?

My family and most of my friends are all right-wingers from Kansas and we all opposed interfering in this case. I know that there were some true believers out there, but if the GOP thought this would have been this incredibly unpopular, theres no way in hell they would have touched this issue.

[Cochise]

godnorth, I think you're making a mistake. The Republicans in congress didn't give up because they figured out it was unpopular. They are simply out of options. They did everything in their power.

I think it's funny how in political America today when someone you agree with goes against what's popular, they're standing up for principle, but when someone you disagree with goes against what's popular, they're opposing the will of the people and shouldn't be serving their own interests.

[Simplex3]

godnorth, I think you're making a mistake. The Republicans in congress didn't give up because they figured out it was unpopular. They are simply out of options. They did everything in their power.
It was in their power to pass one law, but not to pass another? They could keep passing new laws until one worked but they gave up. Why? I happen to think they looked at their slipping poll numbers and chickened out. I think SS reform and spending cuts are prime examples of the Yellow-cons.

[alnorth]

godnorth, I think you're making a mistake. The Republicans in congress didn't give up because they figured out it was unpopular. They are simply out of options. They did everything in their power.

I think it's funny how in political America today when someone you agree with goes against what's popular, they're standing up for principle, but when someone you disagree with goes against what's popular, they're opposing the will of the people and shouldn't be serving their own interests.

Whatever dude, when all of the radio talk shows all harp on one issue for a week, the GOP listens, and usually it is safe to assume that perhaps the topic of the day has popular support. In this case it did not.

This law is un-freaking-precedented. We have similar cases where families dispute whether to pull the plug or not. What makes Terri Schiavo special? Answer: she isnt. Why interfere in this one case and ignore hundreds of others? Because she is on the news as the issue of the day, and the Republicans thought they could make political gains off of it.

The reason why this isnt a case of "standing up for your principles", is because this case F***ING VIOLATES one of the GOP's most treasured principles! On the contrary, they threw one of their principles in the garbage in a rush for a few stinking votes, which have turned out to be a mirage.

If they are willing to ignore their principles on this one case because of a perceived political opportunity, where will it go next? I didnt vote for conservatives to pull crap like this, and I'm feeling very disillusioned right now.

[Duck Dog]

WTF ever... You can't prove this woman would rather die than live. You can just tell me that YOU would rather die than live. If there is no proof of her will, the law should give a deference to life, *ESPECIALLY* in a case where the individual has the personal support structure of a family to provide her with care.

As far as I'm concerned, this woman is being murdered in front of our very eyes. It's disgusting.

I couldn't agree more. All excellent points, and to be quit honest, can't be argued against, IMO.

[alnorth]

It was in their power to pass one law, but not to pass another? They could keep passing new laws until one worked but they gave up. Why? I happen to think they looked at their slipping poll numbers and chickened out. I think SS reform and spending cuts are prime examples of the Yellow-cons.

EXACTLY!

They could crank out laws like an industrial plant untill they finally get one worded in such a way that the courts cant reject it. They forgot to mandate in the last law that Terri must have the feeding tube re-inserted because they figured the courts wouldnt refuse. So, why dont they pass another that clarifies things?

Answer: they have read the tea leaves and became frightened. They have done enough to mollify the few believers out there and are hoping everyone else forgets any of this ever happened 2 years from now.

[Cochise]

I couldn't agree more. All excellent points, and to be quit honest, can't be argued against, IMO.

There's really no argument against that, only diversionary tactics. It is undeniable that her wishes are not clear and in that case we shouldn't be executing people.

[alnorth]

There's really no argument against that, only diversionary tactics. It is undeniable that her wishes are not clear and in that case we shouldn't be executing people.

Undeniable in your mind? Perhaps.

In the state of Florida we need clear and convincing evidence that Terri wanted to die. We have her husband and two other people all relating statements she made to them on seperate occasions, repeating what she said to each of them, all saying she wouldnt want to be kept alive.

On the other side, we have something she said to her mother when she was 12.

You do the math.

[patteeu]

What amazed me was the fact that the Republicans thought this would be a key popular issue for them. What the hell were they smoking?

My family and most of my friends are all right-wingers from Kansas and we all opposed interfering in this case. I know that there were some true believers out there, but if the GOP thought this would have been this incredibly unpopular, theres no way in hell they would have touched this issue.

The "true believers" are very agitated about this. If nothing else, this is a well received bone thrown to that particular constituency. The vast majority of the people who think Congress was wrong to intervene or who think TS should be allowed to die, will forget about this whole mess before 2006 comes around.

[mlyonsd]

It was in their power to pass one law, but not to pass another? They could keep passing new laws until one worked but they gave up. Why? I happen to think they looked at their slipping poll numbers and chickened out. I think SS reform and spending cuts are prime examples of the Yellow-cons.

No, they passed a law such that her case had the possibility of being reviewed at the Federal level. In other words, give her the same opportunity in the court system that all death row inmates get.

I hardly think that's an unnoble cause. They were trying to err on the side of life because there was no written document signed by her stating what she wanted done.

You can try and make political hay if you want, I don't see their actions as being political in nature at all.

[patteeu]

There's really no argument against that, only diversionary tactics. It is undeniable that her wishes are not clear and in that case we shouldn't be executing people.

Not really undeniable. I deny it. I say they are clear. So did Judge Greer. And the 2nd district appeals court said that Judge Greer had an adequate factual basis for deciding that they were clear. My position is as shaky as yours since neither of us heard the testimony, but Judge Greer was right there and he had the best seat in the house.

And this is an execution in the same way that Republicans force old people to eat dog food when they talk about social security reform. :rolleyes:

[patteeu]

Undeniable in your mind? Perhaps.

In the state of Florida we need clear and convincing evidence that Terri wanted to die. We have her husband and two other people all relating statements she made to them on seperate occasions, repeating what she said to each of them, all saying she wouldnt want to be kept alive.

On the other side, we have something she said to her mother when she was 12.

You do the math.

If Amnorix, Rain Man, and Siberian Khatru all made a claim, and the only person making an alternative claim was Slayer Diablo, I wonder if people would insist that the issue was unclear?

[Cochise]

Not really undeniable. I deny it. I say they are clear. So did Judge Greer. And the 2nd district appeals court said that Judge Greer had an adequate factual basis for deciding that they were clear. My position is as shaky as yours since neither of us heard the testimony, but Judge Greer was right there and he had the best seat in the house.

And this is an execution in the same way that Republicans force old people to eat dog food when they pass welfare reform. :rolleyes:

Did she have a legal living will? If not, it's all heresay.

[Frankie]

Meanwhile, extremist liberals driven by nothing but political hate celebrate every defeat of this woman and her family because in their twisted hate, they think that by murdering this girl they are punishing Bush and Delay.

You cannot "murder" a dead person. But you can and should respect her.

[patteeu]

Did she have a legal living will? If not, it's all heresay.

It's not hearsay when the witness is testifying that they heard someone say something. That's an issue of personal experience of which the witness has first hand knowledge. (e.g. "I heard the defendant say 'I'm going to kill you.'").

If a witness testifies to a conversation in which a person tells the witness something about the actions of a third party, then you wouldn't be able to use those statements against the third party (absent an exception to the hearsay rule). That's different.

I think it's a safe bet that every lawyer and judge involved in this case and it's many different reviews at both the trial and appeals level would recognize impermissible hearsay when they see it. That issue hasn't even been raised, so that is a pretty good indication that it doesn't exist.

[Simplex3]

You can try and make political hay if you want, I don't see their actions as being political in nature at all.
Yeah, because they pass a law like this for every incapacitated person who is having life support of some kind removed.

[alnorth]

Did she have a legal living will? If not, it's all heresay.

Not according to the law.

If Susan says she heard Bob say that Frank robbed someone, thats hearsay in the context of "did Frank rob someone", youll need to get Bob to testify on that. However, its not hearsay if you want to use Susan's testimony to sue Bob for libel/slander/etc, Susan did hear Bob make the accusation personally.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Whatever dude, when all of the radio talk shows all harp on one issue for a week, the GOP listens, and usually it is safe to assume that perhaps the topic of the day has popular support. In this case it did not.

This law is un-freaking-precedented. We have similar cases where families dispute whether to pull the plug or not. What makes Terri Schiavo special? Answer: she isnt. Why interfere in this one case and ignore hundreds of others? Because she is on the news as the issue of the day, and the Republicans thought they could make political gains off of it.

The reason why this isnt a case of "standing up for your principles", is because this case F***ING VIOLATES one of the GOP's most treasured principles! On the contrary, they threw one of their principles in the garbage in a rush for a few stinking votes, which have turned out to be a mirage.

If they are willing to ignore their principles on this one case because of a perceived political opportunity, where will it go next? I didnt vote for conservatives to pull crap like this, and I'm feeling very disillusioned right now.


Without a shadow of a doubt. And you are not the only one feeling disillusioned right now. When you're entire schtick is getting away from big government then you go and pull this, what do you expect the reaction to be from the majority of your voters. You know, the ones that aren't in the upper echelon of financial bliss. The only people who vote Republican are the ones that hide behind their wallets, and the ones who hide behind their military. It's either fear, or money. Then you get damn near the entire midwest that votes based off of their religious beliefs. Christian tolerance imposing its will at the polls every year.

Now let me be clear, Democrats want to regulate EVERYTHING. They want to cut a check to every single person that has ever had something bad happen to them, and they don't want limits on those checks. Welfare, stay on it forever. Tree hugging, pot smoking, b!tches. Take it from people who worked their way to the top. There is no perfection. Let's all just be Repubrocrats and vote by issue instead of hiding behind our financial bracket, and our kids......Why am I ranting? Apathy is the era, unless of course we're voting on who to pass the buck too.

[Taco John]

She does not respond to her parents because she doesnt have the required equipment.



You idiot. She does too respond to her parents.

[Taco John]

You cannot "murder" a dead person. But you can and should respect her.



F*ck you. She's alive and has people there to take care of her.

I wish I could piss in your eyesockets with statements like that and completely degrade you in your waning moments. She's not ****ing dead until she has no pulse. Just because *you* have given up hope on her doesn't mean that everyone else should.

[alnorth]

You idiot. She does too respond to her parents.

HOW?!?!?!

SHE...DOES...NOT...HAVE...AN...UPPER....BRAIN! What part of this do you not understand?

She has moved her eyes and head, and made random noises for a decade now. Her parents, perhaps subconsiously knowing this without wanting to admit to the truth, make a video tape hoping to catch her falsely appearing to respond, and succeed when the great dice of randomness lands their way a couple times, even though the tape clearly shows that many of her random reflexes do not coincide with stimuli.

[Taco John]

HOW?!?!?!

SHE...DOES...NOT...HAVE...AN...UPPER....BRAIN! What part of this do you not understand?

She has moved her eyes and head, and made random noises for a decade now. Her parents, perhaps subconsiously knowing this without wanting to admit to the truth, make a video tape hoping to catch her falsely appearing to respond, and succeed when the great dice of randomness lands their way a couple times, even though the tape clearly shows that many of her random reflexes do not coincide with stimuli.


What part of SHE RESPONDS TO HER PARENT'S VOICE do you not understand?

What part of YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF HER WILL do you not understand?

This is MURDER.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

F*ck you. She's alive and has people there to take care of her.

I wish I could piss in your eyesockets with statements like that and completely degrade you in your waning moments. She's not ****ing dead until she has no pulse. Just because *you* have given up hope on her doesn't mean that everyone else should.


I understand that this is a very sensitive issue for you, but really doesn't this come down to the person who KNEW her the best and has power of attorney for her? You're right most people don't know for sure what she would've wanted. I do think it's safe to say that her husband does though. If he is a murderer then he is, but when you marry someone you take those risks. He's the ONLY one qualified to make this decision. 15 years is a long, long time. It's not like after a week of it he said "Let's pull the plug." Now I understand this debate has gone on behind the scenes for what? 7 years? He didn't give up hope, until he felt all hope was gone. God forbid it ever happens to you, but if it were too, you would be able to choose differently. I just hope you would honor the request of the person affected, instead of following your own heart.

[alnorth]

What part of SHE RESPONDS TO HER PARENT'S VOICE do you not understand?

What part of YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF HER WILL do you not understand?

This is MURDER.

She DOES NOT respond to a GOD DAMNED THING!

She has made these exact same reflexes, noises, and eye movements whether her mother is in the room or not, whether her family is in the room, or not. Whether there is anything new to look at or nothing. There is no discernable pattern to her reflexes, and she would have performed EXACTLY the same motions in that video tape if her parents and that stupid balloon were not in the picture.

As for her will, on one side we have her husband, and two other people, all who have heard Terri's will, spoken in her adult years, in 3 seperate occasions.

On the other side, we have one sentance her mommy heard when she was 12 f***ing years old.

If it is EVER possible to have clear and convincing evidence of her will based on verbal communication, we can do hardly better than this. If you want to mandate a written will for a population where most people dont want one, then change the damned law.

[Taco John]

I understand that this is a very sensitive issue for you, but really doesn't this come down to the person who KNEW her the best and has power of attorney for her? You're right most people don't know for sure what she would've wanted. I do think it's safe to say that her husband does though. If he is a murderer then he is, but when you marry someone you take those risks. He's the ONLY one qualified to make this decision. 15 years is a long, long time. It's not like after a week of it he said "Let's pull the plug." Now I understand this debate has gone on behind the scenes for what? 7 years? He didn't give up hope, until he felt all hope was gone. God forbid it ever happens to you, but if it were too, you would be able to choose differently. I just hope you would honor the request of the person affected, instead of following your own heart.



Jesus this is such a stupid argument... I can't believe how many stupid people are throwing it around. First of all, there are questions of foul play AND he WILL be charged when she dies. Count on that. This isn't over by a long shot. This guy is going to be charged.

Second of all, there are too many conflicting statements with regard to her will. Michael Schivao didn't "remember" Terri wanted to die until just before he moved in with his new girlfriend SEVEN YEARS AFTER HER COLLAPSE!

This woman was on an iced tea diet because her husband was such a loving, supportive individual? **** NO! This dude's a ****ing creep! I don't know why anyone wants to give a dude who clearly was psycologically abusive to his wife the plug to pull... Esepcially when there is literally no proof that is what she wanted. Just a couple of generic 'I think I remember she said something like that...'

I love this "poor Michael Schaivo" bullshit that so many morons are choking down. This bastard was such a loving husband that his wife felt like she needed to make life threatening changes to her diet. And now he has the power to slay her, any jackoffs who cant' connect dots want to protect him.

Ignorance is murdering this woman.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Jesus this is such a stupid argument... I can't believe how many stupid people are throwing it around. First of all, there are questions of foul play AND he WILL be charged when she dies. Count on that. This isn't over by a long shot. This guy is going to be charged.

Second of all, there are too many conflicting statements with regard to her will. Michael Schivao didn't "remember" Terri wanted to die until just before he moved in with his new girlfriend SEVEN YEARS AFTER HER COLLAPSE!

This woman was on an iced tea diet because her husband was such a loving, supportive individual? **** NO! This dude's a ****ing creep! I don't know why anyone wants to give a dude who clearly was psycologically abusive to his wife the plug to pull... Esepcially when there is literally no proof that is what she wanted.

I love this "poor Michael Schaivo" bullshit that so many morons are choking down. This bastard was such a loving husband that his wife felt like she needed to make life threatening changes to her diet. And now he has the power to slay her, any jackoffs who cant' connect dots want to protect him.

Your ignorance is murdering this woman.



Be crystal clear, I stated in another post that I have purposely stayed away from this new reality show in American pop culture. If what you have stated is true, then it changes things in a big, big way. I know nothing about this case other than what I've read here. While I am a proponent of not stating opinions about things you don't understand, I have read a lot of the posts here. So that being said, if it is apparent that this is solely for insurance money, this guy should hang. No matter what happens with Terri.

[alnorth]

First of all, there are questions of foul play AND he WILL be charged when she dies.

Bulls***. These charges arent brand-new, the family suddenly "remembered" these charges of abuse after he decided enough was enough. It was brought into court, and found to be utterly without merit.

When Terri collapsed, Michael was a manager at a McDonald's. He went to nursing school soon after in an effort to become a respiratory therapist so that he could personally care for his wife when the doctors still had hope for a recovery.

I bet you didnt know about that, did you?

Second of all, there are too many conflicting statements with regard to her will. Michael Schivao didn't "remember" Terri wanted to die until just before he moved in with his new girlfriend SEVEN YEARS AFTER HER COLLAPSE!

THEY STILL HAD HOPE FOR A RECOVERY! Geez.

Terri wasnt one of those religious nuts who refuse all medical help, including blood transfusions. She said that if her condition was hopeless, she would not want to live artificially in a hospital for the rest of her life. Her wishes were not applicable untill they discovered that her upper brain had disintegrated into a puddle of goo, rendering all hopes for a recovery futile. Then and only then, does her will become relevant.

This woman was on an iced tea diet because her husband was such a loving, supportive individual? **** NO! This dude's a ****ing creep!

People who are bulemic dont generally tell anyone else. He sued for malpractice because the doctors should have caught her eating disorder, and won.

I have an aunt who recently comitted suicide leaving behind several children. EVERYONE knows that her husband was a gentle caring and quiet man, stress from her job had just gotten to her.

Terri on the other hand, didnt try to kill herself, and if you think everyone who is in an eating disorder is in a relationship with an abusive spouse, thats frankly idiotic.

Yeah, this guy hated his wife so much that he devoted the next 7 years of his life to her, changing his professional and personal life around in an effort to see her recover, and insisting on an aggressive array of physical and speech therapy for years. (Bet you didnt know that, either!) This only ended when all hope for any reasonable rational people ended with the destruction of Terri's upper brain into a liquidy mass.

[Taco John]

Look at this woman:

http://images.viacomlocalnetworks.com/images_sizedimage_082194322/xl

It's MURDER. :mad: :shake:

[alnorth]

Terri had that EXACT same facial expression when her DOCTOR was rubbing her neck, and she was not looking at him.

[Simplex3]

First of all, there are questions of foul play AND he WILL be charged when she dies. Count on that. This isn't over by a long shot. This guy is going to be charged.
Charged for... What exactly?
Second of all, there are too many conflicting statements with regard to her will. Michael Schivao didn't "remember" Terri wanted to die until just before he moved in with his new girlfriend SEVEN YEARS AFTER HER COLLAPSE!
There is one conflicting report, her mother's rememberence of a statement uttered when TS was 12.
This woman was on an iced tea diet because her husband was such a loving, supportive individual? **** NO! This dude's a ****ing creep! I don't know why anyone wants to give a dude who clearly was psycologically abusive to his wife the plug to pull... Esepcially when there is literally no proof that is what she wanted. Just a couple of generic 'I think I remember she said something like that...'

I love this "poor Michael Schaivo" bullshit that so many morons are choking down. This bastard was such a loving husband that his wife felt like she needed to make life threatening changes to her diet. And now he has the power to slay her, any jackoffs who cant' connect dots want to protect him.

Ignorance is murdering this woman.
Yeah, it's not like most eating disorders are developed during the teen years. You know, when she was living with her family.

Of course I'm sure you have first hand knowledge of all this abuse MS did to TS, right? Video tape, you were there in the room, something. Right?

You have gone WAY off the deep end on this one for some reason. You're the only one that can figure out why.

[Taco John]

Bulls***. These charges arent brand-new, the family suddenly "remembered" these charges of abuse after he decided enough was enough. It was brought into court, and found to be utterly without merit.

THAT'S JUST IT! THEY'RE NOT NEW CHARGES YOU ****ING MORON!

There have been healtcare workers for YEARS who have said that Michael would come in and ask if "the bitch" has died yet. They just weren't admissible in court because "Michael Schaivo is not on trial here."

These are *NOT* brand new charges.


When Terri collapsed, Michael was a manager at a McDonald's. He went to nursing school soon after in an effort to become a respiratory therapist so that he could personally care for his wife when the doctors still had hope for a recovery.

I bet you didnt know about that, did you?

I knew about that. It doesn't move me at all. The damage had been done.

Yeah, this guy hated his wife so much that he devoted the next 7 years of his life to her, changing his professional and personal life around in an effort to see her recover, and insisting on an aggressive array of physical and speech therapy for years. (Bet you didnt know that, either!) This only ended when all hope for any reasonable rational people ended with the destruction of Terri's upper brain into a liquidy mass.

Who said anything about hate? This dude is showing guilt. Damn straight he should have committed the next seven years of his life to her. If she dies, I'm hoping he has to commit the rest of his life to her... BEHIND BARS!

[Taco John]

Terri had that EXACT same facial expression when her DOCTOR was rubbing her neck, and she was not looking at him.



WELL F*CK! THEN LET'S KILL HER!

[alnorth]

WELL F*CK! THEN LET'S KILL HER!

SHE DOES NOT POSSESS THE EQUIPMENT TO DO WHAT YOU ARE FOOLING YOURSELF INTO THINKING SHE IS DOING!

HOW in the f***ing HELL do you have thoughts, feelings, or emotions when you DO NOT HAVE A CEREBRAL CORTEX! MAGIC?!?!

This trumps EVERYTHING you have said to this point, PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION, and not surprisingly, its the ONE THING you REFUSE to answer!

Do you think she can store emotions and feelings into spinal fluid?

[patteeu]

Jesus this is such a stupid argument...

*body of stupid argument removed for brevity*

Thanks for the warning.

[patteeu]

Charged for... What exactly?

There is one conflicting report, her mother's rememberence of a statement uttered when TS was 12.

Yeah, it's not like most eating disorders are developed during the teen years. You know, when she was living with her family.

Of course I'm sure you have first hand knowledge of all this abuse MS did to TS, right? Video tape, you were there in the room, something. Right?

You have gone WAY off the deep end on this one for some reason. You're the only one that can figure out why.

Actually there was testimony from a second person regarding statements TS made about the Quinlan case (which took place when TS was 11 or 12). It was from a lifelong friend who claimed TS made the statements when she was 18 or so, IIRC. The judge found several issues in this womans testimony that led him to believe there were reasons to doubt her memory and/or believe that her memory was based on conversations she actually had when TS was 11 or 12.

But that doesn't change the weight of your point relative to Taco's baseless fantasies.

[Taco John]

SHE DOES NOT POSSESS THE EQUIPMENT TO DO WHAT YOU ARE FOOLING YOURSELF INTO THINKING SHE IS DOING!




And yet, there it is... Plain as day.


http://images.viacomlocalnetworks.com/images_sizedimage_082194322/xl



This is murder.

[alnorth]

THAT'S JUST IT! THEY'RE NOT NEW CHARGES YOU ****ING MORON!

Uhh, no sh** Sherlock. I'll refer you to my post:

These charges arent brand-new, the family suddenly "remembered" these charges of abuse after he decided enough was enough.

Thats basically the point, the charges of abuse have been found to be without merit, and out of all medical personnell the least credible people you can find are nursing staff. Their words are directly contradicted by Michael's actions. Even if, for chuckles, you took what they said as truth, you still dont have abuse.

[mlyonsd]

Yeah, because they pass a law like this for every incapacitated person who is having life support of some kind removed.

I don't know, how many cases like this are there where a dispute of this type being brought through the courts? Can you document that for me?

So you're saying that in a case like this where there is no documented proof of what her wishes would be the parents don't have the right to have an upper court review the case before their daughter is starved/dehydrated to death?

I'm not talking about the part of the law where the spouse has custody/whatever. It's pretty clear what his rights are. I'm looking at it from her rights regarding the treatments she received, the doctor's prognosis, etc. Congress acted for her and the parents, not political gain.

Man, I know partisanship runs deep in this forum but when it goes beyond right/wrong it's pathetic.

[Taco John]

Actually there was testimony from a second person regarding statements TS made about the Quinlan case (which took place when TS was 11 or 12). It was from a lifelong friend who claimed TS made the statements when she was 18 or so, IIRC. The judge found several issues in this womans testimony that led him to believe there were reasons to doubt her memory and/or believe that her memory was based on conversations she actually had when TS was 11 or 12.

But that doesn't change the weight of your point relative to Taco's baseless fantasies.



Are you kidding me? They are basing it on a conversation they *might* have had when she was 11 or 12... Or maybe 18? Who knows?

ROFL


Nah, this isn't murder at all!

[alnorth]

And yet, there it is... Plain as day.

OK. I'm talking to a zealot.

She does not possess a brain, yet you still believe she can think and feel. If not with her brain, what do you suppose she uses for this function? Her ass?

[patteeu]

And yet, there it is... Plain as day.


http://images.viacomlocalnetworks.com/images_sizedimage_082194322/xl



This is murder.

Hmmm. Maybe you are right. It looks to me like she wants a deep tongue kiss. Is that how you are seeing it too, Taco?

[alnorth]

Are you kidding me? They are basing it on a conversation they *might* have had when she was 11 or 12... Or maybe 18? Who knows?

ROFL


Nah, this isn't murder at all!

ROFL you didnt read what he said. They are NOT basing her will to die based on her words when she was 12, HER MOTHER is saying she said she wouldnt want to die in this position because of what she said when she was 12.

THAT IS THE ONLY testimony we have contradicting her THREE expressions of wanting to die in this condition when she was an adult.

By laughing at her 12-year old testimony, you just rediculed the only witness who supported you.

Dumbass.

[patteeu]

I don't know, how many cases like this are there where a dispute of this type being brought through the courts? Can you document that for me?

So you're saying that in a case like this where there is no documented proof of what her wishes would be the parents don't have the right to have an upper court review the case before their daughter is starved/dehydrated to death?

I'm not talking about the part of the law where the spouse has custody/whatever. It's pretty clear what his rights are. I'm looking at it from her rights regarding the treatments she received, the doctor's prognosis, etc. Congress acted for her and the parents, not political gain.

Man, I know partisanship runs deep in this forum but when it goes beyond right/wrong it's pathetic.

FYI, Simplex3 has demonstrated that he/she isn't a partisan. At least not a partisan Democrat, Republican, or liberal. From my experience, this isn't an issue that cuts along partisan lines all that well anyway. Most of the hard core err-on-the-side-of-lifer's are probably Republican, but there are a lot like Taco who aren't. Similarly, there are a lot of what Rush Limbaugh calls "process conservatives" who are allied with the euthanasia-supporters on the left on this one.

Getting back to the gist of your post, the parent's have had this case reviewed to death by upper courts. It's been up, it's been back down, it's been up again and again, etc. etc. etc. It's even been reviewed now by the feds. Assuming that you are truly interested in a fair process rather than a specific result, just how many more reviews would we need before you would personally be satisfied?

[Simplex3]

Man, I know partisanship runs deep in this forum but when it goes beyond right/wrong it's pathetic.
Baby Sun was taken off life support over the objection of his mother, his only family and legal guardian, less than two weeks ago. I didn't see any laws passed there (I don't think there should have been, either).

I don't usually side with libs (check any other thread, you can find plenty of evidence for that) but I think most of the people who hold fervent beliefs on either side and don't know either MS or TS personally are either just demogauging or overly emotional.

[patteeu]

Are you kidding me? They are basing it on a conversation they *might* have had when she was 11 or 12... Or maybe 18? Who knows?

ROFL


Nah, this isn't murder at all!

Uh, that's the testimony coming from the parents' side, not from the MS side. The witnesses who testified in favor of the notion that TS would not want to be "hooked to a machine" were all adults testifying about conversations they had with TS when she was an adult. Sorry to burst your bubble, big guy.

[Calcountry]

I don't know anything about which side I'm supposed to be on, but the woman should have been dead 15 years ago. She has no hope for recovery or even interacting with her family. What are they waiting for?O.K., so anyone who is so gorked out that they can't feed themselves must now be put to death? I mean, its so goddamned inconvenient for us fortunate who can go about our lives without the burden of feeding and taking care of someone with issues.

Epileptic, DEATH

Quadriplegic, heh, fug you too you pain in the asses tying up all that valuable parking space and all those damn elevators we have to install. Death to you you inconvenient shits, don't you know your spouses would be better off if you just died already. /sarcasm off.

[Taco John]

Uh, that's the testimony coming from the parents' side, not from the MS side. The witnesses who testified in favor of the notion that TS would not want to be "hooked to a machine" were all adults testifying about conversations they had with TS when she was an adult. Sorry to burst your bubble, big guy.



Who CARES where it came from? It's inconclusive... They don't know if it happened at 18 or 11... Or if it happened at all for that matter.

They are murdering this woman on hearsay.

[mlyonsd]

Getting back to the gist of your post, the parent's have had this case reviewed to death by upper courts. It's been up, it's been back down, it's been up again and again, etc. etc. etc. It's even been reviewed now by the feds. Assuming that you are truly interested in a fair process rather than a specific result, just how many more reviews would we need before you would personally be satisfied?
Well, I guess maybe part of the problem is the lack of, or the amount of false information flying around. All I have heard is that the reviews that have been done have been concerning if the law was followed to the letter, not whether the facts have been reviewed and all new facts looked at.

But, I'll say it again, when there is a dispute like this I see no reason an innocent person that can't speak for themselves shouldn't have the right to have a Federal court look at the case. Especially when murderers on death row have that right.

[Simplex3]

Well, I guess maybe part of the problem is the lack of, or the amount of false information flying around. All I have heard is that the reviews that have been done have been concerning if the law was followed to the letter, not whether the facts have been reviewed and all new facts looked at.
If her family has some "new evidence" that they haven't presented during this whole affair then shame on them.

[alnorth]

Who CARES where it came from? It's inconclusive... They don't know if it happened at 18 or 11... Or if it happened at all for that matter.

They are murdering this woman on hearsay.

ROFL fine, the testimony that supports TS will to live is inconclusive, well go with that. Sadly, the THREE different occasions when she indicated her will to die in this situation to THREE different people are far more recent and far more credible, rising to the level required by FL law.

[alnorth]

They are murdering this woman on hearsay.

Not according to the law. If Susan says she heard Bob say that Frank robbed someone, thats hearsay in the realm of "did Frank rob someone". You would need Bob's testimony.

On the other hand, if you want to sue Bob for libel or slander, then it wouldnt be hearsay because Susan did hear Bob make the accusation.

Its hilarious how badly the other side is butchering the rules regarding hearsay evidence.

[Cochise]

Not according to the law. If Susan says she heard Bob say that Frank robbed someone, thats hearsay in the realm of "did Frank rob someone". You would need Bob's testimony.

On the other hand, if you want to sue Bob for libel or slander, then it wouldnt be hearsay because Susan did hear Bob make the accusation.

Its hilarious how badly the other side is butchering the rules regarding hearsay evidence.

Fix whatever label on it you want, they're starving her to death because her husband says that she said something, and there is more than enough reason to doubt his credibility.

[patteeu]

O.K., so anyone who is so gorked out that they can't feed themselves must now be put to death?

I recommend that you start over at the beginning and read with an eye toward understanding the issues this time.

[alnorth]

Fix whatever label on it you want, they're starving her to death because her husband says that she said something, and there is more than enough reason to doubt his credibility.

Terri Schiavo left no instructions about her care. In such an instance, Florida law requires a judge to follow a person's last wishes, if they can be established.

In his order, Greer said he relied upon the testimony of five witnesses regarding Terri's views about right-to-die issues. Schiavo, his older brother Scott and Joan Schiavo, wife of another of Schiavo's brothers, all said Terri had said or indicated that she would not want to be kept alive if her brain stopped working. Mary Schindler and Diane Meyer, a childhood friend of Terri's, testified that she she would.

Scott Schiavo testified that after the 1988 funeral for his grandmother, who was briefly kept alive on artificial life support, a clutch of relatives sat around a luncheon table in Langhorne, Pa., talking about the way she had died. "And Terri made mention ... that, 'If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine.' "

Joan Schiavo testified that she and Terri, whom she described as "my best friend and like a sister that I never had," had discussed artificial life support as many as 12 times. Joan Schiavo testified that she had a girlfriend who had decided to take her baby off life support, and that Terri indicated she would have done the same thing.

Mary Schindler's recollection of what her daughter wanted was different. She testified that Terri had commented on news coverage of the case of Karen Ann Quinlan, whose ventilator was turned off in 1976 (note: 12 years old) after her parents went to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Schindler said her daughter told her this about Quinlan: "Just leave her alone. Leave her. If they take her off, she might die. Just leave her alone and she will die whenever."

[patteeu]

Fix whatever label on it you want, they're starving her to death because her husband says that she said something, and there is more than enough reason to doubt his credibility.

The judge recognized that the husband's testimony alone might not be enough to carry the case. But he had corroborating testimony from two others who he found to be credible supporting the testimony of the husband.

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

What you are really saying, even if you don't realize it, is that you don't trust the judicial system to make the kinds of life and death decisions they make on a day to day basis. This isn't a case where a judge perverts the obvious meaning of a statute or of a constitution. This isn't a case of legislating from the bench. This is about as clear a case of a judge applying the law as written as you can get. The relevant law doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Clear and convincing is a standard that allows for a finding despite reasonable doubt. Clear and convincing is the standard that the Florida legislature wrote into the law books. People who don't like it can feel free to petition their legislators to change the law.

The problem with your position is that anarchy and frontier justice just aren't viable alternatives.

[Taco John]

ROFL you didnt read what he said. They are NOT basing her will to die based on her words when she was 12, HER MOTHER is saying she said she wouldnt want to die in this position because of what she said when she was 12.

THAT IS THE ONLY testimony we have contradicting her THREE expressions of wanting to die in this condition when she was an adult.

By laughing at her 12-year old testimony, you just rediculed the only witness who supported you.

Dumbass.



I'm saying that none of that matters, you idiot! The fact is, there isn't a quorum on her will. There is dramatic disagreement. And the only thing we have to work with is hearsay. In life and death THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

I don't care about the testimony because it's all hearsay. People lie. Word of mouth isn't good enough to kill this woman.

You idiots think that this is a right to die issue. It isn't. It's a due process issue. There is doubt with regards to her wishes. She left no will. So long as she has people willing to care for her, the law should give preference to LIFE.

And don't tell me YOU wouldn't want to live like this. I don't care what YOU want in the Terri Schaivo issue. I only care what SHE would want. And since I have NO WAY of knowing this, I defer to life. ESPECIALLY when she has people willing to care for her.

If you want to argue about the right to death, I'll be the first person to say that you have such liberty. It's no the choice that I would make, but it's my belief that your life is your liberty. But this is someone else's life, and she didn't make it clear what her choice would be. Thus the law should give deference to life.

[patteeu]

Who CARES where it came from? It's inconclusive... They don't know if it happened at 18 or 11... Or if it happened at all for that matter.

They are murdering this woman on hearsay.

Of course it's inconclusive. If it was conclusive, the judge would have denied the request to pull the feeding tube.

OTOH, as I've already mentioned to you, the facts don't have to be conclusively proven to justify the result. They merely have to be clear and convincing, which is a subjective standard that can be supported even when the evidence leaves room for reasonable doubt.

Your "inconclusive" argument, even if you were applying it to the correct side of the case, is a red herring.

[patteeu]

...But this is someone else's life, and she didn't make it clear what her choice would be. Thus the law should give deference to life.

If that's what you want the law to say, I recommend that you write a letter to your representative or run for office. As of now, the law says otherwise and it would be completely improper for the judge to impose his views (or yours) inspite of the law.

[alnorth]

The fact is, there isn't a quorum on her will. There is dramatic disagreement.

We do not need 100% consensus, and "dramatic" doesnt necessarily mean convincing or credible.

Her parents ADMITTED that they believed she was PVS, UNTILL Michael suddenly decided to pull the tube, and then they did a 180. And you presume they are more credible?

I don't care about the testimony because it's all hearsay.

WRONG! You do not know what hearsay means! This IS NOT hearsay because the witnesses directly heard her say her will. It would only be hearsay if they said they heard michael talk about her wishes, ie 2nd-hand information. We put people on death row and EXECUTE them in this country based on nothing more than primary witness testimony. (Not that I have a problem with it, if the jury believes that testimony rises to the needed standard of proof)

You idiots think that this is a right to die issue. It isn't. It's a due process issue.

Very few people get MORE due process than Terri. This has had more judicial review than many capital cases.

There is doubt with regards to her wishes.

Is there doubt? Sure there is. Theres doubt in EVERY case tried in every court in our entire history, even if its video taped, and even in all murder cases. The difference is how much doubt? If the only doubt is wild unreasonable doubt that would require tinfoil hats to believe, then you can still be convicted of murder and sentanced to death. (Guilty beyond all REASONABLE doubt)

In Terri's case, we only need clear and convinceing evidence, and we do have that.

So long as she has people willing to care for her, the law should give preference to LIFE.

Why? Because you said so? The law says otherwise, as does the vast majority of Americans. Most people dont want to require a living will, trusting their families to remember their wishes.

Even then, theres still doubt. If you put on the tinfoil hats you could claim the written living will was forged or coerced.

Hell, in the second trial, the parents claimed that even if Terri thought she wanted to die, she would have changed her mind if she had known about "new treatments" available, which the court later ruled to not be a credible method to reverse her condition.

So even if Terri had a living will, it wouldnt have made a whit of difference to her parents, who have even gone as far as admitted that if Terri told them she wanted to die, they would refuse, believing they knew better.

You could make the arguement that her parents are f***ing nuts.

And don't tell me YOU wouldn't want to live like this. I don't care what YOU want in the Terri Schaivo issue. I only care what SHE would want.

And she has indicated a desire to die if she came to this situation. THREE TIMES. The only contradicting statement is something she said as a little girl to her mommy.

[Cochise]

The problem with your position is that anarchy and frontier justice just aren't viable alternatives.

No, I don't believe the judicial system should be in the business of attempting to determine someone's will based on the word of others. If they have a legal document saying they don't want to live under X conditions, unplug them. If not, don't. It's pretty easy :shrug:

[Taco John]

Joan Schiavo testified that she and Terri, whom she described as "my best friend and like a sister that I never had," had discussed artificial life support as many as 12 times. Joan Schiavo testified that she had a girlfriend who had decided to take her baby off life support, and that Terri indicated she would have done the same thing.


People read stuff like this, and think, "well shit, that's believable." And sure, it is... But it's not good enough. It could be true. It could be manufactured. Hearsay is not a good enough in life and death decisions.

It would be one thing if every stakeholder in Terri's life agreed what Terri's will would be. But they don't.

As far as I'm concerned, this is murder.

[Taco John]

Her parents ADMITTED that they believed she was PVS, UNTILL Michael suddenly decided to pull the tube, and then they did a 180. And you presume they are more credible?




I don't presume SHIT. That's the point. She didn't leave a will, and thus her will is unknown. Deference should be given to life... Especially since all she needs to live is FOOD.

[alnorth]

Taco, define Hearsay. Seriously, you dont know what the hell that word means.

[mlyonsd]

Joan Schiavo testified that she and Terri, whom she described as "my best friend and like a sister that I never had," had discussed artificial life support as many as 12 times. Joan Schiavo testified that she had a girlfriend who had decided to take her baby off life support, and that Terri indicated she would have done the same thing.


People read stuff like this, and think, "well shit, that's believable." And sure, it is... But it's not good enough. It could be true. It could be manufactured. Hearsay is not a good enough in life and death decisions.

It would be one thing if every stakeholder in Terri's life agreed what Terri's will would be. But they don't.

As far as I'm concerned, this is murder.

Just for giggles, I'd like to see Michael Schiavo take a lie detector test. If he passed the only problem I'd have with it is how she's being starved/dehydrated to death.

[alnorth]

Deference should be given to life... Especially since all she needs to live is FOOD.

Again, WHY! Your basically saying that if theres not a written will or video tape, then your wishes be damned.

Well, thats not the way our law reads, and the rest of the country emphatically disagrees with that. If you dont like it, then tough s***. I suggest you convince some folks or write to congress.

[chiefs4me]

I thank god that most of you will never get to decide my fate.....:harumph:

she is brain dead......who ever thinks she's not..get your brain looked at.:)

Taco John..you might as well tell your wife to go to hell.....you are saying to her, no matter what I say to you honey.....if I end up this way.....you don't get to to say shit. It it up to the strangers on the hill :rolleyes:

[alnorth]

I've looked back at some of my posts and I dont like how ugly they are getting, so I'm going to stop. Everything that can be said has been said, and I'm done with this topic unless someone comes along with new information or a very interesting cool-headed logical arguement who wants to discuss things rationally.

I'm not holding my breath, so I'm off to play poker. Wish me luck! :thumb:

[dirk digler]

TJ and the rest of the wackos have got it wrong. It is not hearsay and all they have to do as look at the definition to figure it out.

Hearsay

n. 1) Evidence told by a witness about which they do not know personally, but what others told him/her. 2) Opposing lawyer's objection to testimony when it appears that the witness violated the hearsay rule. 3) Gossip or scuttlebutt.

So which part of Michael testimony is hearsay? Ummm...none. Terri told him personally as she told several others. Damn people are stupid sometimes.

[patteeu]

No, I don't believe the judicial system should be in the business of attempting to determine someone's will based on the word of others. If they have a legal document saying they don't want to live under X conditions, unplug them. If not, don't. It's pretty easy :shrug:

They are in that business on a day to day basis in every jurisdiction. Your preference, which I presume must really only apply to these types of end-of-life decisions (or else it would be completely ludicrous) is a reasonable position, but that's the kind of thing you have to define in the law books. That's not a valid criticism of this case or the way the judge has handled it.

And even then, the written word isn't as clear cut as you'd like it to be. There will still be uncertainties that finders of fact will be called on to resolve. That's just the way it works.

[Cochise]

They are in that business on a day to day basis in every jurisdiction. Your preference, which I presume must really only apply to these types of end-of-life decisions (or else it would be completely ludicrous) is a reasonable position, but that's the kind of thing you have to define in the law books. That's not a valid criticism of this case or the way the judge has handled it.

Yeah, I understand that. I just think the law needs to be more iron-clad.

Assuming the husband is credible, and this really was her wish that is being carried out, something like that should be enacted so this doesn't happen in the future. This is not nearly the last case that will be tearing up the court system for millions of dollars. People need to know that if you want your wishes carried out in this situation then you should prepare for it with some kind of documentation.

[Simplex3]

Fix whatever label on it you want, they're starving her to death because her husband says that she said something, and there is more than enough reason to doubt his credibility.
The parents lose more credibility every minute:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151454,00.html

TAMPA, Fla. — In what may prove to be Terri Schiavo's parents' "final shot," their attorney was trying to persuade a judge Friday that the severely brain-damaged woman had expressed her will to live.

According to an emergency motion filed late Friday afternoon, attorney Barbara Weller said that during a hospice visit on March 18, she asked Schiavo pointedly what her wishes were. Weller directed Schiavo to say the words, "I want to live."

In response, Weller claimed Schiavo attempted to speak, and managed to get out the first two vowel sounds, "ahhh" and "waaa." Weller said Schiavo became very agitated and could not finish the sentence. Two other people were in the room and witnessed the exchange, Weller said.

So let me get this straight. A full week ago TS tried to speak and say "I want to live", but you assholes just now think to tell someone? Give me a f**king break. That lawyer should be disbarred. Either she just purjured herself or she's too incompetent to defend people with speeding tickets.

[Frankie]

Look at this woman:
It's MURDER. :mad: :shake:

F*ck you. She's alive and has people there to take care of her.

I wish I could piss in your eyesockets with statements like that and completely degrade you in your waning moments. She's not ****ing dead until she has no pulse. Just because *you* have given up hope on her doesn't mean that everyone else should.

You know I had come to the belief that you were above this kind of response. Both intellectually and emotionally. I was wrong. Your classless, emotional temper tantrum and turning this into personal attacks on me (and other posters) only unmasks you as shallow and gullible.

The people who claim they want to take care of her tried it in 1991. Read the timeline. They returned her to professional care after 3 weeks because they were "overwhelmed!"

And the picture that has got you so breathless is from four years ago. It shows merely random expressions that by all accounts she is not aware of. She is no longer even doing that. BECAUSE SHE HAS NO BRAIN LEFT.

[frazod]

TJ is lining up with the ultra right now? :eek:

Wow. There's little around here that surprises me anymore, but that nearly made me fall out of my chair.

[Phobia]

O.K., so anyone who is so gorked out that they can't feed themselves must now be put to death? I mean, its so goddamned inconvenient for us fortunate who can go about our lives without the burden of feeding and taking care of someone with issues.

Epileptic, DEATH

Quadriplegic, heh, fug you too you pain in the asses tying up all that valuable parking space and all those damn elevators we have to install. Death to you you inconvenient shits, don't you know your spouses would be better off if you just died already. /sarcasm off.

I'm pretty sure you're putting words in my mouth.

[Taco John]

You know I had come to the belief that you were above this kind of response. Both intellectually and emotionally. I was wrong. Your classless, emotional temper tantrum and turning this into personal attacks on me (and other posters) only unmasks you as shallow and gullible.

The people who claim they want to take care of her tried it in 1991. Read the timeline. They returned her to professional care after 3 weeks because they were "overwhelmed!"

And the picture that has got you so breathless is from four years ago. It shows merely random expressions that by all accounts she is not aware of. She is no longer even doing that. BECAUSE SHE HAS NO BRAIN LEFT.




Whatever. i don't care what you believed about me. If you're going to be gleeful about every defeat this woman suffers, you can get bent. It's just disgraceful.

[Taco John]

TJ is lining up with the ultra right now? :eek:

Wow. There's little around here that surprises me anymore, but that nearly made me fall out of my chair.



The only side I'm on is the side of this woman and her right to live.

[Taco John]

Probably telling someone that I'd love to piss in their eyesockets is a little drastic... But watching people celebrate this woman's defeat just so they can send Tom Delay up the river is frustrating. I shouldn't let liberal hate breed more hate on my end. But I am weak.

[Phobia]

The only side I'm on is the side of this woman and her right to live.

I dunno WTF your definition of "life" is, but this woman hasn't experienced it in a decade and a half. Her heart may be beating, but she's dead. Make no mistake about it. She's dead.

[Taco John]

I dunno WTF your definition of "life" is, but this woman hasn't experienced it in a decade and a half. Her heart may be beating, but she's dead. Make no mistake about it. She's dead.



Whatever.

[Taco John]

Leave me the **** plugged in... I'm here for my life trials. Whatever they may be.

[headsnap]

all these 'kill the freak' posts are making me sick! :shake:






I'm going to go stick in my Logan's Run DVD...

[Phobia]

Probably telling someone that I'd love to piss in their eyesockets is a little drastic... But watching people celebrate this woman's defeat just so they can send Tom Delay up the river is frustrating. I shouldn't let liberal hate breed more hate on my end. But I am weak.

What about me? I have no political horse in this race. I'm just applying some common sense to a difficult situation. This is where I arrived. I don't think she should be starved either. She should be given a humane cocktail.

[Taco John]

I'm just applying some common sense...



I wish I could agree. Common sense tells me that in a dispute about starving a person to death or not, you do what you can to keep that person alive. You don't just starve retarded kids to death because they can't feed themselves. You care for them.

The only thing Terri Schaivo needs in order to live is food, and love. She was getting both of those. So what's the problem here?

I find the idea of snuffing out life just because it's a burdensom life distasteful. The idea that "I wouldn't want to live that way" is such a joke. It's not *your* feeding tube they're pulling out. It's not *you* who is being starved to death.

I just don't understand how people can't see the injustice of killing someone based on word of mouth.

[the Talking Can]

Leave me the **** plugged in... I'm here for my life trials. Whatever they may be.

Um...being in a wheel chair is a "life challenge."

Being a vegetable for 15 years is just being a vegetable for 15 years.

Your stupidity is no justification for the cruelty of forcing life into her body with tubes and electricity for over a ****ing decade.

I've seen no evidence anywhere in this sad spectacle that anybody cares what "life" means to HER. Everyone is demanding, like children, that their own selfish needs are attented to while projecting their own anxieties and fears of death onto her mute husk.

It requires maturity, wisdom, and compassion to understand that death is a natural part of life- the result being a dignified and loving end for those we love, as opposed to the freak show of media and political vampires this has become.

I'll say it again, every politician involved in this will rot in whatever hell it is that their "faith" has waiting for hypocrites and opportunists of the highest order.

[patteeu]

Yeah, I understand that. I just think the law needs to be more iron-clad.

Assuming the husband is credible, and this really was her wish that is being carried out, something like that should be enacted so this doesn't happen in the future. This is not nearly the last case that will be tearing up the court system for millions of dollars. People need to know that if you want your wishes carried out in this situation then you should prepare for it with some kind of documentation.

That's a very reasonable position, IMO.

[Phobia]

I find the idea of snuffing out life just because it's a burdensom life distasteful. The idea that "I wouldn't want to live that way" is such a joke. It's not *your* feeding tube they're pulling out. It's not *you* who is being starved to death.


It's not a life, dude. She died 15 years ago. She's dead. Her shell remains on a tube.

I'm quite certain doctors could keep most people's bodies alive through artificial means indefinitely.... as they have done with this lady.

[frazod]

The only side I'm on is the side of this woman and her right to live.

Fate took that away a decade and a half ago. She's a turnip now.

At least I hope she's a turnip. Because if there is enough function left for her to even have the slightest bit of awareness of what her alleged life is now, my God, what sheer, unadulterated hell that must be.

I'm not too keen on starving her to death - a faster and more humane method would be far better, IMO. Bottom line is she's gone, has been gone, and she ain't coming back, and family members on both sides need closure (whether they realize it or not). The resources wasted on prolonging her nonlife will be better spent elsewhere, and the scumf#ck politicians milking this mess for personal gain need to eat shit and die.

[headsnap]

It's not a life, dude. She died 15 years ago. She's dead. Her shell remains on a tube.that's where the real debate lies. Her parents believe(along with some doctors) that there is more than just a shell there. Her parents,the ones who care for her and love her now, want her to live.

[kc hopeful]

that's where the real debate lies. Her parents believe(along with some doctors) that there is more than just a shell there. Her parents,the ones who care for her and love her now, want her to live.


And a many nurses caring for her on a daily basis. On Greta last night another nurse caring for Terri for 2.5 years said she communicated, laughed, cried, enjoyed peoples company, etc. Mike Schiavo had confided in this nurse back in the early 90's that Terri had never made her wishes known; should she become severely brain damaged. Let the parents assume her care.

[Braincase]

The question for me is "Is there a reasonable doubt?". Some folks on the "let her die" side believe she's already dead, while those on the "don't pull the plug side" believe she is semi-functional and semi-communicative. The husband has a responsibility to his wife, but at the same time he has a responsibility for the effects on her blood family.

As long as many around her believe she's alive, then she's alive. From what I've seen, I doubt I'd be able to pull the plug.

[Phobia]

that's where the real debate lies. Her parents believe(along with some doctors) that there is more than just a shell there. Her parents,the ones who care for her and love her now, want her to live.

If her parents wish to and are financially able to care for her, I say let them.

[Brock]

I personally wouldn't starve a dog to death, let alone a human being.

[Phobia]

I personally wouldn't starve a dog to death, let alone a human being.

Yeah - I have a problem with that. We have more humane ways of putting dogs down. This drama is pretty pathetic. I can see all sides. I just feel strongly that the shell in that bed isn't actually Terri Schiavo.

I've eliminated the husband's agenda, parents' agenda, and political agenda from the mix and made an emotionless decision based on the lady's condition.

[WilliamTheIrish]

It requires maturity, wisdom, and compassion to understand that death is a natural part of life- the result being a dignified and loving end for those we love, as opposed to the freak show of media and political vampires this has become.

I'll say it again, every politician involved in this will rot in whatever hell it is that their "faith" has waiting for hypocrites and opportunists of the highest order.

At the risk of sounding like I'm giving an internet reach around: This is a great post.

She decided who would be charged with this life decision the day she married her husband. Isn't that the law?

As for the congressional b*stards: Were not these the same people who kept jamming the airwaves with the "Sanctity of marriage" (except to homos) bullshiot and then try to undermine that very thing?

[WilliamTheIrish]

Also, for those interested here is a timeline of events that I've spent several hours reading in hopes of trying to get just the factual information w/o reading "He's a murderer" and other ridiculous sidebars.

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

[WilliamTheIrish]

Two people have been arrested for trying to bring her a glass of water. Her parents are able to get her to respond to their voices. Granted, it's an incoherent response... But it's a response.

There should be no reason, short of tangible and conclusive evidence that she would choose to starve herself if left in this situation. Just some hearsay... seven years AFTER the initial collapse.

Thank goodness they weren't successfull getting her take fluids per os. With little or no OPM skills, she would pose a great risk of aspirating and dying.

[Frankie]

I personally wouldn't starve a dog to death, let alone a human being.

Because there's suffering involved. Suffering means pain, hunger, fear, sorrow or any combination thereof. When there is no brain left to register any of that there is no suffering.

[Frankie]

At the risk of sounding like I'm giving an internet reach around: This is a great post.

She decided who would be charged with this life decision the day she married her husband. Isn't that the law?

As for the congressional b*stards: Were not these the same people who kept jamming the airwaves with the "Sanctity of marriage" (except to homos) bullshiot and then try to undermine that very thing?

I wish double rep was possible.

[Brock]

Because there's suffering involved. Suffering means pain, hunger, fear, sorrow or any combination thereof. When there is no brain left to register any of that there is no suffering.

No one can say with any degree of certainty what she is feeling. I have read opinions on both sides, and I still wouldn't do it.

[headsnap]

At the risk of sounding like I'm giving an internet reach around: This is a great post.

She decided who would be charged with this life decision the day she married her husband. Isn't that the law?


In my mind he lost those rights when he entered in to what is pretty much a common law marriage with another woman and fathered children with her.

I'm not saying that he was wrong with continuing his life, just that at that time guardianship should have been handed over to the parents.

IMHO

[headsnap]

When there is no brain left to register any of that there is no suffering.
Do you know for a fact that she has no brain left? Would you be willing to bet your life on it?


you sure are playing fast-and-loose with hers...

[the Talking Can]

At the risk of sounding like I'm giving an internet reach around: This is a great post.

She decided who would be charged with this life decision the day she married her husband. Isn't that the law?

As for the congressional b*stards: Were not these the same people who kept jamming the airwaves with the "Sanctity of marriage" (except to homos) bullshiot and then try to undermine that very thing?

And even beyond those considerations, the fact is that her spirit has left her body and this issue is all about various humans not wanting to let go, for reasons honest and cruel.

If you've ever watched a loved one waste away you know that dignity and quality of life are real, and that there is a point at which technology becomes perverse in its ability to extend life. She needs to be let go. There is simply no compassion involved in forcing her body to live trapped in a bed and plugged into machines.

As for politics: we have no problem killing innocent Iraqis by 1000's or torturing and killing prisoners as official government policy...hell, we cheer it...we won't even provide health care in this country for the people who need it and people die every single day for lack of adequate health care- but we're supposed to believe the people obsessing about the sanctity of life over her shell of a body are principled?

Um....no.

[Taco John]

And even beyond those considerations, the fact is that her spirit has left her body...



Prove it.

[Mr. Kotter]

No one can say with any degree of certainty what she is feeling. I have read opinions on both sides, and I still wouldn't do it.

Yup.

[Simplex3]

If her parents wish to and are financially able to care for her, I say let them.
And what happens when she outlives her parents, as she likely will? Then the siblings are stuck with her? Then what happens if they die before she does, which is also likely since they are doing things with a percentage of danger like driving? Her neices and nephews will have to step up? She will eventually wind up lying there, staring at the ceiling, with no one coming to see her. If you truly believe she knows what is going on doesn't that scare the hell out of you?

Let's face it people, this sucks all around.

[Mr. Kotter]

And what happens when she outlives her parents, as she likely will? Then the siblings are stuck with her? Then what happens if they die before she does, which is also likely since they are doing things with a percentage of danger like driving? Her neices and nephews will have to step up? Let's face it people, this sucks all around.

You are right, let's kill her.

[Simplex3]

You are right, let's kill her.
She killed herself 15 year ago with bulimia. She was mentally emotionaly weak. You can't pin that on me.

You CAN pin that on her parents, though, can't you?

[Brock]

She killed herself 15 year ago with bulimia. She was mentally emotionaly weak. You can't pin that on me.

You CAN pin that on her parents, though, can't you?

I don't believe it would make any difference to you if she "did it to herself" or if she simply had a stroke. The notion that she's bulimic ergo she wanted to die is just asinine.

[the Talking Can]

Prove it.

She's a husk.

It is creepy that you think she has a "life." And creepy that you insist she "live" as a vegetable as long as some one pays the electric bill.

You people act like she'll start dancing any moment now.

[headsnap]

She's a husk.

It is creepy that you think she has a "life." And creepy that you insist she "live" as a vegetable as long as some one pays the electric bill.

You people act like she'll start dancing any moment now.
Electric bill?

pull the plug and she will still live.

Food and water are not extreme measures.


Do you really know what kind of life she has? Her parents, the ones who love her and care for her, want her to live. Her husband, who has since moved on, wants her to die. In this situation, as a parent and a husband, I side with the parents.




is seems that the Logan's Run Carousel was off by about 200 years...


I guess you have to start somewhere... :shake:

[Taco John]

She's a husk.

It is creepy that you think she has a "life." And creepy that you insist she "live" as a vegetable as long as some one pays the electric bill.

You people act like she'll start dancing any moment now.


It's creepy to me that you want to murder her, and completely dehumanize her by calling her a husk.

I am aware that Terri's spirit faces challenges in her state. It's my opinion that her spirit accepts her condition as a challenge, which is why her heart still beats with life.

[Frankie]

It is creepy that you think she has a "life." And creepy that you insist she "live" as a vegetable as long as some one pays the electric bill.

You people act like she'll start dancing any moment now.

Right on so many levels.

[headsnap]

Right on so many levels.
wrong on just about all...

[penchief]

As for politics: we have no problem killing innocent Iraqis by 1000's or torturing and killing prisoners as official government policy...hell, we cheer it...we won't even provide health care in this country for the people who need it and people die every single day for lack of adequate health care- but we're supposed to believe the people obsessing about the sanctity of life over her shell of a body are principled?

Very true. It would be diffucult to argue against this statement and the hypocricy that it appears to expose. To some people, it seems as though the value of compassion depends on how well it serves a political or economic end, IMO.

[Simplex3]

As for politics: we have no problem killing innocent Iraqis by 1000's or torturing and killing prisoners as official government policy...hell, we cheer it...

Do you honestly believe that we killed 1000s of people who were not holding guns? We have by far the most restrained and accurate military in the history of mankind. We spend millions of dollars to ensure that we can guide smaller bombs directly to targets instead of just blowing up whole cities. Is war hell? Yes. Do innocent people die? Yes. However, we could kill every man, woman, and child in a medium sized city and not even BEGIN to touch the number of people killed by Sadam. Also, ask the people he ran off the roof of that building if they would rather have had that happen or have panties put on their head. You might be suprised at the answer.

[Saggysack]

Do you honestly believe that we killed 1000s of people who were not holding guns?

Yes.

We have by far the most restrained and accurate military in the history of mankind. We spend millions of dollars to ensure that we can guide smaller bombs directly to targets instead of just blowing up whole cities. Is war hell? Yes. Do innocent people die? Yes. However, we could kill every man, woman, and child in a medium sized city and not even BEGIN to touch the number of people killed by Sadam. Also, ask the people he ran off the roof of that building if they would rather have had that happen or have panties put on their head. You might be suprised at the answer.

A high number of civilian deaths happen in MOUT warfare. That is just something that goes along with those type of military actions. All the technology and training in the world will only go a small way into reducing the number of civilian casualities, but in no way will those things stop civilian deaths in urban warfare.

I do not believe any U.S. soldier purposely killed any Iraqi civilian that they did not deem a threat to their own or their units safety.

How many of his own people Saddam killed really is a moot point and we would be better off not using it as a measuring stick for ourselves. We all know he killed thousands that he veiwed had even most minor dissent towards him. I just trying to say the actions of Saddam should not be used as a reasons or justification of our mistakes/tragedies in our military actions.

[recycle]

Do you honestly believe that we killed 1000s of people who were not holding guns?
You seemed surprised that we would do such a thing. We killed thousands--of not millions--of Afghanis w/o guns.

(I'm of course referring to the 7.5M starving civilians we endangered when we began bombing Afghanistan in Oct 2001.)