Terri Schiavo's Parents Seek Divorce on Her Behalf
Ok, 12 more days until the tube comes out, and then we wait for her to expire.
Anyone want to start a pool on how long the civil suits take to start?
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\\Nation\\archive\\200503\\NAT20050301a.html
Terri Schiavo's Parents Seek Divorce on Her Behalf
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 01, 2005
(CNSNews.com) - Terri Schindler Schiavo's parents have asked Florida's Second District Court of Appeals to grant their daughter a divorce from her husband, Michael Schiavo. They charge him with a conflict of interest based on alleged adultery.
When Robert and Mary Schindler made the plea Monday to Pinellas-Pasco County Circuit Judge George Greer, he refused to accept any new filings in the case that are unrelated to plans for Terri's death.
Greer instructed Michael Schiavo to wait until March 18 to remove his wife's feeding and hydration tube, beginning the process of ending her life by dehydration and starvation. When David Gibbs III, the Schindler family attorney, tried to file some 15 new motions in the case, Greer refused to accept any that were not related directly to Terri's planned death, including the divorce petition.
But Terri's father, Robert Schindler, said the divorce petition must be considered in order to protect Terri from Michael Schiavo.
"We have filed divorce proceedings because of his total disregard for Terri as his wife," Mr. Schindler said. "He's married to Terri, but he's living with another woman and has two children by her.
"It has become quite obvious that his priorities are not what's in Terri's best interests," Mr. Schindler added.
George Felos, Schiavo's attorney, told the Associated Press, "I think everyone knows the parents are going to try anything, including throwing in the kitchen sink, to frustrate the court's final judgment."
But Gibbs countered that for Terri, "Remaining married to (Michael Schiavo) is an embarrassment."
Michael Schiavo announced his "engagement" in 1997 to the woman with whom he has since fathered two children and currently lives. Since that time, he has referred to the woman as his "fiancee" while remaining married to Terri, the Schindlers argue, so that he can continue to deny her rehabilitation and other therapy and to control her estate.
The motions Greer did agree to consider include requests concerning what might be the final days of Terri's life and the period immediately following her death. The Schindler family wants to be able to take photographs with Terri, something Michael Schiavo has forbidden with Greer's approval. They also want some members of the press to be present while they interact with their daughter to document her actual condition.
Robert and Mary Schindler also want Terri to be allowed to die at their home rather than in the hospice where she currently lives. They have also asked that her body be released to them for burial after her death. Michael Schiavo has made arrangements for Terri's body to be cremated immediately upon her death.
The Schindler family is appealing the new motions in Terri's case to the U.S. Supreme Court, as well.
If Terri's nutrition and hydration is discontinued March 18 in accordance with Judge Greer's instructions, doctors expect her to die from dehydration within a week to ten days. She could potentially survive as long as two weeks, long enough for the effects of starvation to set in.
The feeding tube has been removed twice in the past, once for two days and another time for six days.
Terri Schindler Schiavo suffered a brain injury in 1990 under questionable circumstances. Some physicians claim that her condition is a "persistent vegetative state" brought on by oxygen depravation following a heart attack that occurred as the result of a potassium imbalance caused by an eating disorder.
Other doctors have argued that there is physical evidence of an assault or abuse and that Terri's brain injury is the result of that alleged crime. Felos has denied that Michael Schiavo ever abused or assaulted his wife.
I don't understand what the problem is.
If I were the husband, I would arrange for the parents to take over all care and custody, (and financial responsibility), get a divorce, and be done with it. Move the hell on already.
Unless Terri had a living will (which I don't think she did or this wouldn't be an issue) then IMO, he has no grounds to want to kill her - I mean - let her die. If her parents want to keep her alive and accept that responsibility, then let them. What's the harm in that?
Don't you think her parents are holding onto a pipe dream?
I hope her parents fail once and for all and this woman is allowed to die. What a great husband she has. He's fought so hard just to carry out her last wishes. It's unfortunate her parents are sticking their noses into this. I realize they love her, but they are violating her wishes for their own greedy reasons to keep a shell of her around.
Was it her wish to die of starvation/dehydration over a 2-week period? Did she want to be cremated? If so fine. Otherwise I think the life-giving parents should have more say than an absent husband. See, you should never get married!
I don't understand what the problem is.
Two problems. One: her husband can't get married till she passes on. Two: Her husband sued when she first went comatose and won $1.3M. The money was placed in a trust fund which he will inherit (the balance of) once she passes. Trust funds are private so I don't think anyone knows the balance.
So, her husband wants her dead. Now.
Two problems. One: her husband can't get married till she passes on. Two: Her husband sued when she first went comatose and won $1.3M. The money was placed in a trust fund which he will inherit (the balance of) once she passes. Trust funds are private so I don't think anyone knows the balance.
So, her husband wants her dead. Now.
So instead of a divorce, he wants her to die so he can have the money? How much of that trust is going to be left when all her medical bills are paid? Is it really worth all this hassle and bullshit?
This is why you should have a living will.
Was it her wish to die of starvation/dehydration over a 2-week period?
That's been determined to be the ethical alternative to assisted suicide.
Two problems. One: her husband can't get married till she passes on. Two: Her husband sued when she first went comatose and won $1.3M. The money was placed in a trust fund which he will inherit (the balance of) once she passes. Trust funds are private so I don't think anyone knows the balance.
So, her husband wants her dead. Now.
I thought that was the motivation too... but I read an article awhile back on CNN that said the malpractice judgment was more in the realm of 12 million, and that the parents had offered many deals to the husband which gave him as much as 8 million if he would just walk away, and he refused them on the grounds that this was really about the fact that she had told him she would never want to be kept alive artificially. The money is almost all gone now, and he maintains he's never wanted any of it.
See, you should never get married!
that's a reasonable conclusion. don't get married. you might end up in a coma and your husband and parents will be in court for years.
The parents say they see signs of a response from Terri despite doctors' claims that she's not capable. I used to think they were just grief-stricken or delusional, but last night I watched a special on people who have woken from anesthesia during surgery. The paralyzing component of the drug cocktail was working, but not the knock-you-out part. The doctors had no idea any of this was going on.
I assume they're monitoring Terri's brain function and not just going by visual signals, but that show gave me pause.
Here's another facet to the argument, though. If she does come out of her coma, what will her psychological condition be? If she has had some kind of awareness, but was unable to communicate, she's likely to be a basket case. The women on the show who endured the pain of surgery for a few hours were all changed forever. Some were suicidal, all were depressive, and all said that they had been fundamentally changed, never to return to their prior state. Imagine years of it. I think unless she were somehow able to wake up with complete amnesia of the past 15 years, she would prefer starvation.
I feel for the husband. I'm all for standing by your (wo)man, but that's some pressure. I don't think he should have a say anymore, though. He's moved on, and no longer has the emotional stake in this situation that the parents have. Tell him he can have the plug pulled but only if the money goes to the parents, and see what his reaction is.
Tell him he can have the plug pulled but only if the money goes to the parents, and see what his reaction is.
If Clodfobble's right, and the money's almost gone, that may be moot.
He's moved on, and...
No, he
tried to move on.
Add to the mix ... depending on which Save Terry site you read, there's a suspicion that she's in the persistant vegetative state because of abuse by her husband, who has also (before the pulling the feeding tube episode) intentionally restricted care and therapy for her.
Frankly I think she's a green bean in a bed, but I can understand her parents continuing to have hope.
Every report I've read indicates that doctors have found flat EEGs and that large portions of her brain have turned into Cream of Wheat. As with Oakland, there's no "there" there. If these reports are accurate, there will be no miracle wake-up suitable for a Lifetime telemovie.
If _my_ wife was brain-dead, doctors had told me that she was beyond any hope of recovery, but my in-laws were bent on keeping what was left of her "alive" at any cost, you can be damn sure that I'd be fighting to let her go with a little dignity rather than getting a divorce and washing my hands of the matter.
Can I _blame_ the parents for desperately clinging to hope for a storybook ending? Nah. But this case has dragged on far beyond the point of ridiculousness.
Any money in accounts were long since spent on her care and keeping her on life support. She wanted to die. By all rights, he should be able to just give her an injection to help her die quickly, but some people have a problem with allowing people to die. So instead he did the right thing and kept fighting to respect her wishes. My wife's parents would never be able to stop me from carrying out my wife's wishes. Even if I had moved on romantically, I would not divorce and I would not stop fighting to carry out her last wish.
Why is it that the same political people who would keep Terry Schiavo an alive vegatable would also promote capital punishment? What does their Bible tell them that justifies two contradictory opinions?
Was it her wish to die of starvation/dehydration over a 2-week period? Did she want to be cremated? If so fine. Otherwise I think the life-giving parents should have more say than an absent husband. See, you should never get married!
It may not be her wish to die of starvation/dehydration, but do you really think it is her wish to be in a vegetative state for 14 years?
Cat - marriage is the BEST :thumbsup: There will ALWAYS be temptations :cool:
And the beat goes on. What kind of juice does this family have to motivate the freakin US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES to introduce legislation
rightnow to give the Federal Gov't jurisdiction to further interfere with this situation? Where are the grounds for this?!
I astonish myself to find I am nostalgic for the "good old days" when the Republican party stood for smaller government and states rights. "We want to get the gov't off your back", etc, etc.
/shakes head in frustration and dismay/
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7927270"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something."
"Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"
The pearls of wisdom fell from the lips of Lazarus Long, a man who lived 2300 years (and counting). His story was recounted by Robert Heinlein, in _Time Enough For Love_. I give this book my highest recommendation. In fact I have given the book itself on many occasions.
These quotes sprang to mind when I read about the latest chapter in this sad saga. Why do the people in the US House believe they know better than all the courts in Florida? Could someone please explain that to me?
Thanks in advance.
that's a reasonable conclusion. don't get married. you might end up in a coma and your husband and parents will be in court for years.
No one ever thinks of these things when writhing naked in honeymooned bliss. But it could happen to you! :unsure:
or you could put away the fatalist attitude and live life. you can't live life not doing things because something might happen.
situations like this are relatively uncommon but serve as a warning to make sure that you have your affairs in order. Trusts, wills, DNR's, etc...
I do! That's the problem, I make these mistakes all the time! It's all just talk, I'm not miserable or holding back in "real life", just trying to find 'the better way' and maybe one day my mistakes won't matter.
mistakes? what mistakes? there are choices that if we had to do over again, we would of course choose the mulligan, but for the most part the initial choice/mistake is less important than the one that follows. how do we face the consequences of our previous choices? scream and cry that it's unfair? complain that nothing ever works? shrug and keep going? acknowledge a lesson learned not dwell on the negative?
i think a lot of people (not necessarily you, catwoman) spend life chasing a happiness that seems unobtainable for them, because they are consumed by the things that they cannot control. if we first realize what is within our ability to control and then focus on these things life becomes a bit easier and certainly less stressful.
we can't control other people, the world, the broken water pipe, the cat puking on the carpet, you company's decision to downsize...
you can control your own decisions and actions. that doesn't mean that when someone hurts you, you smile and say "thank you, can i have another." you can choose to be miserable, angry, focused on revenge, etc. or you can acknowledge that at some point all people will disappoint you and make the best of the situation in front of you. you can't control events in the past but you can control your reaction to them.
From
CBS News
(CBS/AP) The House of Representatives and Florida legislature have both entered the battle over the removal of the feeding tube keeping alive a brain-damaged woman whose husband has been given permission by a state court to allow her to die.
..snip..
The U.S. House of Representatives bill, passed on a voice vote late Wednesday, would move such a case to federal court. Federal judges have twice turned down efforts by the Schindlers to move the case out of Florida courts, citing a lack of jurisdiction.
A voice vote. The spineless weasels even refused to stand up and be counted.
:rant: :bitching:
Please, someone help me here.
The word(s) I'm looking for are arrogance, cheating, hypocrisy...ok, I got the vibe now.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7946491&pageNumber=0
The United States Senate, having failed to create legislation for ONE person, in time so they can leave for their Easter holiday, have in their ineffable wisdom, decided to achieve their goal of interferring meddling overruling with this person's life by calling her as a witness to a congressional hearing.
The reasoning (and I use the term verrrry loosely) is this:
"The Senate and the House remain dedicated to saving Terri Schiavo's life. While discussions over possible legislative remedies continue, the Senate and the House are taking action to keep her alive in the interim," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican.
Frist said the Senate will call Schiavo as a witness before the its Health, Education and Labor Committee at a March 28 hearing in the middle of Congress' two-week Easter recess.
Federal law protects a witness "from anyone who ... influences, obstructs, or impedes an inquiry or investigation by Congress," Frist said.
They hope to intimidate the doctors who are scheduled to remove her feeding tube at 1pm EST. Will they risk federal prosecution on this score? Who knows?! But the result is the same: to threaten and scare the medical professionals iinto inaction. This is mere thuggery on the part of the lawmakers in Washington.
The shame is that it represents such a lowering of the standards of procedure that sustain our governmental institutions. Can't get what you want inside the rules, like agreeing to abide by a lower court's decision? Make a new law! Can't get the law passed? Obstruct with the threat of legal action, contempt of congress or some such boogie man.
It happened with the ANWR drilling proposal this week too. The proposal by itself would not have the votes to withstand a filibuster, so the language was added to the budget, a piece of legislation immune from filibuster. Again, can't win on the merits? Hide, obfuscate, piggyback, menace, misdirect, delay.
God, I'm gonna be sick. Why do we let these hypocrites bahave this way. Man, some bums is gonna get trown out!
Well put, BV.
I just find it absolutely appalling that legislators feel it's appropriate to meddle in this life-or-death affair. They have no business interfering with a case that is essentially a civil dispute at the very root. It's like fucking Judge Judy but on a much larger and much more ridiculous scale.
Oh, and looks like her feeding tube has been removed, per Judge Greer's order - to continue with removal regardless of govt actions - an hour or two ago.
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (AP) _ A source close to the Terri Schiavo case tells The Associated Press that the severely brain-damaged woman's feeding tube has been removed.
All BS aside, I'm glad this matter will be over for her (hopefully very soon) and she can finally be at peace.
God, I'm gonna be sick. Why do we let these hypocrites bahave this way. Man, some bums is gonna get trown out!
But don't you feel a surge of pride that our congressmen are so smart they can circumvent the rules that we mere peasants have to abide? :vomitblu:
Don’t forget why this controversy exists. Religious beliefs being imposed upon others. Science says she is a human vegetable. But those of religious superiority insist science must be wrong. Why? Political extremists just know they see intelligence - science be damned. Religious beliefs again being promoted upon others. You don't have the right to die. Extremist (Ashcroft) also did this in Oregon in direct contradiction to the voters wishes. Just another example of Satanism - imposing religious beliefs upon others.
Oh, bullshit. Her parents aren't trying to keep her alive because of religious reasons, their motives should be patently obvious. And legislators want to keep her alive because her husband's motives are suspect and they feel sympathy for the parents, plus it gets them compassion points with voters who care about this sort of thing.
Next you're gonna tell me the goddamn MBAs are responsible for keeping Terri alive.
Oh, bullshit. Her parents aren't trying to keep her alive because of religious reasons, their motives should be patently obvious. And legislators want to keep her alive because her husband's motives are suspect and they feel sympathy for the parents, plus it gets them compassion points with voters who care about this sort of thing.
Husband's motives remain unchallenged. In fact, without right wing religious support, her parents would have long ago been made irrelevant. Years of repeated testimony and court decisions have declared Terry brain dead. And yet righteous third parties keep appearing with another excuse and lots of legal money. They may even be trying to bankrupt the husband to force their will on Terri Schiavo. FL Supreme Court judge in a blunt accusation of Federal intervention was quite clear why Terri is still so painfully kept alive as a vegetable.
Yes, the parent’s motives are not religious. But religious extremist intervention is the only reason this case continues. As the network news so bluntly reports it, the religious right is using Terri Schiavo as a litmus test of their political representatives.
Why would any Federal law maker even dare touch this hot potato? The smart politician stays away from this issue. But this case has been made by the religious right into a litmus test of politicians. A sort of “either you are with us or against us” challenge. If the religious right had not decided to make this a test case, then Terri Schiavo would have long ago taken the same path as thousands before her. Without outside pressure, Federal law makers would avoid the whole issue. At this point, the parents are nothing more than pawns in a big, ugly test of political action by the religious right. The only political force protecting Terri Schiavo's rights are the FL courts and the US Supreme Court that refuses to hear the case. Rightly so. This is about about protecting Terri Schiavo. This is about religous political action. Another rallying cry to promote 'right to life' issues - Terry Schiavo, her husband, and the FL State court system be damned. Their rights don’t matter when issues of god are involved.
To declare the husband’s motives suspect is not based upon fact. That reason is the masquerade for another issue – forcing 'right to life' religious doctrine on others.
To declare the husband’s motives suspect is not based upon fact. That reason is the masquerade for another issue – forcing 'right to life' religious doctrine on others.
The right to life doctrine is "forced" upon others because it never seems to be the person in question who wants to die but, rather, those who benefit from the death of the person in question. What you are defending is not the right to die but the right to terminate the life of another.
I think Terri Schiavo would be better off dead but its not for you and me to say. Its for her parents and her husband to say and they are not in agreement so the government has get involved. Well, the government is not in unanimous agreement either. Hence, we are in the mess we are in.
You can single out one side or the other for ridicule and that is your right. But, your view remains "one man's opinion" and has no more legitimacy than anyone else's.
The right to life doctrine is "forced" upon others because it never seems to be the person in question who wants to die but, rather, those who benefit from the death of the person in question. What you are defending is not the right to die but the right to terminate the life of another.
FL law is quite bluntly clear about this. Terri's parents have no rights and no say. It is Terri's husband's decision to honor her request. Furthermore, every legal entity with jurisdiction has ruled in favor of the husband and in the wishes of Terri Shiavo - as testified to by her husband and others. Those are facts. Anything beyond that is best called wild speculation.
The only reason Terri has been left in such a tortured state is that others without jurisdiction keep challenging the decisions of the person who has the right to make that decision AND challenged the courts who have the legal authority to grant that request. Again, even the Supreme Court of the United States looked at this case and refused to intervene. Why? There is no case to justify a reversal. The many powers that are legally responsible have all come to the same agreement. It is that open and shut. Terri Schiavo stated her wishes and the courts keep trying to honor her requests.
There are others with shameful agendas not in the interest of Terri Shiavo. To not speak out against this self righteous types is classicly anti-American. From the NY Times of 19 Mar 2005
For Republicans, it was a chance to try to carve out new territory in the "culture of life" issues so paramount to passionate religious conservatives, who have flooded Congressional offices with messages beseeching help in keeping Ms. Schiavo alive. ...
And for Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader facing inquiries into fund-raising improprieties in Texas and potential violations of House travel rules in Washington, taking a prominent role in rallying conservatives to the Schiavo cause also provided a sudden distraction from his troubles.
"To friends, family and millions of people praying around the world this Palm Sunday weekend: do not be afraid," said Mr. DeLay, who interjected himself forcefully into the case, in a pointed religious reference during a Friday news conference. "Terri Schiavo will not be forsaken."
Mr. DeLay and other lawmakers appeared to be affected emotionally by the life-and-death subject of Ms. Schiavo. Some have long held religious beliefs opposing such things as assisted suicide or the disruption of life-sustaining medical care.
Notice the religious references repeatedly used to deny Terri Schiavo and her husband their rights
Terri Schiavo and her husband are the victims. There is no way around that fact. Even the FL Supreme Court judge today was quite blunt about that fact. The courts have ruled on what they decided were her intentions. FL says bluntly and without doubt that her husband is the only person with legal status to make that decision for her. Her parents have no say - as it should be. Those are the facts no matter how many self serving religious political types want to screw the Schiavos for political gain. Those who have the rights are instead made into victims - for other's poltical gain.
To not stand up for the rights of the Schiavo is classicly anti-American. How dare others with no standing would torture Terri Schiavo and her family. That is beyond a doubt the facts - and shameful. Every court with jurisdiction has made a decision not upon religion. And therein lies the problem. They did not impose religion when deciding to grant Terri Schiavo's requests. Courts instead made decisions based upon the facts. Shame on anyone who gives credence to those such as Tom DeLay. Making the Schiavo's into victims totally for political gain. Shame on anyone who would deny the only facts. Terri Schiavo has the right to die as she requested. Anyone else (ie her parents) have no standing. Those are facts. What is left are others with self serving agendas. Again, they would vicimize Terri Schiavo to perform litmus tests on their politicians. It is that pathetic.
I really hope that NY Times quote was from the editorial section, tw. If not, it's a prime example of why Fox News has flourished in this country.
Mr. DeLay's only long held religious belief is that he should be in the news for something other than multiple ethics violations.
I'd be interested to hear some of your opinions on this - if Terri's death was happening by a method other than slowly starving her to death, would these arguments still be the same as they are now? The "slowly starving her to death" is the only part that makes me have second thoughts. Maybe its just the sound of it, I don't know how it will be for her physically, and I suppose nobody knows how it will be for her mentally. (I'm sure they'll be medicating her to make sure she's "as comfortable as possible".) If she was being allowed (forced?) to die quickly, in a 100% certain pain-free manner, would this debate be the same, and would it be dominating the news?
I believe its time to "let her go" but I understand it is hell for her family. I'm sure it wouldn't be so difficult for them, if she was in an obviously comatose state, not blinking, "smiling", and in their opinion, responding to them.
(And I have no trouble believing that she wouldn't want to live this way. Whether she ever voiced that to her husband or not, who would say that they want want to live that way?)
Mr. DeLay's only long held religious belief is that he should be in the news for something other than multiple ethics violations.
Thats a fact.
Its a shame when these matters go outside the family and caregivers. There is suspicion, however, of the husbands original motives, although I don't know that it changes her legal status. We're too removed to truly understand what's going on there. The media likes to cook these things down so they can tell a simple story, the Times has religous extremists and I assume Fox has a murderous husband, but the person whose opinion matters most isn't talking.
I find the case uninteresting. My dogs have more consciousness than Terri Schiavo for the last 15 years.
There's only one aspect I find interesting... its really ironic that people are mad that Schiavo is now starving to death, when it's thought her coma was the result of bulimia.
its really ironic that people are mad that Schiavo is now starving to death, when it's thought her coma was the result of bulimia.
That is very ironic. I haven't followed the story that much- I've just caught parts of it a couple times a week that I can't help but seeing, considering that it's hard to read a paper or watch the news without seeing it. I missed the part about the bulimia!.
I should do my homework better before I post!
The "slowly starving her to death" is the only part that makes me have second thoughts. Maybe its just the sound of it, I don't know how it will be for her physically, and I suppose nobody knows how it will be for her mentally.
Actually, doctors have a pretty good understanding of how it will be for her, mentally. In seeing what parts of her brain suffered oxygen death, it is certain she won't feel any suffering, as she pretty much isn't feeling anything even at the moment. With nothing more than partial frontal lobes and a brain stem, her body is "alive", but her "life" left a long time ago.
There's only one aspect I find interesting... its really ironic that people are mad that Schiavo is now starving to death, when it's thought her coma was the result of bulimia.
I've been hearing this a lot, lately, but I haven't found out if it is anything more than a rumor. If its true, a lot of people seem to want to keep this aspect of the situation quiet.
Does anyone find it strange that the religious right likes to play the part of the god they worship? They'll go against all natural odds and laws to keep a suffering woman alive, all while trying their hardest to put to death the people they have convicted of high crimes. I'm not sure why, but both of these ideals seem to go against the religious banner they wrap it all in.
It's no rumor... a jury agreed to that finding in her medical malpractice trial.
unbiased information from a florida law-blogger's site
The cause of the cardiac arrest was adduced to a dramatically reduced potassium level in Theresa's body. Sodium and potassium maintain a vital, chemical balance in the human body that helps define the electrolyte levels. The cause of the imbalance was not clearly identified, but may be linked, in theory, to her drinking 10-15 glasses of iced tea each day. While no formal proof emerged, the medical records note that the combination of [Theresa's] aggressive weight loss, diet control and excessive hydration raised questions about Theresa from Bulimia, an eating disorder, more common among women than men, in which purging through vomiting, laxatives and other methods of diet control become obsessive.
drinking 10-15 glasses of iced tea each day
:eek:
Thats absolutely insane.
From the blog:
Some believe Terri's husband has been motivated by money. Some believe that no heart attack occurred -- instead, Terri's husband beat her nearly to death and has been trying to end her life ever since. Some believe he is a bad person because he has taken up with another woman and has children with her.
I wonder how much bodyguard protection Terri's husband has now or will have if Terri's death comes as it is supposed to. If I were him, I'd move far, far away...
If I were him, I'd move far, far away...
Or he could do us all a favor and avail himself of the favorable gun laws in Florida.
"Take a number please, Mr. Schiavo will be with you shortly..."
Here's something weird I found on Wikipedia:
Hydranencephaly
This is a rare condition in which the cerebral hemispheres are absent and replaced by sacs filled with cerebrospinal fluid. Usually the cerebellum and brainstem are formed normally. An infant with hydranencephaly may appear normal at birth. The infant's head size and spontaneous reflexes such as sucking, swallowing, crying, and moving the arms and legs may all seem normal.
[...]
Diagnosis may be delayed for several months because the infant's early behavior appears to be relatively normal. [...]
The outlook for children with hydranencephaly is poor. Death generally occurs before age 1.
How strange!
I personally think the parents are off their rocker -- there's nothing left but the brainstem. Besides which, they have no rights at all in this case. When you get married, your legal next-of-kin is your spouse. That's just one of the many legal changes that you've just entered into.
If you don't trust your spouse, file a medical power of attorney. I know a person who did just that, and given his mother the poa because his wife would have tried to keep him alive.
Terri didn't get a medical power of attorney. Therefore her husband gets to make all the calls. Period.
- Pie
Besides which, they have no rights at all in this case.
Isn't it amazing that a case that is so simple and should require no debate at all has gained the attention of both Congress and the President and caused them to take actions so wildly unconstitutional that the forefathers are spinning in their graves?
New term I learned from this event: "Culture of Life", which deems all human life to be blessed, sacred, and protected above all laws.
...except capital punishment, of course.
Bush is an idiot.
The legislature is a bunch of whores.
Bush is using his mandate, and a republican lead house and senate, to do what he wants because he doesn't have to worry about getting reelected.
Let's see what the SCOTUS does with this one. I don't see it lasting very long. Just long enough to hurt somebody.
The husband's motives are NOT suspect. He's the only one whose motives have been consistantly pure. He's turned down millions of dollars. He hasn't remarried. He has fought in 13 court cases over 15 years when it would be easier just to walk away, but instead of doing what was easy, he did what his wife wanted him to do. He fought to allow her body to die.
Terri Shiavo the person died 15 years ago. It's about time people stop meddling and let her body die too. The motives of her husband are above reproach. He's an honorable and decent man trying to do the right thing for his wife by carrying out her last wish.
It's got to be horrible to lose a child, but it's time her parents admit she was already lost, and move on.
There's more and more information that's coming out that makes Michael Schiavo look worse and worse. Is he really? I don't know. I end up missing lot of good info and interviews because of my work schedule. Did anyone see the one that was supposed to have run tonight, with a doctor who treated Terri fairly early on when she was being provided rehab? According to what I heard (from a late night talk radio listener, so I'm skeptical of the source as a matter of course) Terri was able to verbalize, and was ambulatory to some degree, although she needed to hang onto stuff to get from point A to point B. The therapy stopped when the husband got the settlement from the malpractice suit, Terri was moved into a nursing home and the attempts at rehab were discontinued.
I'm also a bit surprised that nobody's mentioned the best known "right to die" case up to this point, that of
Karen Ann Quinlan. Many people remember the fight to terminate her life support. Karen Ann was on a respirator as a consequence of her taking drugs and drinking alcohol at a party. She lapsed into a coma, and was put on a respirator. Her parents fought a long court battle to have her removed from the respirator. What many people don't remember, is that she didn't die. She remained alive, but in a persistent vegetative state for another 10 years until she died of pneumonia.
The difference being that Karen's parents were fighting to let her die, Terri's parents want keep her alive. Also I think Karen would have died a lot quicker if they had stopped feeding her like they want to do with Terri.
My personal opinion on this case is that Karen's parents should be allowed to do as they wish with their daughter. The husband seems to have moved on with his life, he got a settlement and has a girlfriend and kids now. I think biological bonds should be considered stronger that marital bonds anyway.
Clearly you get along with your parents. :)
I think biological bonds should be considered stronger that marital bonds anyway.
:thumbsdn:
Which parent? Mine are reduced to spitting and name calling when in proximity, would they have to agree? Or would my husband be the deciding vote anyway?
Has everyone updated their will?
First, my sympathies to Michael and Terri, and the Schindlers in this very personal tragedy. Regardless of which "side" I am "on", or you are "on", what has happened is very sad. I will continue to pray for all of them.
I think biological bonds should be considered stronger that marital bonds anyway.
Really. So you believe that, in general, the wishes of one or both parents should overrule the wishes of the spouse? Or maybe the spouse should be a tiebreaker if the parents disagree? Or perhaps it should take both parents in agreement to outvote the spouse?
Really. So you believe that, in general, the wishes of one or both parents should overrule the wishes of the spouse? Or maybe the spouse should be a tiebreaker if the parents disagree? Or perhaps it should take both parents in agreement to outvote the spouse?
It doesn't really matter which anyone thinks is stronger. Legally, marriage makes your next-of-kin your spouse. As for Terri, this was already resolved in an earlier court case in which it her parents agreed that her husband had custody of Terri.
I have seen Michael Schiavo on TV over the past 2 weeks being interviewed on several shows. He seems to be selectively espousing his marriage vows. First he says that he vowed to be with Terri in sickness and in health. What happened to forsaking all others. I guess that does not apply to his current fiance.
I am troubled why someone would allow the parents of a disabled person to suffer thru this. Many people have said it is because Schiavo wants to be married again in the Catholic Church. Well the last time a relative of mine tried to get married in our local church to the mother of his out of wedlock child it was a no-go. I doubt that is Mr. Schiavo's motivation.
One last item. I think one of his kids is about 9 years old. What does he tell that child about constantly being on the news regarding his real wife. That poor kid must get tormented in school.
Casting aspersions on his moral character is just as irrelevant as whether you think a parent's bond is stronger than a spouse's. The fact of the matter is that the spouse is the next of kin, and the parents' lawsuits have been frivolous (in the legal sense of the word, I'm sure they were perfectly heartfelt). There is no legal basis at all for overturning his decision, and even less for bumping it up to federal court.
That's the real scandal here. Congress just decided they didn't like a whole string of court decisions, so they wrote a law that said, "Try this case again, and pretend that the other verdicts didn't happen".
I am troubled why someone would allow the parents of a disabled person to suffer thru this.
I'm troubled as to why the parents are doing this to themselves.
One last item. I think one of his kids is about 9 years old. What does he tell that child about constantly being on the news regarding his real wife. That poor kid must get tormented in school.
Interesting angle. I'm sure at that age most children don't really understand what's going on, but allegations that your dad is trying to kill his wife probably don't earn you too much street cred at the school playground.
Not having known Terri - and still having their biological mother (as opposed to divorce/stepmom scenario) - probably removes a lot of the personal aspect for the children. BUt they'll always be known as the kids Michael Schiavo had while his wife was veggie - and that could have some traumatic implications in the future. I just hope Schiavo is being honest with a) his children, and b) the rest of the world.
My personal opinion on this case is that Karen's parents should be allowed to do as they wish with their daughter.
The husband has not moved on with his life. He is fighting to let his wife die as any good American would. FL law and simple common sense says the spouse - not the parent - must have the decision. He is defending Terri's rights and Terri's wishes - at great expense to himself.
What appalls me with Wolf's post is that it demonstrates how the right wing propaganda machine is so powerful. Long after the doctors said too much has already been tried, Michael Shiavo kept trying to revive his wife including a special trip to CA for some experimental treatment. Did your news service forget to mention that CA trip; as Fox News must do to promote their propaganda? Any responsible news source would be saying how much he did beyond what he should have done. But since he represents his wife's civil rights in direct opposition to religious right extremist edicts, then even Wolf has recevied a distorted summary of the facts.
Good people should be calling for the needle. Terri Schiavo has a brain of oatmeal. What we are doing to Schiavo is called torture - if not just a violation of her civil rights and her court acknowledged wishes. (But then the George Jr administration authorized torture meaning what we do to Terri is good and legal.) What we do to Michael Schiavo is just as appalling. We let Fox News lie about everything he did for his wife - and we don't start a post recommending civil disobedience in all Fox Newsrooms - to corrupt the operations of that propagandist.
No, we need not trash the Fox Newsroom. We need a public who is not listening to the same propaganda that promoted WMD, the illegal invasion of Iraq, those mythical aluminum tubes, and will soon advocate the invasion of Iran. A right wing propaganda machine so good that they now hire journalists to ask the questions they want asked. Just another way to promote propaganda. Many of us now think it is good to violate Terri and Michael's civil rights because of that propaganda machine; to impose a religious extremist viewpoint at the expense of civil rights.
When religion was imposed on others, well, nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. We have that today. A Spanish Inquisition is being imposed upon the rights of Terri and Michael Schiavo. We are suppose to learn from history. Once religion goes beyond a relationship only between a man and his gods, then we end up even with the world's most deadliest wars. This one is simple. May of us who have posted in this topic hate the civil rights of Terri Schiavo. We do this by not learning the facts. Michael Schiavo has done more than anyone should ever be expected, to defend both the rights and the desires of Terri Schiavo - Fox News and Rush Limbaugh propaganda be damned for promoting religious concepts in violation of civil rights.
I think that, ultimately, this is part of the larger neocon agenda of removing the judiciary as a check on the executive and legislature. Find a case in which the law is absolutely on one side (and so the judges can be relied upon to rule one way), but which can be spun as a moral outrage. The many completely unsubstantiated rumors about Michael's moral turpitude are par for the course for this type of campaign, an attempt to get people to care more about the personalities involved than the facts of the case.
Luckily, it
doesn't seem to be working[font=Arial Narrow][size=1][pdf][/size][/font] so far.
you know, i really don't care a lot about this whole issue, as it should have been over a very long time ago. spouse says DNR, then DNR. the problem is that she has to starve to death.
i can't believe i'm going to say this, but i agree with TW. they should give her the needle. it would be more humane, by a long shot.
where is Dr. Jack when we need him?
i can't believe i'm going to say this, but i agree with TW. they should give her the needle. it would be more humane, by a long shot.
But could that happen? Could the emotional impact of the needle - euthanasia like she was some kind of animal - be overcome by logical thinking?
Yes, I do have reservations about the use of a needle for the same reasons I have reservations about capital punishment. The legal system has proven quite incompetant in
execution of the capital punishment procedure. Could it be trusted to decide when euthanasia should and should not be applied?
Unfortunately the consequences are appalling - Terri Schiavo is said to be one of but hundreds of ongoing similar cases.
We should be moving on from the religious aspect and trying to find out how better to honor a person's civil rights in similar situations. Unfortunately, with Dr Jack imprisoned, we have instead gone backwards.
Unfortunately the consequences are appalling - Terri Schiavo is said to be one of but hundreds of ongoing similar cases.
That's another underreported aspect of this case. Removing life support, including feeding tubes, is the current accepted procedure when there is no hope of recovery, with the consent of the next of kin (In Texas, the hospital can make the decision if the next of kin can't pay). This is literally happening all the time. But suddenly this particular case gets hyped beyond all reason, and pundits start acting as if it is some sort of barbaric execution that judges have sentenced her to. I'm certain that many of the other cases include disagreement between different relatives over when to give up. The only thing that separates this case from all the rest is that Jeb Bush got himself involved, and opened the door to the rest of his party.
and pundits start acting as if it is some sort of barbaric execution that judges have sentenced her to.
a large part of this, i think, is that many people who are pushing an agenda aren't completely stupid. they know they need the perfect case to further their cause. in this one they have a man who they can cast in an unfavorable light (new family, etc.) and a set of parents who will get in front of cameras and draw sympathy.
I think Michael Schiavo's actions are downright heroic. Delay, yet again, reveals himself to be the slime of the earth.
Jeb Bush
Bingo! :thumbsup:
I'm too busy at the moment to read all the posts in this thread, so this may have been addressed already. Political persuasion, congress getting involved with uncongressional things, and armchair neurology aside, what's the problem with continuing to feed the woman?
We don't know her wishes, and Michael Schiavo's assertion (seven years too late) that she wants to die rings false to my ears. If her parents and supporters want to feed her, let em. MS can be free of the worry by divorcing her, and delusional or not, her parents have invested far more in her well-being than he has. I think he abdicated his spousal rights when he established a common-law marriage with his current partner.
Seven years too late for what?
to suddenly remember, "oh yeah, by the way, she wanted to be taken off life-support."
No no, he's been fighting this in court for the full seven years, ever since it happened. He has maintained from the beginning that she told him she would never want to be kept alive artificially, and he feels he should honor that wish.
Did he say that she wouldn't want to be on life support ever, or that she wouldn't want to have her body kept alive after all hope of recovery was lost? Because the two dates are considerably different, and most people wouldn't want to end life support while hope for a cure remains. But at some point you have to face facts, and Michael has done so long before her parents.
And Michael is the one whose decision it is, no matter how many ghouls want to armchair quarterback, and judge his life, or advance their political agendas. The parents are to be pitied, and it is too bad they couldn't come to an agreement with their daughter's husband, but it's not their call, no matter how many more morality points they have than him. I don't care whether they keep Terri's body alive, and I don't think Terri currently cares either, but Michael does, and it's not my call. It's his.
I'm troubled as to why the parents are doing this to themselves.
After reading the description of the condition of Terri's brain, I have tried and tried to understand why her parents refuse to let her body die, and I can't even come close to understanding it. They say that "She could possibly get better??? Her brain will not grow back! I understand going through the denial phase, but they should've passed that a long time ago. And whatever her husband did or didn't do, should've done or shouldn't have done.......at THIS POINT IN TIME, I just cannot see why anyone would disagree about it being time to let her go.
Apparently the dark areas are where spinal fluid has replaced brain matter.
I understand going through the denial phase, but they should've passed that a long time ago.
They started the lawsuit process immediately after the initial decision was made which is understandable but, once started, a lawsuit tends to cement your position, even if you would otherwise have changed your mind.
... whatever her husband did or didn't do, should've done or shouldn't have done.......at THIS POINT IN TIME, I just cannot see why anyone would disagree about it being time to let her go.
Mmm. It's that holding onto the past thing again, isn't it?
I understand going through the denial phase, but they should've passed that a long time ago.
Not when Terri is still "with" them. Her eyes are open, her skin is warm. They can still run their fingers through her hair. They think she's still in there and can't bear the thought of her dying of thirst. I feel very sorry for her parents and think it would be merciful for all involved if she would just pass on naturally.
In a sad kind of way, this situation reminds me of an Edgar Allen Poe story (
The Case of Mr. Valdemar) that was made into a movie starring Vincent Price. In the story, Price "died" while under hypnosis and found himself trapped in a nether region between life and hell. He was witness to the scale of the unspeakable horror of Hell as well as the tranquil beauty of life but unable to engage/escape from either. And there was nothing anyone could do to free him.
Mmm, this is the problem. How do we know she is brain-dead. She might be able to understand everything around her - and more - and is it really right to end her life for her? I think that film would describe my greatest fear.
like, for example, when someone is under anaesthesia and the "make-you-unconscious" component wears off before the paralyzing component. I think they now add a shot of something that takes away your memory, just in case.
but anyway. there's obviously no clean answer to this question. it would be a blessing for everyone involved if she died of a heart attack today and rendered the whole argument moot.
How do we know she is brain-dead. She might be able to understand everything around her - and more - and is it really right to end her life for her?
She has no cerebral cortex at all -- the only thing left of her brain is the brain stem. The cerebral cortex died of oxygen starvation, was replaced by fluid, and the remaining parts of her brain were smashed against her skull by the pressure buildup. When they place electrodes on her head to measure brain activity the graph is nothing but flat lines. She is, without a doubt, brain dead.
My new favorite conservative blogger,
Hugh Hewitt, wrote this today:
Will Justice Kennedy Cite the Gronigen Protocol?
With the astonishing decision of the 11th Circuit to deny injunctive relief to Terri Schiavo's parents during the course of these appeals, the urgent matter moves first to a petition for en banc review and then to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, only recently in the headlines for relying in part on foreign law in his ruling against the death penalty for juveniles. It is a false hope to believe that Justice Kennedy will act to stay Terri's death, or that there are five members of the Court willing to do so, despite the clear intent of Congress that hydration and nutrition be resumed until a de novo trial was held, and appeals from that trial exhausted.
Judge Charles Wilson "strongly dissented" from the decision of his two colleagues, and I have not been able to access online the opinion of the majority. Yesterday's District Court decision was silent on the intent of Congress regarding interim relief, as it had to be as there is no approaching the subject without running headlong into the clearly communicated intent of the Congress that the relief be granted pending trial on the merits. Howard Bashman suggests the deletion of Section 5 from the legislation gave the courts the authority to deny interim relief. That is simply wrong. Section 5 of the Senate Bill was deleted because it contained the word "may," and as Majority Leader DeLay communicated in the Sunday press conference, the Congress did not intend to leave discretion on the subject of interim relief with the courts, and thus the phrase was eliminated.
Here is what DeLay said on Sunday as he and other Congressmen outlined the bill, its meaning, and the procedures that would be followed to see it enacted: "We are confident this compromise will restore nutrition and hydration to Mrs. Schiavo as long as that appeal endures. Obviously, the judge will have to put the feeding tube back in or she could die before the case is heard."
Judicial contempt for the coordinate branches on this scale is simply staggering. Anyone defending this morning's majority or yesterday's ruling has to defend this disregard of Congressional action. Had either court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, that would have at least clothed the Pontius Pilate approach with some legal cover. But reciting irrelevant standards for granting injunctive relief in advance of trial in a case where Congress intended the injunction to issue is simple sophistry. As I wrote yesterday, there are many different standards governing the issuance of injunctive relief, and when Congress intends great caution --as with imminent harm to endangered plants and animals-- the trigger for injunctive relief is very sensitive. The 11th Circuit has now ruled that the Congress intended a higher standard of review in Terri's case than in the routine case of imminent harm to, say, Munz's Onion or the snail darter. Absurd, and obviously so.
I can only hope that four justices oblige the Supreme Court to take up the matter so we can at least get some opinions on this subject of Congressional intent from the dissenters, or at least an honest rejection of the right to Congress to act. At this point we have a robed charade: Two courts pretending that Congress had the power to order what it ordered, but ignoring the law that was passed.
Much of the rhetoric from the left on this matter has been angry and callous, especially towards Terri and those who are defending the dignity of her life even in her present condition. C.S. Lewis wrote, in The Weight of Glory, some lines that those commentators might want to consider as this drama seems to move towards Terri's death:
"There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations -- these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit --immortal horrors or everlasting splendors."
I have no legal expertise, so I don't know whether or not Hewitt is blowing smoke out his ass. But I do know that injunctive relief has been granted in the context of the Endangered Species Act -- why should Terri Schiavo be any different?
OK, most of that was lost on my non-legal termanese speaking self.
What I'm getting is that
There was a bill in front of the 11th Circuit Court to put the feeding tube back into Terri so that Congress could make a new law to protect her.
Is that right?
And then the 11th Court decided no, we're not putting the feeding tube back into Terri, so any law Congress makes better be damn quick.
Is that right?
And everyone is pissed because (1) Congress shouldn't be making laws for one person and (2) The law in Florida says Michael is the last say so, being her husband, and (3) All of the appeals that can be filed in Florida have been and the parents lost, so they went to Congress to...what?
Wouldn't this be up to the Supreme Court, and not Congress?? I thought Congress makes federal law, the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of the law, and the president breaks the law?
Here's the whole timeline
an excerpt:
March 17: The U.S. Senate passes a “private bill” applying to the Schiavo case but differing from H.R. 1332. The U.S. Senate website, at www.senate.gov, explains a “private bill” as follows: “A private bill provides benefits to specified individuals (including corporate bodies). Individuals sometimes request relief through private legislation when administrative or legal remedies are exhausted. Many private bills deal with immigration–granting citizenship or permanent residency. Private bills may also be introduced for individuals who have claims again the government, veterans benefits claims, claims for military decorations, or taxation problems. The title of a private bill usually begins with the phrase, "For the relief of. . . ." If a private bill is passed in identical form by both houses of Congress and is signed by the President, it becomes a private law.”
The judge decided against reinsertion (because of some faulty wording in the argument). Hewitt thinks that the judicial branch is showing great disrespect for the other branches in this matter. Congress wants a
de novo (brand new) trial, but they didn't get it, so now there's a petition for an
en banc review (French for "in the bench," it signifies a decision by the full court of all the appeals judges in jurisdictions where there is more than one three- or four-judge panel. The larger number sit in judgment when the court feels there is a particularly significant issue at stake or when requested by one or both parties to the case and agreed to by the court. -- definition from law.com). All this to keep the feeding tube in until the case is re-examined....again.
In contrast, if the rare pan-mexican jumping ratdog is going to lose its hidey-hole because someone wants to build a mall, injunctive relief is granted almost immediately. That's my point.
Injunctive relief is granted only if there is a substantial chance that the case will go that way in the end. This is one of the most tried cases in Florida history, always decided the same way, and it is essentially open and shut - the husband has the final say.
Mmm, this is the problem. How do we know she is brain-dead. She might be able to understand everything around her - and more - and is it really right to end her life for her? I think that film would describe my greatest fear.
All my life, whenever I have asked a doctor what causes a medical condition or to explain in detail its progress etc. The stock answer is "we don't really know". Yet, they really are sure about Terri's condition. Somethings not right with the medical profession period.
And Liz, I'm sure that will cause you to avoid the docs next time you get sick, right?
Apparently the dark areas are where spinal fluid has replaced brain matter.
There's no "we don't really know" here.
Think Terri might revive or really be "in there"? There is just as much of a chance that a person that has been dead for fifteen years will come back to life, or that a decapitated arm will magically re-grow itself.
UT, the healthy brain clearly has a squinty smiley face in it. See? Happy brain. :D
Whether or not her brain is utterly fubar isn't being questioned, at least not by me. I'm just wondering why they won't let the parents feed her if they want to. She's obviously still alive, even if in a severely diminished state. She doesn't need help breathing, just eating. Let them continue to feed her if they want, and the rest of us can all go home. She's probably not aware of what's going on, so it won't hurt her any. Michael Schiavo can go marry his new girl, the parents can live the rest of their lives at her bedside. Who does it hurt?
If they decide that she shouldn't live out her days with a feeding tube, fine. Euthanize her. But if you had a sick dog that needed to be put to sleep, and you decided to let it starve to death, you'd have cops at your door in nothing flat. Why is it ok to starve Terri?
I'm going in circles on this. I just don't know, to be honest.
Let Terri GO. I've seen minions like Terri. Let her go. That is the only humane thing to do.
I'm just wondering why they won't let the parents feed her if they want to.
Because it isn't their decision. They no longer had any say in the matter the day Terri said "I do" and the papers got signed with the state. It is just as questionable for a random person on the street to make this decision as it would be for her parents to say the tube should be re-inserted because they would be willing to care for her. Until her husband dies, they have zero say in this matter.
If they decide that she shouldn't live out her days with a feeding tube, fine. Euthanize her.
The same people that want this shell of a person to do nothing other than continue processing food pumped into her for years to come are the same ones that made that option entirely illegal.
The same people that want this shell of a person to do nothing other than continue processing food pumped into her for years to come are the same ones that made that option entirely illegal.
If you look
here you'll see where that is part true, part travesty.
The focus, right now, is on Terri Schindler-Schiavo.
Lets step back from this one emotionally laden case for a moment, and deal with the larger issue. What impact does this have on other right-to-life/death cases?
This is particularly an issue for Florida, at least by anecdotal evidence, because of the large numbers of old people they have ...
If someone is so advanced in their senility that they require tubal feedings for nutrition, have no awareness of themselves or their surroundings, can we starve grandma to death? What about a profoundly mentally retarded child? Can we expose him on a hillside like our forebears?
According to that bill Bush signed in Texass, yes you can.
If the patient runs out of money...
Federal Medicare law says you have to treat to the point of stabilizing, regardless of insurance status. (no, I haven't read the whole law, just parts of EMTALA relevant to what I do, so I don't actually know what medicare has to say about continuing care of this kind. And yes, medicare law does apply even when the patient is not covered by medicare.)
Euthanize her.
Kevorkian's in prison (or is he out by now? either way).
Removal of life support is the only legal way to let a human die. It happens all the time. The
only unique aspect to this case is that Jeb Bush interfered. Would I prefer that euthanasia were available for cases similar to this? Sure. But it isn't.
But if you had a sick dog that needed to be put to sleep, and you decided to let it starve to death, you'd have cops at your door in nothing flat. Why is it ok to starve Terri?
Of course, dog comparisons are meaningless, but this one is not just meaningless - it's wrong. If your dog loses consciousness and stops eating, no cops would show up with a feeding tube and a poison needle and force you to choose. You are well within your rights to let a dog in a coma die with no medical intervention. But no matter what the laws are for dogs, they are completely irrelevant to this case.
The law is more clear on dogs than it is on people.
If someone is so advanced in their senility that they require tubal feedings for nutrition, have no awareness of themselves or their surroundings, can we starve grandma to death?
Yes. It happens every single day all over the country and is considered normal. Everything from a yellow "DNR" band on the wrist, simply pulling the plug, or turning off assisted breathing is just as much a part of life as the previous years of the person who passes from this world once it happens.
Can we expose him on a hillside like our forebears?
This is a bit of a stretch -- we might as well equate removing the feeding tube with tieing the sick down in a wooden boat and pushing them out to sea after we set it on fire while we're at it. All indications from those concious after the feeding tube has been pulled report that it is not a painful way to expire, nor is it cruel. It is a method a lot of people decide is okay. It is a method a lot of spouses decide is okay.
If I end up this way at some point in my life and am beyond recovery, I sure as hell want to be removed from life support. Should the government deny me, or my next of kin, that right, then the thousands of people who elect to die that way every day are going to be placed into question.
For a moment, put aside the emotional aspect of this case, which should have remained within the families to begin with before the media blew it up, and think about the legal side that could affect all of our families in the future.
The law is more clear on dogs than it is on people.
Like I said, dog comparisons are meaningless, but I've seen the comparison made in several places, including on the "news", so I felt it ought to be addressed.
No one should have to suffer what Terri is suffering. leave her alone and let her be. Those who would "save" her have no idea of her day-to-day life. They should be sentanced to live a day of her life. Things would then change.
[If I end up this way at some point in my life and am beyond recovery, I sure as hell want to be removed from life support. Should the government deny me, or my next of kin, that right, then the thousands of people who elect to die that way every day are going to be placed into question.
and that's probably the only lesson that anyone will learn from this. make a living will -- this stuff doesn't just happen to 'other people.'
I don't think it's fair to throw this back in Bush's face, though. What appears to be hypocrisy might be a change of heart. There's no one involved in this case (or the discussion of it) who really knows what to do. They've picked sides, because that's what people do. But I don't think anybody is intending evil. To demonize Bush for being pro-life while simultaneously demonizing him for being the opposite is disingenuous. There are a multitude of easy targets in this situation, and maybe they all deserve a shot across the bow; but I'm no longer certain that there is a "right" answer in the Terri Schiavo case.
although my mom babysat Tommy DeLay and his brothers when he was a 5-year old in Laredo TX, and he was apparently a little brat then, too. :D
No one should have to suffer what Terri is suffering. leave her alone and let her be. Those who would "save" her have no idea of her day-to-day life. They should be sentanced to live a day of her life.
I tried it last night... slept 8 hours, didn't recall any dreams. That's a third of her day right there.
but I'm no longer certain that there is a "right" answer in the Terri Schiavo case.
There is, and its this simple:
Terri is married to Michael Shiavo.
Terri has been braindead for fifteen years and is unable to live unassisted.
Michael, being legal next-of-kin, is having her life support removed.
End of story.
There are no legal questions in this what-so-ever. As to why this has ended up in court repeatedly and is currently in federal hands at the consideration of the f'ing president of the United States, I have no idea. The media and other groups have done a very nice job of twisting this case into "her rights are being denied" when the only right clearly being blocked in this case is her husband's in what he has intended to do what is legally right for years: let her pass away as she wanted.
It doesn't matter what the parents say.
It doesn't matter that the method she passes away with is starvation.
It doesn't matter that some people who have little understanding of Terri's condition think she might miraculously recover or that she might somehow be concious.
Just as there shouldn't be any question in her condition, there is no question of what is "right" in this case.
The president of the United States and Congress should, by all means, be facing a lawsuit for their involvement and their attempts to remove the rights of a married couple.
I don't think it's fair to throw this back in Bush's face, though. What appears to be hypocrisy might be a change of heart.
:lol:
To demonize Bush for being pro-life while simultaneously demonizing him for being the opposite is disingenuous.
Criticising someone for hypocracy is disingenuous?
lol I know. But this is a pretty unique situation, and whatever you think about Bush, he's been nothing but forthcoming about his views and beliefs. That's one reason why people hate him so much.
I loathed everything about Bill Clinton and his posse of ass-lickers, but even I had to admit that there were times that he appeared genuinely moved by certain things (9/11 for one), and I didn't try to find a way to make him the root of all evil.
Look, it's only 3 1/2 more years, just get over it.
I would still feel more comfortable if a blood relation made the decision. Not a perfect world or answer - just my opinion.
I would still feel more comfortable if a blood relation made the decision.
What if her parents wanted to pull the tube? Would you still think that? What if the situation were reversed?
lol I know. But this is a pretty unique situation, and whatever you think about Bush, he's been nothing but forthcoming about his views and beliefs. That's one reason why people hate him so much.
The
only unique thing about this situation is that Bush's brother stuck himself into the process, and invited the rest of the Republicans in.
That and the patient's husband decided to go off and make a new life for himself without yielding any rights as next-of-kin. Oh, and he's estranged from the parents. And the Fla. Supreme Court was involved long before JB - there were something like 7 petitions before his involvement.
And there are Republicans who are against reinserting the tube, and Democrats who are for it. Once again, get over the right vs. left thing. This is beyond that.
If her parents made the decision Michael Schiavo made I would be OK with it.
That and the patient's husband decided to go off and make a new life for himself without yielding any rights as next-of-kin. Oh, and he's estranged from the parents. And the Fla. Supreme Court was involved long before JB - there were something like 7 petitions before his involvement.
And there are Republicans who are against reinserting the tube, and Democrats who are for it. Once again, get over the right vs. left thing. This is beyond that.
A friend of mine posted this elsewhere.
Not right v left?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How Did Local Lawmakers Vote In Schiavo Case?
Survey: Agree With House Decision?
Discuss: Locals Share Their Views
Below is the the 203-58 roll call Monday by which the House passed a bill to give Terri Schiavo's parents the right to file suit in federal court over the withdrawal of food and medical treatment needed to sustain her life.
A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill.
Voting yes were 47 Democrats, 156 Republicans and no Independents.
Voting no were 53 Democrats, 5 Republicans and no Independents.
That and the patient's husband decided to go off and make a new life for himself without yielding any rights as next-of-kin. Oh, and he's estranged from the parents. And the Fla. Supreme Court was involved long before JB - there were something like 7 petitions before his involvement.
He made a new life for himself years after the incident. He became estranged from the parents in response to the lawsuits. Desperate people take meritless cases to state supreme courts all the time. None of that is unusual. This case became a circus when Jeb Bush attempted to use his political power to force the courts to rule a certain way, and Delay hopped on board because his name was in the news for the wrong reasons.
And there are Republicans who are against reinserting the tube, and Democrats who are for it. Once again, get over the right vs. left thing. This is beyond that.
Among the rank and file, there is a general consensus in favor of Michael Schiavo. Among the politicians, it is hugely lopsided in a partisan way. The only thing that brought the case to national attention is the partisan aspect.
You're high. This has been a national story for 15 years. I defer to your statistics as far as partisanship goes, though. Although, when was the last time 47 Democrats sided with Bush on anything? That's practically a mandate.
Oh yeah, they agreed on going to war *duck*
If her parents made the decision Michael Schiavo made I would be OK with it.
In our society, your parents don't have any rights over your life or property once you are married or explicity state it in (as in a living will). Why do you not agree with that? You would rather everyone's parents had the ability to null out their spouse's will when they are not able to communicate their wishes? Just because of a blood relation?
The Democrats reflected the general consensus of the nation, while the Republicans voted as a partisan bloc. Though I wish the Democrats had reflected the 70-30 consensus against Congress intervening, rather than the 60-40 split against reinserting the feeding tube.
I used the term "circus", not "national story". A quick mention on CNN can make something a "national story". This case became a circus when Jeb Bush involved himself. Until that point, it was two parties exercising all available options to the extent available by law. Then Jeb jumps in and says "I'll override the judicial system in this case!" That's what separated this case from any other dispute over guardianship status.
Although, when was the last time 47 Democrats sided with Bush on anything? That's practically a mandate.
"Impose religion on all people" is now the litmus test. Your question was answered 18 Mar and later
Don’t forget why this controversy exists. Religious beliefs being imposed upon others. Science says she is a human vegetable. But those of religious superiority insist science must be wrong. Why? Political extremists just know they see intelligence - science be damned. Religious beliefs again being promoted upon others. You don't have the right to die. Extremist (Ashcroft) also did this in Oregon in direct contradiction to the voters wishes. Just another example of Satanism - imposing religious beliefs upon others.
Religious extremists have made this a litmus test of who they will take out. Remember, the religious vote religiously. The majority don't vote. This is not about Terri Schiavo' oatmeal brain. This is about forcing religious beliefs on all other people. The rights that Terri Schiavo and her husband once had have been long since destroyed by a right wing religious agenda. An agenda to find build an enemies list.
The courts have repeatedly rejected every issue put forth by religious extremists. You would never know that from the posts by mrnoodle. The courts are solidly honoring Terri and Michael's rights.
No this is not about Terri. She is to be screwed. Right wing religion has declared Terri the battle cry to deny all the right of euthanasia. George Jr knows where he gets his votes. George Jr has decided he knows what is right - without even learning the facts. He has been told what the Christian party line is. Screw Terri and her husband to the max. Only religious rhetoric is important here.
Appreciate why even Democrats are on the band wagon. The religious voter. You (plural) the majority do not vote. Well over 90% of religous extremists do vote. "Screw human rights", say even Democrats. "I want to get reelected. Screw Terri Schiavo. She does not have enough brain to survive let alone vote."
It’s called rape by politics. OK. The courts are foolishly representing American principles of human rights. But don't worry. We will fix government so that you can be saved. No one expects a Spanish Inquisition - especially the Schiavos. And yes, that is why even Democrats voted to condenm Terri Schiavo. Religion must be imposed on all infidels. Terri Schiavo is simply a targetting manuever. The litmus test will identify which Congressman and Judges are to be attacked next - to save you from your rights.
Its no accident that one lawyer said Terri's death would be a mortal sin. Screw the law. They are testing each judge and congressman to define their enemies - as even the Pope has encouraged.
something about religion
Let me see if I have this right. The reason why anyone wants to keep Terri Schiavo alive is because to do so imposes government-mandated religion on those who don't vote. This group comprises at least 51% of the populace and, while obviously superior in intelligence (they don't believe in God), are so unmotivated that they can't leave the house once every four years to pull a lever.
My brain is fried from work, but I'm pretty sure I got the gist of it.
How about an alternative. "Since we don't really know her wishes (dammit, get a living will people) and her husband's motivation is equally cloudy, let's keep her alive until we can review the whole issue again."
Damn Jesus freaks.
How about an alternative. "Since we don't really know her wishes (dammit, get a living will people) and her husband's motivation is equally cloudy, let's keep her alive until we can review the whole issue again."
How many "again"s? The issue has been reviewed and rereviewed since 2000, and the same conclusion has been reached each time.
Wait until Jeb tries to take her into protective custody with family services powers...
How many "again"s? The issue has been reviewed and rereviewed since 2000, and the same conclusion has been reached each time.
yes. and maybe it's time to let it go. but the one thing that's still not clear is what Terri's wishes were. I guess since there's no way to really know (short of taking Michael's word for it, which I'm loath to do), it has to be removed from the argument.
But that sucks. gah. no more posts from me on this today. it bums me out.
I am so tired of hearing TW prattle on about "religious extremists".
It seems like the only relgious people who are "extremists" are the ones that disagree with the way he thinks about a topic.
Without knowing any more about this than the average person, I think the law should uphold Michael's right as her husband.
And I'm filing a living will tomorrow.
I am so tired of hearing TW prattle on about "religious extremists".
Damn. I got replaced by Neil Diamond. Oh well. Can't stay on top of the charts forever. Or maybe I should try harder.
You don't like the expression "religious extremist"? Then provide a better word. But religious extremists are a core constituency of the George Jr support block, are the people he brought to George Sr's winning election, and are now a most powerful political force in Washington. No way around this fact. Terri Schiavo is the litmus test for religious extremists to target their enemies. Even Democrats are rushing to appease these power brokers. Washington has changed that much; become that adversarial.
Reality - the new politics in Washington is not going to change. The religious extremists are doing even what the Pope has decreed. Remove those who are contrary to religious doctrine.
I'm anticipating the joyous day when caring nuturer, uncle Jeb rolls a floppy pile of red white and blue Shiavo out on his campaign stage. Dead or alive, it really dont matter. Yahoo! Think of the coverage!
Dead or alive, it really dont matter. Yahoo! Think of the coverage!
That is what most seem to think: Politically, this is a disaster for Democrats. Live or die, the Democrats voted for murder. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years.
Once it's over it'll be dropped, immediately, not to be heard of again.
Reason: the people are split 60/30 in favor of letting her die. (10% confused.) The assumption is that the 30% are issue-driven and will vote on the basis of this single item. It'll stick in their craw. The only way the 60% will vote on the basis of this issue is if it remains prominent at election time.
Reason: the people are split 60/30 in favor of letting her die.
Are you SERIOUS? The way the news has been portraying it, I would have thought it would have been the other way around!
Here's the article. Gives me hope that there are still some issues that massively slanted coverage can't sway.
What a makeup job on the graphics on that story eh?
Tonight there was video of Jeb telling a crowd that there might be evidence she's in a "minimally conscious" state. The lawyer for the parents was on to allege that Terri had "never been examined" (blatantly false, see CT scan above and there have been flat EEGs as well). Ladies and Gentlemen, the "news".
Here's the article. Gives me hope that there are still some issues that massively slanted coverage can't sway.
Nice. Real nice...
"One memo circulating in the Senate last week touted how the "pro-life base will be excited by the issue."
Republican leaders strongly disavowed that, but on Friday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told the Family Research Council, a leading Christian group, that the Schiavo case was sent by heaven to focus attention on the helpless.
"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what's going on in America," said DeLay, R-Texas.
He also described the stakes behind the Schiavo showdown as personal.
"This is exactly the issue that's going on in America, the attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others.""
Dead or alive, it really dont matter. Yahoo! Think of the coverage!
That is what most seem to think: Politically, this is a disaster for Democrats. Live or die, the Democrats voted for murder. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years.
Yeah, sure. Some will spin it this way. Here's an alternate spin.
Democrats voted their conscience. Republicans voted as they were told.
Or, Democrats voted for the rule of law, and Republicans voted to ignore and override the rule of law.
spin is spin, only the volume and quantity matter.
I am so tired of hearing TW prattle on about "religious extremists".
It seems like the only relgious people who are "extremists" are the ones that disagree with the way he thinks about a topic.
Terri Schiavo's parents are being represented, with their approval, by a man who's openly stated the following gems:
"Let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... If a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple.... Our goal is a Christian Nation... we have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules."
"Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the ten Commandments. No apologies."
"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we will execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed... If we're going to have true reformation in America, it is because men once again, if I may use a worn out expression, have righteous testoserone flowing through their veins. They are not afraid of contempt for their contemporaries. They are not even here to get along. They are here to take over... Somebody like Susan Smith should be dead. She should be dead now. Some people will go, "Well how do you know God doesn't have a wonderful plan for her life?" He does, it's listed in the Bible. His plan for her is that she should be dead."
This is the guy who's helping to coordinate the Schindlers' activism and lobbying efforts and who's speaking on their behalf on talk radio and such.
Shall I go on?
[QUOTE]
(dammit, get a living will people)
Hopefully, this is the one good thing that will come out of all of this. I know it has made me realize just how very important it is to have a living will. Surely most everyone in the country is aware of this case, and hopefully most everyone will get their living wills taken care of!
Terri Schiavo's parents are being represented, with their approval, by a man who's openly stated the following gems:
"Let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... If a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple.... Our goal is a Christian Nation... we have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules."
"Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the ten Commandments. No apologies."
"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we will execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed... If we're going to have true reformation in America, it is because men once again, if I may use a worn out expression, have righteous testoserone flowing through their veins. They are not afraid of contempt for their contemporaries. They are not even here to get along. They are here to take over... Somebody like Susan Smith should be dead. She should be dead now. Some people will go, "Well how do you know God doesn't have a wonderful plan for her life?" He does, it's listed in the Bible. His plan for her is that she should be dead."
This is the guy who's helping to coordinate the Schindlers' activism and lobbying efforts and who's speaking on their behalf on talk radio and such.
Shall I go on?
Who is the guy that said that? We need to shoot his ass before he can hurt people.
I'm not suggesting there aren't religious extremists in this country. I'm saying that I'm tired of every single issue that is on this board being turned into one of either (1) religious extremism or (2) MBA stupidity.
Yes, MBAs have issues. WE ALL KNOW THIS. Yes, there are kooks out there. WE ALL KNOW THIS. However, not all religious people are extremists, as TW would imply. Not all MBAs are stupid, either.
I understand Tee's frustration. Why can't he just say "Insert religious extremist speech here" or "Insert MBA speech here"? If I wanted to read the economist, I'd get a subscription.
However, not all religious people are extremists, as TW would imply. Not all MBAs are stupid, either.
While true, that isn't particularly relevant. The problems are being caused by the religious people who
are extremists, and the MBAs who, while not necessarily stupid,
are singleminded and shortsighted to the point of criminality. The existence of moderate religious people and thoughtful MBAs doesn't help anything unless they lend some support in reining in the others.
Who is the guy that said that? We need to shoot his ass before he can hurt people.
That would be Randall Terry, former head of Operation Rescue, currently <a href="http://www.earnedmedia.org/tf0214.htm">invited by the Schindler family</a> to <a href="http://www.earnedmedia.org/tf0318.htm">coordinate their efforts</a>. (Many better links to Terry's involvement than these two, they were just the first Google produced.)
Yes, MBAs have issues. WE ALL KNOW THIS. Yes, there are kooks out there. WE ALL KNOW THIS. However, not all religious people are extremists, as TW would imply. Not all MBAs are stupid, either.
There are millions and millions and millions of religious people in this country who have no compelling interest in how others lead their lives, as long as they themselves have their rights to worship their god(s) in their private lives in the way that they choose to do so. THOSE are not religious extremists.
There are large numbers of religious people in this country who _do_ feel it is in their compelling interest to push for legislation based specifically on their religious and moral beliefs, to enforce those beliefs as the standard for behavior in our society, and to place their beliefs in a "preferred class" over those of "lesser" religions or belief systems.
THOSE are extremists. Tom "Clinton needed to be impeached because he didn't hold the right Biblical worldview" DeLay is one of them. The fact that people like DeLay are not only listened to but hold positions of high power in our government scares the bleeding ratshit out of me.
How do you know they aren't reigning in the others?
No one knows what is going on behind closed doors, as much as we'd all like to know. It just doesn't work that way. Never has, probably never will.
And I do have to admit that Tee isn't necessarily wrong in his views. I don't want the freedom of choice of ANY kind to be taken away from anyone. I don't think we should be a "Christian Nation", I think we should be a nation of people with compassion and spirituality, freedom, and morals. Whatever flavor that comes in.
There was a period recently, where it seemed every thread had religious stuff in it, and I think it's because this whole religious "thing" with the government is coming to a head. We need to make sure the people like the guy who said all that crazy shit don't do more damage than they have.
How do you know they aren't reigning in the others?
I want to know that they ARE. I want the closed doors to be opened. I want prominent religous people to publically denounce attempts to shove religion into government. Instead, people like Randall Terry are supported by political and religious leaders because he has faith and therefore is a godly man.
Who are the moderate religious leaders who can oppose Falwell, Dobson, Terry, Robertson, etc?
I want to know that they ARE. I want the closed doors to be opened. I want prominent religous people to publically denounce attempts to shove religion into government. Instead, people like Randall Terry are supported by political and religious leaders because he has faith and therefore is a godly man.
Who are the moderate religious leaders who can oppose Falwell, Dobson, Terry, Robertson, etc?
They would be people like TD Jakes, Joyce Meyer, Zachary Tims, etc. People who really are God-Fearing people, but don't get involved in politics.
I think it would be very difficult to be a Christian and be in politics. Firstly, you're not supposed to lie....
I want to know that they ARE. I want the closed doors to be opened. I want prominent religous people to publically denounce attempts to shove religion into government. Instead, people like Randall Terry are supported by political and religious leaders because he has faith and therefore is a godly man.
Who are the moderate religious leaders who can oppose Falwell, Dobson, Terry, Robertson, etc?
This is the problem. If by "moderate religious leaders" you mean "people who have this nice little 'god' hobby, but keep it well under wraps where the rest of us never have to hear about its existence", they don't exist.
it's almost trite to say it now, but the separation of church and state is NOT about removing all vestiges of religion from anyone in public office. It's about preventing the state from telling people how to worship e.g., the Church of England. If someone in public office has moral and/or spiritual beliefs, they are an integral part of that person's decisions, their worldview, their interaction with the rest of humanity. They can't turn it off.
The political power of Falwell, Dobson, Terry, and Robertson combined amounts to zilch. I know fundamentalists, evangelical Christians, Baptists, and other boils on the ass of humanity, but none of us get our marching orders from any of those guys. Dobson has some good parenting tips occasionally, but no one listens to Falwell, I don't know who Terry is, and Pat Robertson is a 3 minute interview on Fox News. You are threatened by these people? Ever think that maybe we're voting our conscience as much as you are?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" does NOT mean "there can be no affirmation of religion, mention of religion, or public practice of religion by anyone in any civil service role whatsoever, nor can religion enter the marketplace of ideas where politics or governance is concerned."
They would be people like TD Jakes, Joyce Meyer, Zachary Tims, etc. People who really are God-Fearing people, but don't get involved in politics.
I think it would be very difficult to be a Christian and be in politics. Firstly, you're not supposed to lie....
I don't doubt that there are plenty of religious people who don't support Dobson, Falwell et al. I want to know who will
oppose them. If a nonreligious person, or even a person who doesn't mention their religion in public, opposes one of the religious demagogues, they get written off as an evil secularist who hates religion. We need a coalition of religious leaders willing to do the hard work of getting the attention of the fickle media, and explaining to everyone that religion and government poison each other. Right now, the demagogues are the public face of religion's role in government, and they have little opposition from other religious leaders.
This is the problem. If by "moderate religious leaders" you mean "people who have this nice little 'god' hobby, but keep it well under wraps where the rest of us never have to hear about its existence", they don't exist.
Is that a sarcastic way of describing someone who doesn't think that the tenets of their religion should be codified into law? Because that's what I mean by "moderate religious leaders". And I do hold out hope that such people exist.
The tenets of Christianity/Judaism are already codified into law.
Only for Christians/Jews. Unless you think they invented the prohibitions on murder and theft.
And I want to mention here that the Schindlers are being hypocrits right in everyone's face but no one has mentioned this particular aspect:
They are seeking divorce on Terri's behalf while claiming she wouldn't go against the Pope's decree about withholding food and hydration.
Only for Christians/Jews. Unless you think they invented the prohibitions on murder and theft.
*insert speech about the 10 commandments being about 4000 years old, and therefore predating just about every civilization that we still have records for*
Jews were the first to have the codified Law prohibiting it. Christians obviously came later, but still follow those laws, if nothing else.
The anti-christian zealots aren't worried about religious tenets being codified into US law. They throw a fit anytime God is mentioned, whether it be a schoolkid praying at lunch or a cross on a roadside memorial on a federal highway.
Jews were the first to have the codified Law prohibiting it.
I thought it was The Code of Hammurabi...? (just curious)
They throw a fit anytime God is mentioned, whether it be a schoolkid praying at lunch or a cross on a roadside memorial on a federal highway.
I've not seen anyone protest a child praying at lunch or a roadside cross. What I have seen, however, are people protesting prayers endorsed by public schools and crosses on erected using taxpayer money on government property. But, ah, if you prefer the twisted version of it that is heard on talk radio and Toby Keith songs, go right ahead...
The anti-christian zealots aren't worried about religious tenets being codified into US law. They throw a fit anytime God is mentioned, whether it be a schoolkid praying at lunch or a cross on a roadside memorial on a federal highway.
Horseshit. When I was in school, I could sit in the lunchroom and pray if I wanted to pray. Who could stop me even if they wanted to do so? Who could get into my head, figure out what I was thinking about and somehow prevent me from having a little private chat with God?
What _couldn't_ and _shouldn't_ have happened was for my day to begin with the loudspeaker saying "Let us now stand for the Pledge of Allegiance,
followed by our daily prayer."
Religion practiced on an individual basis is one thing. Religion specifically endorsed in public forums, such as public schools and courthouses, is a _very_ different concern.
All the estimates I've seen on the dating lead me to believe it's after the 10 commandments event. But I don't have a timeline on that, it's not something I've researched at all.
But this brings up a question I have:
Why is it that no one questions the legitimacy of the Hammurabi Code, even tho only a few copies survive and were rewritten over and over, but we have more fragments and copies of the books of the bible, but it's authenticy is questioned?
Lee Strobel brought this up in the Case for Christ, and I find it terribly interesting.
They are seeking divorce on Terri's behalf while claiming she wouldn't go against the Pope's decree about withholding food and hydration.
Most non-Catholics don't get this ... divorce is not technically "illegal" under catholic canon law. You're allowed to get divorced.
What you're NOT allowed to do is receive communion if you
remarry or marry someone who is divorced without first obtaining an annullment (church divorce). Excommunication doesn't throw you out of the church in it's entirety, it does restrict your access to the sacrements, which, I suppose is pretty much the same thing. You can still confess your sins, receive absolution, and so on, but you're out on marriage and taking holy orders, I believe.
There is a similar process, called a
get in Jewish Law. You have to go through the civil and the religious ceremonies.
Horseshit. When I was in school, I could sit in the lunchroom and pray if I wanted to pray. Who could stop me even if they wanted to do so? Who could get into my head, figure out what I was thinking about and somehow prevent me from having a little private chat with God?
What _couldn't_ and _shouldn't_ have happened was for my day to begin with the loudspeaker saying "Let us now stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by our daily prayer."
Religion practiced on an individual basis is one thing. Religion specifically endorsed in public forums, such as public schools and courthouses, is a _very_ different concern.
They had a "moment of silence" in my schools every morning. If you wanted to pray you could, but most kids just stood there and were bored.
All the estimates I've seen on the dating lead me to believe it's after the 10 commandments event.
The code of Hammurabi was published around 1750 BC.
Why is it that no one questions the legitimacy of the Hammurabi Code, even tho only a few copies survive and were rewritten over and over, but we have more fragments and copies of the books of the bible, but it's authenticy is questioned?
The code had one author and the original printing still exists. There is nothing to question.
As usual, when I have theological questions, I turn to the scientists and theologians at AiG. This is what they say about hammurabi (keep in mind this is a literal creationist website, so that's why the reference it biased that way):
Morality and history
From very early records we see that man has shown a high degree of culture and understanding in law and moral/societal behaviour. Dating from the 17th century before Christ is the Code of Hammurabi, a Babylonian king who, according to secular historians, came to power about 1750 bc. This set of laws, governing situations such as marriage, commerce and theft is generally regarded as one of the best and earliest written codes of law for a society. The proper functioning of law depends on the existence of an ultimate authority. Speaking of a society which was crumbling because of a lack of authority, the Bible says: ‘In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes’ (Judges 21:25).
The Ten Commandments are considered, even by many non-Christians, to be a foundational set of rules for moral and ethical living. But if they were written by only a man, then they are no more ‘right’ than someone else’s opposite view. In rejecting Biblical absolutes, will modern law eventually cease from allowing criminals to be branded with ‘wrong-doer’ in favour of the more evolutionarily consistent concept of a ‘socially-unacceptable choice’? Some evolutionists have excused even rape on the grounds that males’ genes and ‘less civilized’ evolutionary past predispose them to such actions.
Why is it that no one questions the legitimacy of the Hammurabi Code, even tho only a few copies survive and were rewritten over and over, but we have more fragments and copies of the books of the bible, but it's authenticy is questioned?
The Bible has been translated and retranslated and retranslated and retranslated and retranslated and interpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted over and over and over and over and over for centuries.
It passed through time periods where the only ones trained to read and write Latin (and, thus, the only ones capable of reproducing the Latin Vulgate and telling everyone else what it said and what that meant) were the churches themselves.
There are hundreds, probably thousands of variations of the Bible out there today.
Which one is the most correct, and how literally should we interpret the contents of the version in which we choose to believe?
Time for links!
I was trying to find the story from my hometown where one of our local atheists defaced a memorial to a kid lost in the mountains because it was on state forest land. I can't find it at the moment. But it's silly for me to have do to that. You know good and well that the anti-god people aren't concerned about state-run religion. They're after EVERYONE who practices Christianity, trying to force them into little boxes where it's "acceptable" to practice their faith.
Which one is the most correct, and how literally should we interpret the contents of the version in which we choose to believe?
And don't forget that entire sections of the bible were completely deleted by a few pea-brained popes who decided that "we don't need to know that."
You know good and well that the anti-god people aren't concerned about state-run religion. They're after EVERYONE who practices Christianity, trying to force them into little boxes where it's "acceptable" to practice their faith.
I _am_ one of those "anti-god" people, one of those dirty heathen atheists you read about in the news. Don't tell me what I want to do and what I don't.
Let's see...
Link one: a case that ended up being decided correctly, where the kindergarten girl _was subsequently allowed_ to say Grace on an individual basis. This was personal religious expression, not school endorsement, and thus the court came down on the individual's side.
Link two: a case of abused and vandalized crosses that
even the article assumes wasn't due to disgruntled atheists (who probably wouldn't have jumped to use Satanic or KKK imagery), a cross removed by a
self-identifying Christian, and the ACLU spokesman saying "If you allow roadside crosses, you'll have allow atheist roadside memorials as well" -- as if _that_ would be such a horrible fate.
Link three: a controversy over whether a church pastor (accused of "indoctrination" and evangelism, true or not) could lead a school-endorsed discussion group about Bible study on school grounds and on school time. Those last two clauses are important.
I don't see anything in any of those links worth getting upset about.
They're after EVERYONE who practices Christianity, trying to force them into little boxes where it's "acceptable" to practice their faith.
Wow, you must be referring to extremists groups (every side has 'em!) because I know most people who are for the seperation of church and state do not operate under those principles.
*insert speech about the 10 commandments being about 4000 years old, and therefore predating just about every civilization that we still have records for*
And before that, theft and murder were A.O.K.!
Come on. Theft and murder are as close to universal crimes as you can get. Different civilizations and different religions differ over where the line is between killing and murder or taking and theft, but just about every (or maybe every? not sure) human society has rules against killing without justification and taking what you aren't entitled to.
Agreed. That's exactly my point.
In this country, there are laws that say you can't do those things, and oh! just so happens that that happens to be Christian Law and Judiasm Law too! Whodathunkit??
So we agree then! Good! Yay!
Some evolutionists have excused even rape on the grounds that males’ genes and ‘less civilized’ evolutionary past predispose them to such actions.
As usual, when I have theological questions, I turn to the scientists and theologians at AiG.
Perhaps you shouldn't. Explaining rape doesn't excuse it.
Agreed. That's exactly my point.
Ah. You were saying that a few rules happen to match up between the Bible and the law. I assumed you were implying that those laws were there because of the Bible. Sorry.
Undertoad,
Where did you get that pic of Terri's brain?
Hey radar did you read that brief I posted?
Perhaps you shouldn't. Explaining rape doesn't excuse it.
Explaining Rape?
You're saying evolution explains rape?
You've gotta be fucking kidding me, HM.
just so happens that that happens to be Christian Law and Judiasm Law too! Whodathunkit??
Yeah, my buddy got arrested for boiling the calf of a goat in its mother's milk.
...oh, wait, you were talking about one of the other two verisons of the ten commandments...
But, hey, with the current set, at least disobeying your parents is punishable by stoning!
You know good and well that the anti-god people aren't concerned about state-run religion. They're after EVERYONE who practices Christianity, trying to force them into little boxes where it's "acceptable" to practice their faith.
I know nothing of the sort. In fact, I know the opposite. Though I do know that that is the boogieman that is dangled in front of the faithful to get them to vote for government entanglement with religion.
Lets run down some of the poular issues:
Having "In god we trust" on money is not practicing the faith. Even if you are a Christian: the one time Jesus got angry was when religion and commerce were mixed. So removing the phrase from money does not hinder the practicing of anyone's faith.
Likewise the pledge of alleigance - You can pray any time you like. Not mentioning God in the pledge doesn't stop you from mentioning Him before or afterwards. Nobody's faith would be hindered by its removal.
Removing organized prayer in schools doesn't stop anyone from practicing their faith. It is not an article of anyones faith that the principal of your school must dictate the time and/or form of your prayers.
Likewise prayers in legislative sessions.
The availability of gay marriage doesn't affect those who don't believe in gay marriage in any way whatsoever, except giving them something to cluck over.
So even if every single one of those hot button issues occurred, not one Christian would be hindered in any way from practicing their faith.
Explaining Rape?
You're saying evolution explains rape?
You've gotta be fucking kidding me, HM.
I'm sorry, are you now attempting to associate explanation and excuse? When the very sentence you quoted says I don't? Any number of heinous crimes can be explained. Does that excuse them? No.
I'm sorry, are you now attempting to associate explanation and excuse? When the very sentence you quoted says I don't? Any number of heinous crimes can be explained. Does that excuse them? No.
She was saying that evoltuionists use evolution and genetics as a way to excuse rape.
Link one: a case that ended up being decided correctly, where the kindergarten girl _was subsequently allowed_ to say Grace on an individual basis. This was personal religious expression, not school endorsement, and thus the court came down on the individual's side.
The fact that the case made it all the way TO court proves my point.
Link two: a case of abused and vandalized crosses that even the article assumes wasn't due to disgruntled atheists (who probably wouldn't have jumped to use Satanic or KKK imagery), a cross removed by a self-identifying Christian, and the ACLU spokesman saying "If you allow roadside crosses, you'll have allow atheist roadside memorials as well" -- as if _that_ would be such a horrible fate.
I linked to an atheist's site deliberately. It wasn't meant to prove that atheists are
successful at getting roadside crosses removed, just that it's a common atheist whine. Two-click Google researching doesn't always yield the best results, but examples of what I'm talking about abound.
Link three: a controversy over whether a church pastor (accused of "indoctrination" and evangelism, true or not) could lead a school-endorsed discussion group about Bible study on school grounds and on school time. Those last two clauses are important.
The wider controversy in this case (read the whole thing) was whether or not students could have faith-based clubs during their lunch hour. The school district had a policy that such clubs could exist only outside of the "instructional program" time. They ruled that lunch was instructional time, which of course is ludicrous.
HM - are you saying that because those things (money/pledge/etc) exist now, we are currently living under a system of government-mandated religion? Because that's what the constitution addresses, not the removal of all religious imagery or speech from anything to do with government. Like I said once already. I'm getting carpal tunnel syndrome, here.
She was saying that evoltuionists use evolution and genetics as a way to excuse rape.
And I have just said twice that they don't.
HM - are you saying that because those things (money/pledge/etc) exist now, we are currently living under a system of government-mandated religion? Because that's what the constitution addresses, not the removal of all religious imagery or speech from anything to do with government. Like I said once already. I'm getting carpal tunnel syndrome, here.
I'm saying that even if the entire wish list was granted, nobody's faith would be impeded, so any claims that Christianity is under attack are ridiculous.
The fact that the case made it all the way TO court proves my point.
What, that religion in public school is a sufficiently potentially serious matter that litigation is possible, something with which I agree, but when there isn't actually an offense, the courts will rule correctly, something with which I also agree?
Interesting point.
I linked to an atheist's site deliberately. It wasn't meant to prove that atheists are successful at getting roadside crosses removed, just that it's a common atheist whine.
News to me. Roadside crosses are put up and maintained by _individuals_, not the state. I can't remember ever seeing an "ADOPT A HIGHWAY" sign assigned to "The Rotting Corpse Of Joe Schmoe."
(There are plenty of "Memorial" highways, but that's clearly different, and official signs aren't covered with religious symbols.)
The wider controversy in this case (read the whole thing) was whether or not students could have faith-based clubs during their lunch hour. The school district had a policy that such clubs could exist only outside of the "instructional program" time. They ruled that lunch was instructional time, which of course is ludicrous.
At lunch, you are on school time, on school grounds and under school jurisdiction. There's no getting around that, and that's not a place or time for active religious instruction at a public school.
And I have just said twice that they don't.
Easy sport, I do evolution. And I agree with you.
I quoted:
Some evolutionists have excused even rape on the grounds that males’ genes and ‘less civilized’ evolutionary past predispose them to such actions.
You said:
Explaining rape doesn't excuse it.
This indicates that you believe that "male's genes and less civilized evolutionary past predisopose them to such actions" as rape.
So let me ask you this way:
Do you believe that evolution explains, or is a reason for rape?
I'm worried that you will attempt to twist this into some sort of implied justification, since this is a subject that can be difficult to discuss without emotional tension. But yes, just about any behavior that occurs in the animal kingdom has an evolutionary basis, either directly or as a side effect of another strategy. However, humans have developed a more important (IMHO) strategy of empathy and cooperation, that gives us the ability to override any baser animal instincts, and those who don't do so should be considered defective and removed from society.
I remember when the Pledge of allegiance was changed. We recited it every day.
I Pledge Allegiance
to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic
for which it stands,
one Nation
under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
There was a pause after each line so each line was free standing. Therefore when "under God" was added it was a freestanding line also. Some said it, some didn't, nobody cared. :cool:
The right to life doctrine is "forced" upon others because it never seems to be the person in question who wants to die but, rather, those who benefit from the death of the person in question. What you are defending is not the right to die but the right to terminate the life of another.
I think Terri Schiavo would be better off dead but its not for you and me to say. Its for her parents and her husband to say and they are not in agreement so the government has get involved. Well, the government is not in unanimous agreement either. Hence, we are in the mess we are in.
You can single out one side or the other for ridicule and that is your right. But, your view remains "one man's opinion" and has no more legitimacy than anyone else's.
Michael Schiavo is only making the excuse that Terri Schiavo wouldn't want to live on artificial life support so that he could get a court order to have her feeding tube removed. He only did that so that he can marry another woman and collect money! Michael Schiavo is going to pay for what he is doing. He is wicked. What Judge Greer did was Illegal and the Florida Supreme Court is very immoral to go against laws. God is going to punish Michael Schiavo. He is trying to kill Terri just so that he can marry another woman and collect money! I know his girlfriend has been his fiance for awhile now. That is the proof why he got that damn court order! He manipulated the judge into giving him a court order. IF Terri Schiavo dies Michael Schiavo will be getting away with murder. I pray that someone stops what the Supreme Court is doing! The supreme court has no right to go against laws! That is immoral big time. NO Terri Schiavo doesn't deserve to die. She deserves to live. Michael Schiavo had no damn right to say that Terri wouldn't want to live artificially! He only said that so that he could take her off her feeding tube to marry another woman! He has a girlfriend and has two kids with this woman! How the hell can that not tell you why he did that! If no one stops what Michael Schiavo is doing, He will be getting away with murder. HE is a murder and Jesus Christ knows it! God is going to punish Micheal big time. He is a murderer and a adulterer. He is wicked. He does not have Terri's best interest at heart. He gave up on Terri a long damn time ago. He just wants her money and to marry his damn fiance.
The bitch must die.
[SIZE=1]this is advanced troll manipulation, don't try this at home[/size]
...He only did that so that he can marry another woman and collect money! Michael Schiavo is going to pay for what he is doing. He is wicked. What Judge Greer did was Illegal and the Florida Supreme Court is very immoral to go against laws.
*
SIGH *
... What Judge Greer did was Illegal and the Florida Supreme Court is very immoral to go against laws. ... The supreme court has no right to go against laws!
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
And the best part is that it could be _any_ of those words.
He is trying to kill Terri just so that he can marry another woman and collect money!
That is the proof why he got that damn court order! He manipulated the judge into giving him a court order.
You are AWESOME. Would you happen to be in the protest lines down in Pinnellas Park? What does the sign say that you are holding?
You are AWESOME. Would you happen to be in the protest lines down in Pinnellas Park? What does the sign say that you are holding?
"Save Ferris"
EDIT: Better yet:
<img src=http://i149.exs.cx/img149/6074/starwars5se6gg.jpg>
holy crap. until that post i hadn't seen a single "every day" person hold that position. i thought it was reserved for the talk show circuit and the Schindler's.
Hey, maybe CloeTaz8795 is a talk show pundit! The writing is incoherent and repetitive enough.
I want CloeTaz to do some research and find out what the law is in Florida, then say that Judge Greer is doing something illegal.
Idjit.
On another note, I was talking to Husband about the whole thing and about the "religious extremist" discussion, and he posited that there probably ARE moderate Christians out there, who are speaking out against people like Randall Terry, but the media doesn't talk about those Christians because they aren't...well..extreme enough for soundbites.
I mean really, the media is going to televise "Yes, I'm a Christian preaching hatred" waaay before they televise, "He's a freak, don't listen to him."
Extremism is news. Moderacy is not.
I mean really, the media is going to televise "Yes, I'm a Christian preaching hatred" waaay before they televise, "He's a freak, don't listen to him."
Extremism is news. Moderacy is not.
Moderacy doesn't sell, either. And, in a lot of cases lately, if the news isn't exciting, the media will ensure it is through some means of hype.
Scary.
Hilarious picture, by the way, vsp. Ugh, I see the corner of a "Jeb!" sign in the lower right. So much for this not being political...
--snip--
Extremism is news. Moderacy is not.
You're right on target, completely.
One minor thing, though, I would say that Extremeism is not news by itself, but that is has the advantage over moderacy in that it is more compelling. It is more likely to attract and keep your attention through the commercial breaks, and therefore more appealing to the people who program the media.
BOOM! Got your attention, now stay tuned (through this commercial break) for more purient content /cue teaser trailer/
Ugh, I see the corner of a "Jeb!" sign in the lower right. So much for this not being political...
Jeb is the only reason this whole story is more than a brief mention nationwide.
Extremism is news. Moderacy is not.
That's right! I had a media class about twenty years ago where the professor said the same thing, the media seeks out extreme views.
Well now, welcome to the Cellar CloeTaz8795. We certainly are honored and humbled by your coming. After all, since you can personally speak for God, tell us what he thinks and what he's going to do to these people, that puts you above........oh,....say,...the Pope. Actually above anyone else on earth....that I can think of. :)
You guys fire too fast. Wait till you can see the whites of their eyes -- now she's gone an run off into the woods. :hafucking
So, once the hysteria of who's killing who and why wears off (give it a week post-mortem), what's the bigger picture? Will we have another look at euthanasia laws? A hard look at Congress' jurisdiction in matters relating to the courts? An even harder look at judges who try to create legislation through their decisions? Or is it just another flavor-of-the-hour drama that will be quickly disappear under the next big show?
There's a lot of focus on kids lately. I predict the next brouhaha will be about kids. We haven't had a Susan Smith in awhile, at least not on the national level. There was a guy who cooked his baby in the microwave a few months back. Don't know if it got national play or not. Come on, media, we hunger for the next act... [/cynicism]
I'm just glad the War on Terror is officially over so Congress can concentrate on these issues of much greater importance.
Well, if things had fallen out in DeLay's favor, the issue would have been the judges. They were hoping to get a popular uprising against "tyrant judges", and generate indignation against any attempts to block Bush's worst nominees. Of course, what actually happened is that the judges were shown to be the only thing checking the supreme authority of the executive and legislative branch, so that angle will probably be dropped.
I doubt euthanasia will get much play, since many of the people lamenting the starving and dehydration were less concerned with the method than they were opposed to any sort of euthanasia, active or passive.
Congress isn't likely to press the issue of congressional jurisdiction, and that's too complicated an issue for the press.
So my guess is that the next issue will be Michael Jackson again. And that's about kids.
You know, the thing is, and I'm sure you are all aware of it, but this shit happens every freaking day! Every day people are quietly taken off life support, respirators, etc. and are allowed to die with dignity. I read where the elementary school next door to the hospice had to send the children to another locale due to the extremity of the demonstrators. The protestors are getting WAAAAAY out of hand. Even the Schindler's seem fed up with them.
me + Sig 229 + .40 Cal + large box of shells = no more protesters. :rattat:
Hopefully they won't realize what the purpose of hospice is, and set up a permanent camp...
Maybe the next one will be more of the same:
Bucks judge hears suit to block a feeding tube
The daughter of an Alzheimer's patient asked a Bucks County judge today to enforce her father's living will and prevent doctors from inserting a feeding tube, despite her mother's requests that they do so.
Mariann Judith Clunk of Hatboro filed suit against her father's doctors and health-care facilities last week when she learned that her mother had asked for a feeding tube. His living will clearly says he did not want one, Clunk said.
it would be more fun to just shoot them. if there were a trial, my defense would be that it was obvious that they had completely missed the point of Christ's teachings and I wanted to arrange a meeting so that he could explain to them what he really meant about "loving thy neighbor", "casting the first stone", etc...
it would be a public service that i would be willing to perform.
Well, if things had fallen out in DeLay's favor, the issue would have been the judges. They were hoping to get a popular uprising against "tyrant judges", and generate indignation against any attempts to block Bush's worst nominees. Of course, what actually happened is that the judges were shown to be the only thing checking the supreme authority of the executive and legislative branch, so that angle will probably be dropped.
--snip--
Hey, who needs a popular uprising against activist judges when you've got "Recess Appointments"?!
:mad2: :thumbsdn:
I read yesterday that DeLay, who had a pretty big role in this whole circus, actually joined the effort to allow one of his own relatives to die by taking them off life support, and putting in a DNR order. This was a decade ago.
We should call him Tom "Do as I say, not as I do" DeLay.
Of course, what actually happened is that the judges were shown to be the only thing checking the supreme authority of the executive and legislative branch, so that angle will probably be dropped.
Not a chance in hell. The judiciary will be _the_ target of the right wing for the next couple of years. Expect to hear about "unconstitutional" Senate filibusters, "activist judges," "judicial tyranny," floods of individual anecdotes intended to demonstrate that the entire judiciary is out of control, and such from every conservative TV talking head, newspaper pundit and radio jock.
The religious wing isn't getting what they wanted from the Schiavo circus, and thus judges (the one branch of the federal government that Republicans don't control outright at the moment) will be a convenient target and scapegoat to redirect their ire.
Hell, Limbaugh's _already_ ranted about how the judicial branch was "never intended" to have checks-and-balances powers over the executive or legislative branches of government, and that THE VOTERS were the actual third branch. Santorum wants to schedule hearings to grill the Florida judges as to what authority they thought allowed them to "ignore the clear will and intent of Congress" by refusing to interpret the federal-court-jurisdiction emergency-law the way Santorum & Co. wanted it interpreted. People like Roy Moore and Randall Terry are popping up on respectable news sources as if they had the slightest shred of credibility, not just on the likes of Hannity's show. The conservative politicians upon whom the fundies are now turning ("Defy the immoral judges and rescue her, Jeb, or her blood is on your hands") will say anything to deflect fundie torches and pitchforks.
They thought they had a winning hand _before_ the Schiavo case flared up again. This will rouse the far right like nothing else, but it's hard to imagine that the majority of Americans who support Schiavo's right to die and disapprove of government intervention in this case will continue to pay attention once she's gone.
I told you they were going to start killing Alzheimer's patients ... I just didn't expect it to be here first.
Maybe the next one will be more of the same: Bucks judge hears suit to block a feeding tube
Need a registration to go there. Too lazy.
However, I would think that if you have a legal, living will, then it is legally enforcable.
Not a chance in hell. The judiciary will be _the_ target of the right wing for the next couple of years. Expect to hear about "unconstitutional" Senate filibusters, "activist judges," "judicial tyranny," floods of individual anecdotes intended to demonstrate that the entire judiciary is out of control, and such from every conservative TV talking head, newspaper pundit and radio jock.
Sorry, poor wording on my part - I know they won't drop their attack on the judicial system, just the attempt to use the Schaivo case in that attack.
Santorum wants to schedule hearings to grill the Florida judges as to what authority they thought allowed them to "ignore the clear will and intent of Congress" by refusing to interpret the federal-court-jurisdiction emergency-law the way Santorum & Co. wanted it interpreted.
But maybe not.
re: DeLay's DNR on his dad. There's a difference here. Terri Schiavo wasn't dying. Her brain was fried, but her other organs worked. She breathed on her own, she was conscious (if not coherent). Some pundit remarked yesterday, "Christopher Reeves would've died without a feeding tube." I guess the difference is that he could communicate his wishes, whereas Schiavo can't (if she even has "wishes" anymore).
Everyone gets on their respective high horses about this case, but it's a complete grey area. Her doctors say that starvation isn't a painful way to die, yet they administer morphine. They say she has no awareness, but claim that she is experiencing a 'peaceful euphoria' as she dies of dehydration. The parents claim they can communicate with her, but can't show any evidence other than unintelligible moans and what *might* be smiles. When is someone going to come to the front and say "We just don't know what's going on with her."
I wouldn't call it the beginning of wholesale Alzheimer's slaughter, considering this:
His living will clearly says he did not want one, Clunk said.
If this is accurate, when the spouse has power-of-attorney over health-care decisions but a living will saying "No tube" _also_ exists, which takes precedence? The end result will put an interesting spin on the recent upsurge of interest in living wills.
Not a chance in hell. The judiciary will be _the_ target of the right wing for the next couple of years. Expect to hear about "unconstitutional" Senate filibusters, "activist judges," "judicial tyranny," [SIZE=4]floods of individual anecdotes intended to demonstrate that the entire judiciary is out of control, and such from every conservative TV talking head, newspaper pundit and radio jock.[/SIZE]
--snip--
(emphasis added) And these bleatings and brayings very well may be PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS from our own government, masquerading as individual anecdotes and independent news reports.
Never before have caveat emptor stakes been so high.
she was conscious
Fuckoff, she had/has (what the fuck does it matter) no functioning cortex, it's like a truck with the engine on but no driver, it ain't going anywhere fast. I've seen stuff growing in research labs with more higher brain function.
The truly, deeply fucked up thing about this is people's own fucked up prejudices and warped systems of belief means she has to die, if she was conscious, in one of the most horrible ways possible instead of through a quick and painless injection. If that isn't an example of some truly convoluted logic of individuals that shouldn't be allowed near a ballot box let alone elected office nothing is. They represent what hunter so concisely called the New Dumb.
The only positive I can see is that myself and I'm sure a lot of other people will be making sure we have legally enforceable completely and utterly unambiguous living wills so this fucked up shit doesn't happen to us.
I doubt euthanasia will get much play, since many of the people lamenting the starving and dehydration were less concerned with the method than they were opposed to any sort of euthanasia, active or passive.
Congress isn't likely to press the issue of congressional jurisdiction, and that's too complicated an issue for the press.
So my guess is that the next issue will be Michael Jackson again. And that's about kids.
And so he continued playing the fiddle as the flames spread.
Heheh. At least
somebody is making some cash off of this whole deal.
.
The message added: "We're asking you to give a donation to help with our activism efforts to save Terri's life. Battles cost money; resources cost money; media costs money; we could go on, but you get the picture."
Hopefully,
these guys are too.
My mother mentioned that Jesse Jackson joined the media circus today. It took him this long to find someone black who was being disenfranchised??
Need a registration to go there. Too lazy.
However, I would think that if you have a legal, living will, then it is legally enforcable.
Since when do politicians care about legality?
They're nothing but a bunch of venal, amoral whores.
It's not terribly complicated.
My mother mentioned that Jesse Jackson joined the media circus today. It took him this long to find someone black who was being disenfranchised??
Last week he was supporting Michael Jackson, this week he's protesting the Schiavo situation. What demographic is he going for? Catholic priests?
Badoom boom pshhhhh (rimshot)
he goes where he smells a photo op that may result in "contributions".
he goes where he smells a photo op that may result in "contributions".
you just descibed virtually every politician.
The addition of Jesse to the big top is exquisite! He can french kiss brother Alan Keyes.
This letter to the Editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer struck me as funny and true. Read it for yourself.
[indent]Unsettling lessons learned from Terri Schiavo's case
What we've learned from Terri Schiavo's case:
1) Tom Delay is a qualified neurologist.
2) Two dozen court cases weren't enough to really figure out what's going on.
3) Michael Schiavo is after money, which is why he turned down millions of dollars to sign over guardianship.
4) Right to life applies only when it's politically expedient.
5) Medical diagnoses are best performed by watching highly edited videotape rather than in person by trained physicians.
6) Minimum wage-making nursing assistants are more qualified to diagnose a persistent vegetative state than experienced neurologists.
7) Fifteen years in the same persistent state is not really enough time to make an accurate diagnosis.
8) Marriage is the most sacred of all unions, except when it isn't.
9) Interfering in a family's private tragedy is a great reason for President Bush to cut short a vacation, but getting a memo that warns of a terrorist attack isn't.
10) Right-wing pro-lifers are the most compassionate people on Earth, which is why they are robbing gun stores or offering money online to make sure Michael Schiavo dies.
Scott Bourne
Gig Harbor[/indent]
man needs to be given a column.
that's fucked up. bad UT.
did you know that you can stop yourself from laughing if you bite your upper lip till it bleeds? yup.
Please, God, don't see me laughing at that.
Damn you, UT...
Ow, damn, my ribs. Where's the ace bandages...
*bleeding lip* didn't work for me......
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Brain-Damaged-Woman.html?th&emc=th
Appeals Court to Consider a Petition in the Schiavo Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 30, 2005
Filed at 1:38 p.m. ET
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (AP) -- A federal appeals court agreed to consider an emergency bid by Terri Schiavo's parents for a new hearing on whether to reconnect her feeding tube, raising their fading hopes of keeping the severely brain-damaged woman alive.
In its order late Tuesday, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn't say when it would decide whether to grant the hearing. It was not clear what effect reconnecting Terri Schiavo's feeding tube would have on her, as she approached her 13th day without nourishment. As of early Wednesday afternoon, no further word had come from the appeals court.
The order issued Tuesday allowed Bob and Mary Schindler to file the appeal, even though the court had set a March 26 deadline for doing so.
Its one-sentence order said: ``The Appellant's emergency motion for leave to file out of time is granted.'' Three times last week, the court ruled against the Schindlers.
In requesting a new hearing, the Schindlers argued that a federal judge in Tampa should have considered the entire state court record and not whether previous Florida court rulings met legal standards under state law. The Schindlers' motion also said the federal appellate court in Atlanta didn't consider whether there was enough ``clear and convincing'' evidence that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to die in her current condition.
...more...
sounds like there is some sick bastard behind the scenes nudging his buddy and saying, "watch what happens if we give them just a little hope. HAHAHAHA! Look at the dumbasses! they actually fell for it!" *sounds of knuckles dragging as he lumbers back to his desk*
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Brain-Damaged-Woman.html?th&emc=th
Appeals Court to Consider a Petition in the Schiavo Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 30, 2005
Filed at 1:38 p.m. ET
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (AP) -- A federal appeals court agreed to consider an emergency bid by Terri Schiavo's parents
--snip--
Its one-sentence order said: ``The Appellant's emergency motion for leave to file out of time is granted.'' Three times last week, the court ruled against the Schindlers.
--snip--
Maybe the check finally cleared....
Maybe the check finally cleared....
No shit huh?
I'm so over this whole thing, but damn people...
``There's a chance for a miracle,'' said Christine Marriott. ``Anything positive is a breath of life.''
By definition, isn't there
always a chance for a miracle, even after she dies?
yep.
I'm also over this issue (rather my id and ego have called a ceasefire), but I'm noticing something. She hasn't left the bed in umpteen years, and now she hasn't had anything in the way of nourishment for 13 days, but she's still kicking, figuratively. They just can't kill her, seems like. That's one tough kid.
That's one tough kid.
Or too stupid to know when to quit?
well, she *does* only have part of a brain left. It's apparently the moxie part, not the logic part.
source
[INDENT]
The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to consider an emergency bid by Bob and Mary Schindler for a new hearing in their case, raising a flicker of hope for the parents after a series of setbacks in the case. But the court rejected the bid 15 hours later the fourth time since last week the court ruled against the Schindlers.[/INDENT]
Psyche!!!
The article further states:
[INDENT]
"Any further action by our court or the district court would be improper," wrote Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., who was appointed by former President Bush. "While the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate discharge of duty."
Birch went on to scold President Bush and Congress for their attempts to intervene in the judicial process, by saying: "In resolving the Schiavo controversy, it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people our Constitution." [/INDENT]
Another "activist judge" appointed by some nutjob *gasp*, wait, Bush, the Elder. Scandalous.
Doncha know that "liberalism" is a communicable disease that's spread by the interchange of ideas? The entire judiciary has been infected, and must be replaced by GW Bush appointees!
I wonder if stem cell research would have helped Terri?
Well, not her in particular. Research doesn't move that quickly. And even if it reached the full theoretical maturity, replacing a damaged section of brain with fresh cells, the information encoded in the dead cells is gone, and at best she would be restored to babyhood. Better than death, but it wouldn't have helped "Terri" so much as give Terri's body a second chance at becoming a person.
Well, not her in particular. Research doesn't move that quickly. And even if it reached the full theoretical maturity, replacing a damaged section of brain with fresh cells, the information encoded in the dead cells is gone, and at best she would be restored to babyhood. Better than death, but it wouldn't have helped "Terri" so much as give Terri's body a second chance at becoming a person.
I know it's a little off topic, but you have hit on the very reason why "life after death" is an impossibility. People seem to forget that what they think, what they remember, their emotions, etc. are all stored in cells within their body, and yet they expect that when they die, somehow that all gets transfered into their "spirit". Crazy!
"Believers" are going cite people like James Van Praagh, and ask if it's not true, how do they do what they do. I think there is a perfectly logical, scientific explanation for his abilities, which I won't go into here, mixed in with a fair amount of good old Vaudeville showmanship. And, yes, I am impressed with his skills.
Life after death people (not me) would probably say either
1) Memories are lost anyway on death, as the soul is separate from the mind, (ie reincarnation)
or
2) Loss of brain function merely disrupts the connection between the soul's uncorrupted memory and the conscious mind.
James Van Praagh and John Edward are carnies, and aren't really relevant to any real religious discussions. I may think that they are equally incorrect as the Pope, but the Pope actually believes the things he says.
Isn't #2 what I just said? :headshake
I don't think so. You said that on death memories would be copied from brain to spirit. My #2 would be that memories are stored by the soul, and the brain just provides access to the soul. But I may have misinterpreted you.
I don't think so. You said that on death memories would be copied from brain to spirit. My #2 would be that memories are stored by the soul, and the brain just provides access to the soul. But I may have misinterpreted you.
Yes, but the point is that we now have scientifically backed evidence that memories are in fact stored in various parts of the body - not all in the brain, btw. The "believers" (not me - I thought I made that pretty clear), think that either the memories get transfered at death, or, as you say, the soul keeps the memories (or a copy of them), all through a person's life. From an Evolutionary point of view, that would be extremely inefficient, and nature tends towards efficiency.
A believer (of which I am one) takes it on faith that God is universally aware. Therefore (if the premise is accepted), it is not difficult to conjure a scenario where God reposits those memories elsewhere.
That isn't to say I accept the idea personally, just that people of faith have a pre-existing belief system which easily supports the possibility.
I didn't catch how that relates to the presumed efficiency of evolution. I'm not sure evolution is efficient - it just "is." Efficient implies that one path to an end is superior in some way to another path as well as implying a designed process. A non-believer cannot accept the notion that evolution is anything but a series of interrelateded causes and effects that is unconcerned with its final disposition.
I didn't catch how that relates to the presumed efficiency of evolution. I'm not sure evolution is efficient - it just "is." Efficient implies that one path to an end is superior in some way to another path as well as implying a designed process. A non-believer cannot accept the notion that evolution is anything but a series of interrelateded causes and effects that is unconcerned with its final disposition.
I was generalising, but you clearly don't understand evolution. You being a "believer" makes that understandable. Evolution is constantly experimenting. The general trend is towards a more efficiently running organism. Some species don't work out, and so drop off the tree. Others either continue with little or moderate change (eg. sharks, crocodiles), or evolve into something completely different (eg. whales).
I think this particular debate has been done to death in other threads, so I'll leave it at that.
The "believers" (not me - I thought I made that pretty clear),
I realized that, I was just paraphrasing the argument your theoretical believer was using.
Radio commentator Rollye James, always on the lookout for a good conspiracy theory, pointed out tonight that Pinellas Park, Florida is the HQ of the "Church" of Scientology, and their doctrine may well play into some of the goings on ...
Because of the way WPHT broadcasts her show, hours 2-4, followed by hour 1, since her first on-air hour is filled by Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor, I caught the beginning of her show on the way home from work tonight. She was supposed to focus further on the broad hints of interesting content that she gave during the show lead in, but I missed the rest.
I was completely fucking astonished by a report I saw last night on Michael's lawyer, who is some kind of a mystic in addition to being a lawyer ... apparently in a book that he wrote on his work in "end of life issues" he discussed having "
soul spoken" to a client in a persistent vegetative state and from that knew that her wish was to die.
I thought he looked flaky when he was describing how serene and peaceful Terry looked ... right around the time they started shooting her up with morphine because she was thrashing around and moaning too much.
Some exceprts
available from amazon.com
note to the reader. This post was stolen wholesale from an earlier post this evening on The Ciberbosque
Home of the Whale Penis Thread, in case you forgotI'm not one to argue for government intervention, but what is the harm in letting her parents take care of her? :confused: Or put another way, why do we need to kill her by withholding food? We are perched on the edge of a slope we had to roll the boulder up last century. Brain injury, mental capacity, senility, autism, retardation, age, race, social status... Barring a living will or an unimpeachable source of information of her wishes, do we really have the right to make this decision? I thought I was cool with this until I listened to Rabbi Gelman on the issue. Is a feeding tube really an extraordinary measure? I'd feel a whole lot better if the family had reached a consensus about her condition. I know my opinion doesn't count since its based, in part, in a belief about the source of life, but I don't want folks to think the entire cellar has reached a conclusive position on this. I don't even know if I've reached a conclusive position on this. We do need to understand that neither side's position is based on pure reason.
I know my opinion doesn't count since its based, in part, in a belief about the source of life,
That's not why your opinion doesn't count. None of our opinions count, and the opinion of the lawyers doesn't count, and the opinion of the judges doesn't count. We aren't her husband. Sure, it would be nice if he and the parents hadn't had a falling out, but things aren't always nice, and the order of responsibility is:
self
spouse
adult children
parents
self
spouse
adult children
parents
True. Rule of law should mean something.
My position is based on pure reason.
Well she's dead now so...
I was generalising, but you clearly don't understand evolution. You being a "believer" makes that understandable. Evolution is constantly experimenting. The general trend is towards a more efficiently running organism. Some species don't work out, and so drop off the tree. Others either continue with little or moderate change (eg. sharks, crocodiles), or evolve into something completely different (eg. whales).
I think this particular debate has been done to death in other threads, so I'll leave it at that.
First I will point out that this debate - the one we are having - has, to my knowledge never taken place before in the Cellar. To clarify, I frame our debate by challenging your assertion that evolution is efficient.
Secondly I will clarify that my belief in God in no way compromises my ability to look at the same evidence as you and and draw a more accurate conclusion. I'm not presupposing that my conclusion is more correct than yours - only that believing in God does not preclude it from being so. Einstien believed in God. I will also point out that I am not a creationist but fully embrace the idea of evolution.
So, here's the thing. You indicate that evolution is "efficient." You support your position by pointing out that we have fewer species today than we did "yesterday." I'll even point out that it is generally believed by those in the know that over 90% of all species that ever existed no longer exist. So, your definition of efficiency appears to be little more than a restatement of Darwin's position. The species that adapt better remain on the planet longer.
I would argue that evolution is neither efficient nor inefficient but merely an unstable chaotic system that tends toward an equilibrium that it will never reach. Weather changes, random mutations that continue to occur at a relatively constant rate, climate changes, terrestial catastrophes (volcanoes/earthquakes/floods, polarity shifts, etc.), extraterrestial bombardment and lastly - mankind itself are continually changing the landscape to which all organisms must adapt. These exogenous shocks to the system keep the rules governing which species is more fit to survive in continuous flux. All evolution is doing is constantly creating new species some of which stick around and some of which do not. To imply that evolution is "efficient" is to suggest that evolution cranks out "better" species today than it did yesterday. Not so. The ongoing creation of new species is entirely random.
In my mind, evolution is nothing more than two chaotic systems with one (life) constantly reacting to the other (earth).
For example, there is nothing to prevent evolution from cranking out a bacteria tomorrow that will kill every shark in the ocean and every pollinating honeybee on earth and then vanish from the planet (having exhausted its own food source). Would the outcome of such an event be a more efficient and stable ecosystem or a less efficient and less stable ecosystem? History is littered with examples of the ecosystem destabilizing itself through its own mechanism.
And it may turn out to be the case that the latest incarnation of evolution - the human race - will be the undoing of the entire system. Any system that spawns a creature capable of making the system less stable (if not destroying the system itself) can hardly be thought of as efficient. However, such a possibility fits very well in a model of evolution as a random process.
Well she's dead now so...
...so the autopsy will verify my thinking on the matter.
I don't know if this
guy is in the know, but wouldn't more brain imaging while she was alive have been more useful?
In order to begin to disprove my conviction that Terri suffered during her forced starvation her doctors would have had to perform an (1) EEG (electroencephalogram) showing cortical brainwave activity (2) PET (Positron Emission Tomography) Scan to show a reduction in cerebral metabolism (3) SSEP (Somatosensory Evoked Potential) to show brainstem neurophysiologic functioning and (4) MRI scan of her brain to show anatomical disruption. I understand that either these tests had not been performed in years or were never done in the first place. Although Terri was judicially condemned to death, she met almost none of the standard Harvard criteria for brain death.She did have an EEG and it was flat.
I guess we have to take your word for it?
No, there is plenty of information available on this case for those who wish to seek it out.
She did have an EEG and it was flat.
According to CNN's neurologist Dr. Gupta that is not correct. They had a discussion regarding it last night.
Nevertheless, Terri has passed away. May she rest now in peace.
It's a polite oversimplification. One EEG lead was flat because one section of her brain was dead.
liz, Dr. Gupta did not address EEGs on
Aaron Brown last night so on which show did you see him discussing this?
The doctor who examined her, and took the EEGs, said they were flat. Gupta based his diagnosis on the videotape, like "Dr." Frist and so many pundits who want to be considered experts on TV.
Gupta was on Nancy Grace, Larry King & Anderson Cooper. He prefaced everthing he said with a comment that he did not examine Terri and to make a general statement re: her condition from a video would be wrong and essentially unethical.
He did look (apparantly previously) at some medical data that had been released from previous trial information. I thought overall he was non judgmental and very objective which is very hard to do in this case.
Got it liz, thanks. from
Nancy Grace:
GRACE: Dr. Eric Braverman, are we convinced that Terri Schiavo feels nothing? I find it hard to believe that -- taking someone off a ventilator, that`s one thing, but allowing them to starve to death?
DR. ERIC BRAVERMAN, DIRECTOR OF PATH MEDICAL: I appreciate your empathy, but Terri has been dead for a very long time, essentially. And she has gone to God. And what you have there is a brain essentially filled with water and a flat line EEG of a persistent vegetative state.
And you need to understand that the empathy is being misplaced. We have a brain health crisis in this country, and this person has been essentially brain dead. Nobody has any hope of function -- even if it was MCS, a minimally conscious state, she would never recover. What you`re looking there is a corpse and an embalmed individual that is being preserved unnaturally, a waste of medical resources, a misunderstanding of false hope that`s been projected. It is a tragedy.
GRACE: Dr. Braverman, have you ever actually seen Terri Schiavo?
BRAVERMAN: I have spoken with Dr. Cranford. Actually, doctors don`t need to see the patient. The video analysis is a deception. What doctors need is to know a flat line EEG. I`ve kept hamster brains alive and guinea pig brains alive for ten hours in a dish and they had more EEG activity. You have to understand...
GRACE: Sanjay...
BRAVERMAN: You have to understand. She has less brain activity than animals. She has a brain filled with water or cerebral spinal fluid.
GRACE: Let me go very quickly to Dr. Gupta. Response, Sanjay?
GUPTA: First of all, you know, she doesn`t have a flat EEG. And I think that everyone who initially said that has disagreed that she has a flat EEG. Calling her brain dead just is not right.
And whether or not she`s in a persistent vegetative state, or a permanent vegetative state, or a minimally conscience, you can argue those terms, but I think it`s irresponsible probably to keep saying that she is brain dead. Because clearly you can look at that person and see that she`s not brain dead. It doesn`t add anything to the argument here, Nancy.
Braverman is using the "shorthand" of saying the EEG is flat because there was one dead section of her brain. The leads measuring activity in those sections would be flat although leads in other areas measuring involuntary activity would not be flat. Gupta objects because there are other sections of her brain that are not dead. Describing her as "brain dead" is wrong because she still had functioning brain matter that was not flat on an EEG. That functioning brain matter governed involuntary activity such as breathing and blinking.
The doctor who examined her, and took the EEGs, said they were flat. Gupta based his diagnosis on the videotape, like "Dr." Frist and so many pundits who want to be considered experts on TV.
Let's not forget Dr. Delay.
Finally - may Terri rest in peace (not anytime soon though if God allows television up there). I thought I had heard every disagreement between these two families, but I'd missed one until this morning. Cremation vs. burial? Apparently they're not going to get to have that fight since it sounds like Michael is being allowed to make his wife's final arrangements. Has this argument been going on for some time too?
Hearing it made lots of thoughts cross my mind - (ten years from now some nurse or family member comes along again with new accusations against Michael and the fight to exhume the body begins....) I don't know if cremation was always his (their?) plan, but I can see why it may be the best way for it to finally be really the end of this 15 year ordeal for Michael Schaivo.
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by
vsp
Not a chance in hell. The judiciary will be _the_ target of the right wing for the next couple of years. Expect to hear about "unconstitutional" Senate filibusters, "activist judges," "judicial tyranny," floods of individual anecdotes intended to demonstrate that the entire judiciary is out of control, and such from every conservative TV talking head, newspaper pundit and radio jock.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Sorry, poor wording on my part - I know they won't drop their attack on the judicial system, just the attempt to use the Schaivo case in that attack.
I guess I was a bit optimistic.
Originally Released by Tom DeLay
"Mrs. Schiavo's death is a moral poverty and a legal tragedy. This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Schindlers and with Terri Schiavo's friends in this time of deep sorrow."
I am just curious as to why Terri was eligible for Medicaid. Does anyone know why? I thought if you were married and your spouse had visible means of support you would be responsible for the bulk of expenses. Or, would have to re-imburse Medicaid.
Michael Schiavo is alleged to have received $1 million of a $2+ million settlement Terri got. But I have also heard that he got only $300,000. I don't know who to believe but I can't imagine that Michael Schiavo is in this for the money.
However, why would Terri not be covered by Michael's medical insurance?
Any thoughts?
Michael got $300000 and $700000 was put in a fund for her treatment. Michael's attempts to treat her ate up the $700000, and his legal bills ate up the $300000. I'm not sure about his health insurance/Medicaid situation, though.
Finally - may Terri rest in peace
Enter: wrongful death charges.
I don't know if cremation was always his (their?) plan, but I can see why it may be the best way for it to finally be really the end of this 15 year ordeal for Michael Schaivo.
I heard a rumor at work that the Schindlers' lawyers are going to argue against cremation because the parents see resurrection as a "potential" future treatment.
:eek:
more likely it is because they are devout catholics (or at least they play them on tv). i think that catholics believe that the cremated will be left without a body when Christ returns and that would be a bad thing. i'm thinking that if Christ really is the Lord of all and everything in the Bible is true - He can probably get around the not having a body bit. IMO
They shouldn't worry. God can uncremate her if He wishes.
I was just kidding about that, btw.
Just gotta poke fun at the parents' repeated insistence that someday some sort of treatment will restore Terri's brain, life, spirit, soul and what have you.
This just in: Terri's death has caused the Pope's health to suddenly decline. God is very unhappy, today.
(lookout123] i think that catholics believe that the cremated will be left without a body when Christ returns and that would be a bad thing.
[/QUOTE]My husband and I were discussing that belief yesterday. My problem with that is that some people (World Trade Center victims for example) are left without a body due to circumstances beyond their control, pretty much cremated against their wishes. And I don't think God would hold that against them...
I would argue that evolution is neither efficient nor inefficient but merely an unstable chaotic system that tends toward an equilibrium that it will never reach. Weather changes, random mutations that continue to occur at a relatively constant rate, climate changes, terrestial catastrophes (volcanoes/earthquakes/floods, polarity shifts, etc.), extraterrestial bombardment and lastly - mankind itself are continually changing the landscape to which all organisms must adapt. These exogenous shocks to the system keep the rules governing which species is more fit to survive in continuous flux. All evolution is doing is constantly creating new species some of which stick around and some of which do not. To imply that evolution is "efficient" is to suggest that evolution cranks out "better" species today than it did yesterday. Not so. The ongoing creation of new species is entirely random.
In my mind, evolution is nothing more than two chaotic systems with one (life) constantly reacting to the other (earth).
And so we can define another part of a real religion. Fractals. A religion that honors the real god, and that advances mankind by discovering more of god's laws. Fractals and other apects of an honest religion are a threat to pagan religions. Defined by things such as fractals is what religion advocates if it was real, useful, honest, productive, empowering, and relevant.
Evolution is simply another example of god's laws. This time it is called fractals.
Religions that asphyxiate the advancement of mankind and that promote a dead and pagan god also say all facts are only from biblical times. These fools would tell us that god had no more prophets after the bible was written. Nothing more should be learned because the bible contains all god's facts?
Nonsense. This is how luddites were enslaved. Beestie provides examples that were defined by more of god's prophets - Barnsley and Mandelbrot. Beestie demonstrates another chapter in god's laws - fractals.
Of course fractals cannot exist. The bible did not define fractals. Pagan religions and enslaving luddites? Same thing.
I am just curious as to why Terri was eligible for Medicaid.
I don't know all the rules regarding medical insurance. I spend a lot of my time arguing with mental health insurance companies at work, though.
I will, however, as is my habit, make some guesses that may prove entirely wrong.
Medical Insurance plans have levels of coverage ... they will pay so much per incident, so much per year, and so much if treatment is provided within a particular period of time.
With a catastrophic illness (which can be anything from a condition like Mrs. Schiavo's to cancer to kidney failure) it's not unusual to exhaust private medical insurance benefits.
When a person is disabled by an illness, it becomes possible to seek disability benefits, which can include things like a person under the age of 65 filing for and receiving Medicare (federal) Insurance.
You can exhaust the lifetime benefit your medicare coverage. There is also something called being a 60/60 violator ... if you spend time in inpatient treatment, you have to be OUT for 60 days before you can have another covered event. For most folks this is not a big deal, but for someone with a chronic illness, you are SOL.
That's where Medicaid comes in ... you can file for state benefits as well.
There are other funding streams beyond that, but may not apply in this situation. There is a lot of unfunded care given in all kinds of hospitals. And the hospitals have to eat this. Some years nonprofits are more nonprofit than they should be. Unfunded care is different from Charity care .... these are people who are given services that can't get any kind of coverage or funding. Folks who exhaust their regular insurance benefits are a full billing liability (i.e., a true loss) to the hospital. But, interestingly, you can't refuse to admit someone, or toss them out on their asses just because they don't have insurance benefits remaining ... because if you don't provide the care anyway you risk no longer being able to bill for any medicare payments,
even if that patient didn't have medicare to begin with.more likely it is because they are devout catholics (or at least they play them on tv). i think that catholics believe that the cremated will be left without a body when Christ returns and that would be a bad thing. i'm thinking that if Christ really is the Lord of all and everything in the Bible is true - He can probably get around the not having a body bit. IMO
I'm not going to question their devotion to Catholicism, but I will question their judgement letting the likes of Randal Terry turn their difficulties into his circus. The "Culture of Life" that JP2 originally addressed bears only a passing resemblance to what some American Christians have whittled it down to.
Being cremated does not violate Catholic dogma. Traditional Christian burial is strongly encouraged for, from what I gather, historical reasons. Early enemies of Christianity had been known to burn Christians bodies as a psychological attack against believers. According to Catholic teaching the destruction of the body does not impact resurrection.
Lately, the Pope may be pushing his argument too far, pressing for extraordinary means to support life. At some point, you just have to put your life in Gods hands. For me, I think that feeding tubes are pretty ordinary but that personal decision making is why we can't let the nutters like Randal Terry make the call for us.
Being cremated does not violate Catholic dogma. Traditional Christian burial is strongly encouraged for, from what I gather, historical reasons. Early enemies of Christianity had been known to burn Christians bodies as a psychological attack against believers. According to Catholic teaching the destruction of the body does not impact resurrection.
Well, that is not what they told us - quite vehemently. We were told that if the body was not intact, then there would be no body to rise up to heaven after a second coming of Christ. There was to be no question about this even though some in the class had the nerve to ask.
Also a kidney transplant was a mortal sin as we were told in one kind of pronouncment from Rome. Somehow that is no longer a poltically correct sin.
Even back then, I was having trouble understanding how this could be a fair god. A kidney donated to save a life was a mortal sin? What happens to all those innocent civilians blown to bits by a bomb? They had no body to celebrate the second coming of Christ. How evil was this god?
Is one who is fictional then really evil? They called him doubting Thomas - an ideal we should all aspire to.
Well, that is not what they told us - quite vehemently.
I'm sorry to hear that, tw. I'm born and raised Catholic from descendants of Eastern Europe Catholic and I never heard anything like that. My mother (as old-world Catholic as they come) has made it clear that she wants her remains donated to science/medicine and then cremated.
Its sad how many people in positions of religious authority (Catholic and other Christian denominations) have utterly and completely fucked up generations of people by interpreting and "adding value" to Jesus' teachings instead of just passing them along.
Its sad how many people in positions of religious authority (Catholic and other Christian denominations) have utterly and completely fucked up generations of people by interpreting and "adding value" to Jesus' teachings instead of just passing them along.
amen
And here is the ultimate goal of the Shiavo hooplah:
[font=Verdana][size=2]DeLay Wants Panel to Review Role of Courts[/size][/font]
And whaddya know, there's already a bill in the <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1070:">House</a> and <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00520:@@@L&summ2=m&">Senate</a> that would remove all jurisdiction from federal courts (including the Supreme Court) on any and all cases involving religion!
:mg: :eek: :mg:
More substantial rant on it <a href="http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?p=154731#post154731">here</a>. It's a religious-right wet dream and rather unlikely to pass, but that it is even being _considered_...
(And it's not just DeLay calling for hearings and remedies like these. If we Pennsylvanians can't get Santorum out of office next year, we might as well close the state down, give the keys to Roy Moore and emigrate to neighboring areas. I have my eye on the suburbs of Wilmington, myself.)
I don't understand what the problem is.
If I were the husband, I would arrange for the parents to take over all care and custody, (and financial responsibility), get a divorce, and be done with it. Move the hell on already.
Unless Terri had a living will (which I don't think she did or this wouldn't be an issue) then IMO, he has no grounds to want to kill her - I mean - let her die. If her parents want to keep her alive and accept that responsibility, then let them. What's the harm in that?
Because if she told her husband what she wanted and they were still married; I feel he should respect her wishes. Sure we feel sorry for the parents and siblings, but at some point you have to let go.... I feel sorry for those all involved. However, I don't think there are many as mean, as to just continue to fight as long as Mike did to have his wife's wishes carried out just to prove a point. The harm is the lady would have lived in a vegetative state possibly for years to come. Some are convinced there is something better in the afterlife. I may be wrong, but I thought you were one that believed in that theory.
And here is the ultimate goal of the Shiavo hooplah:
[font=Verdana][size=2]DeLay Wants Panel to Review Role of Courts[/size][/font]
I think DeLay's mother needs a retroactive abortion. :eyebrow:
Because if she told her husband what she wanted and they were still married; I feel he should respect her wishes. Sure we feel sorry for the parents and siblings, but at some point you have to let go.... I feel sorry for those all involved. However, I don't think there are many as mean, as to just continue to fight as long as Mike did to have his wife's wishes carried out just to prove a point. The harm is the lady would have lived in a vegetative state possibly for years to come. Some are convinced there is something better in the afterlife. I may be wrong, but I thought you were one that believed in that theory.
I'm of two minds.
(1) Michael, as her husband, has complete and total legal rights here.
but
(2) We have no proof she really wanted the right to die other than "She said so."
I think that's the crux of the issue for most people (hence, why the importance has been placed on living wills. A living will isn't just about if you want to be DNR, it's also about if you want to continue medical treatment long after you're declared brain dead or whatever.)
If Terri had a living will, there would have been much less issue with this.
But she didn't. All we have is Michael's word. Legally, that's all he needed, and I 100% support that, and think it was wrong of the parents to drag it out this way.
As far as better in the afterlife, yes, I believe there is something better. But let's lay down some what ifs. What if Michael was lying? What if Terri said no such thing, but after it's clear she's PVS, he decided she wouldn't have wanted to live like this, so SAID she made those statements? Doesn't that mean that pulling the feeding tubes is wrong? Clearly, if that is the case (and we'll never know) then Michael is guilty of murder. THAT's what the parents have a problem with. And I don't blame them for that.
So both sides of this issue make sense. It all comes down to if Michael is lying or not.
Our legal system doesn't provide the death penalty for criminals unless 12 people find them guilty without any reasonable doubt, yet it takes one man's word (with no proof) to kill his wife?
There is something very wrong with that.
One thing I don't get OC.
You say, if she DID want to be kept alive in a PVR state, but Michael said she DIDN'T, that's MURDER...
Why does that change if she DOESN'T want to be kept alive in a PVR state? If I sign a paper saying I want to die, and you kill me, that's still murder, right?
If you choose DNR, and the medical staff DNR, that's not murder. That's (1) letting nature take it's course and (2) Your legal and binding wishes.
To answer your question:
If she didn't want to be kept alive in PVR, AND SHE HAS DOCUMENTATION TO THAT EFFECT, no problem.
But that's not what happened, Tony.
Have you ever heard ANYBODY EVER say they wanted to be kept as a veg? :headshake
Have you ever heard ANYBODY EVER say they wanted to be kept as a veg? :headshake
I've heard people say that regardless of their physical state, if they can be kept alive, they want to be.
Is that the same thing?
I've heard people say that regardless of their physical state, if they can be kept alive, they want to be.
Is that the same thing?
I heard somewhere that Ted Williams is being kept as a vegetable.
In the frozen section.
:dead3:
I've heard people say that regardless of their physical state, if they can be kept alive, they want to be.
Is that the same thing?
You're one up on me, every single person I've ever talked to about this said no. If they were in a condition where they would never leave that bed, pull the plug. In fact, it was usually Pleeeeeease pull the plug.
I feel anyone that would want to be tended like potted plant is just selfish or at least too stupid to realize the strain they put on everyone else to no end. :(
For myself, I'd want to to have a window of say a month to allow for testing and hypothesis. After that, without a plan, pull it.
For myself, I'd want to to have a window of say a month to allow for testing and hypothesis. After that, without a plan, pull it.
I might pick a month or two longer to be sure, but I agree with you. This past week I downloaded a living will. Marci and I are going to fill ours out, our friends are going to fill theirs out, and we will act as each others witnesses.
If you look at the Nazi's T-4 euthanasia program, you can see where the line goes to murder. If you look at Terri Schiavo, you can see where the line maybe went too far the other way.
I don't want to bring money into it, but one reason for the Texas Futile Care Act amending the
Texas statutes was economic. Health care providers did not want to be responsible for terminal patients.
(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health
care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining
treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review
process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall
be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer
under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs
incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The
physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide
life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written
decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient
or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the
patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).
....snip
(f) Life-sustaining treatment under this section may not be
entered in the patient's medical record as medically unnecessary
treatment until the time period provided under Subsection (e) has
expired.
Now if a family is willing to pay, the good news is that there will be someone to care for that patient until the money is gone. And under our new bankruptcy laws, it will be easier to borrow against the house and all other assets for treatments because lenders will now be assured that there will be no chapter 7 and that they will be able to foreclose.
The thought that I might be in a PVS for years and that my wife would flush everything down the tubes towards the nonexistant possibilty of my recovery really scares me.
I know how the pope felt about all of this, but it would have been interesting to see the Vatican respond to him being in a PVS for 15 years. My understanding is that it is a lifetime appointment, so I guess that no new pope could have been elected. Here in the US, we can probably keep a large number of people alive indefinitely if they do not have a degenerative condition like cancer.
The reason that the term 'medically unneccesary' treatment is in that law is that even the most pro-life doctors have some point at which they know that the treatment will not help.
Here in the US, we can probably keep a large number of people alive indefinitely if they do not have a degenerative condition like cancer.
Sounds like Congress...
Sounds like Congress...
No, they're degenerates with a condition. :meanface:
You are in the hospital, you are killed.
<pre>
You are a vegetable You are conscious
+-------------------------+--------------------+
|1 |2 |
You said you wanted to live | Murder | Murder |
| | |
+-------------------------+--------------------+
|3 |4 |
You said you wanted to die | ??? | Murder* |
| | |
+-------------------------+--------------------+
</pre>
I guess it depends on what you call case #4. If you call it assisted suicide then I guess case #3 is not murder.
I suppose the difference for me is this:
If you said you wanted to live and they couldn't keep you alive: death by (whatever killed you)
If you said you wanted to live and they wouldn't keep you alive (but they could have): murder
If you said you wanted to die and they DNR - death by (whatever killed you)
If you said you wanted to live and they keep you on machines: following your wishes.
If you said you wanted to die and they keep you on machines: illegal
Does that make sense to anybody but me?
...
Surprisingly lucid actually.
You are in the hospital, you are killed.
<pre>
You are a vegetable You are conscious
+-------------------------+--------------------+
|1 |2 |
You said you wanted to live | Murder | Murder |
| | |
+-------------------------+--------------------+
|3 |4 |
You said you wanted to die | ??? | Murder* |
| | |
+-------------------------+--------------------+
</pre>
I guess it depends on what you call case #4. If you call it assisted suicide then I guess case #3 is not murder.
Legally, according to the law I just posted, it is not. A hospital can pull the plug on a patient after 10 days if the patients fall into certain categories. Courts can intervene, but the law gives the presumption of termination rights to the hospital unless the guardian can find someplace else to take the patient. This basically means prove to another hospital that the patient can be financially supported and that they won't be left holding the bag.
You can call it murder. You can also call buckets of fried chicken and real fur murder, but in the eyes of the law, it is not.
Example - The Ten Commandments say 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', and yet we have killing in spite of the Ten Commandments and even killing in support of the Ten Commandments.
What is this new thing I'm hearing about an email that's screwing up the Republican party?
I haven't gotten it yet. At least I don't think so. Maybe my spam folder ate it.
They have CNN on here at work, and interspersed with the Pope stuff I'm reading the closed captioning about an email that is messing up the republican party and a staffers been fired...
nothing on the website yet tho
If it's what I think it is, it's that memo about how Terri Shiavo is a godsend for the Republicans, and can be used to punish some Florida congressman. The original memo got a small burst of press, and dropped off the radar in the media, but conservative bloggers started trying to prove it was a forgery, and a few pundits and Republican congressmen started saying the same thing publically. Yesterday, a Republican staffer admitted writing it.
If it's what I think it is, it's that memo about how Terri Shiavo is a godsend for the Republicans, and can be used to punish some Florida congressman. The original memo got a small burst of press, and dropped off the radar in the media, but conservative bloggers started trying to prove it was a forgery, and a few pundits and Republican congressmen started saying the same thing publically. Yesterday, a Republican staffer admitted writing it.
Ouch.
Sweet.
That's the "before" picture. The "after" will be quite different.
That's the "before" picture. The "after" will be quite different.
I don't understand, could you please explain?
Thanks.
On 4/4, The Weekly Standard's take was that the reason people thought it was written by Republicans was because the media told them so. Let's see what they say now.
Well, I for one am shocked SHOCKED that a representative (er Senator but the since the Senates been debased by democracy...) of the people would use a families tragedy to further party politics and then blame it on a staffer! What has this world come to?
and now this...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7411079/Martinez said he earlier had been assured by aides that his office had nothing to do with producing the memo. "I never did an investigation, as such," he said. "I just took it for granted that we wouldn't be that stupid. It was never my intention to in any way politicize this issue."
:lol2: Yeah, right. He resigned because a) it came out, and b) he was wrong about the political bonuses the R's would get from interfering. Martinez knew. Here's a
profile of him from 2004:
When challenged, Martinez was too eager to assign blame to his staff or to groups he said he couldn't control. As a senator, he will need an office and a staff that speaks with the measured and centrist tone he says will be his own. He can't pretend to be above it all if the people he employs are not.
This looks pretty fishy to me.
They had to fight tooth and nail for years to get Teri's feeding tube removed when there was no living will and clear power of attorney. And here, the tube was removed despite the will and questionable power?
I know it's Georgia but....
I was afraid of this. The fundies have declared war on hospice!
I'd say that's at least attempted murder....
See! WND can report accurately!
The phrases "broken clock" and "twice a day" come to mind. This only proves that WND's not a DIGITAL clock.
