NationStates Jolt Archive

I find it curious that I've yet to see an argument - I won't dignify what goes on here by calling it "debating" - on the remarkable steps (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/brain_damaged_woman) Bush is willing to take to intervene in the individual lives of Americans. It's not enough that a court struck down a similar law passed by his brother, oh no. He's ready and willing to continue to drag out a legal battle that's already wallowed through the Florida courts for seven years by overstepping both his and the Congress' authority.

On this, the Democrats and I agree: let her die.

Enough with Terri Schiavo. It's a terrible tragedy, what's happened, but stop mudslinging.

Mudslinging? Hardly.

If this is an issue of national importance, so much so that there's a special session of Congress to pass a special law that applies only and solely to her, then it's worthy of being argued over in any public forum in the world. They're spending my money on this ridiculousness, after all.

Mudslinging? Hardly.

If this is an issue of national importance, so much so that there's a special session of Congress to pass a special law that applies only and solely to her, then it's worthy of being argued over in any public forum in the world. They're spending my money on this ridiculousness, after all.
I don't mean your mudslinging but other threads have shown otherwise... but I do say that the government should have just stayed out of this and let Michael Schiavo and Terri's parents work it out privately.

I don't mean your mudslinging but other threads have shown otherwise... but I do say that the government should have just stayed out of this and let Michael Schiavo and Terri's parents work it out privately.

Oh, well. I agree with you, then. Heh.

I don't mean your mudslinging but other threads have shown otherwise... but I do say that the government should have just stayed out of this and let Michael Schiavo and Terri's parents work it out privately.

I agree.
I cannot believe Bush entered into it.

On this, the Democrats and I agree: let her die.
I agree with you 90 percent in that the federal government is clearly disrespecting the independence of Florida.

However, I think its bizzare and somewhat disgusting to just pull out her feeding tube and let her slowly starve to death though. That has got to be horrible for the parents to see their daughter slowly turn into a skelton. This is a good example of why we should probably allow Doctor assisted suicide in such situations. Just give her a lethal injection; make it quick and painless don't just let her whither away for weeks, thats creepy.

However, I think its bizzare and somewhat disgusting to just pull out her feeding tube and let her slowly starve to death though. That has got to be horrible for the parents to see their daughter slowly turn into a skelton. This is a good example of why we should probably allow Doctor assisted suicide in such situations. Just give her a lethal injection; make it quick and painless don't just let her whither away for weeks, thats creepy.
But we all know that since doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, it means they must preserve the patient's life for as long as possible no matter what!

:D
Just in case anybody can't tell, i am kidding.

It's no new thing for a spouse to have the right to pull his or her partner off life support if there's no indication they'll ever recover. The issue here is who has the right to say that, her husband or her parents.

It's no new thing for a spouse to have the right to pull his or her partner off life support if there's no indication they'll ever recover. The issue here is who has the right to say that, her husband or her parents.
Her husband, when they get married, he becomes next of kin and gets to override her parent's wishes, doesn't he?

Her husband, when they get married, he becomes next of kin and gets to override her parent's wishes, doesn't he?
yes. the law is perfectly clear on this, and there have been numerous hearings and court proceedings which have all found her husband to be the person empowered to make this decision. the current proposed law to override his authority is so amazingly unConstitutional that i can't believe anybody actually considered it for a moment...yet here we are...

I find it curious that I've yet to see an argument - I won't dignify what goes on here by calling it "debating" - on the remarkable steps (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/brain_damaged_woman) Bush is willing to take to intervene in the individual lives of Americans. It's not enough that a court struck down a similar law passed by his brother, oh no. He's ready and willing to continue to drag out a legal battle that's already wallowed through the Florida courts for seven years by overstepping both his and the Congress' authority.

On this, the Democrats and I agree: let her die.
You're a singularly cold SOB, ain't ya!

You're a singularly cold SOB, ain't ya!
Here I thought republicans were in support of small government.

What right does the federal government have to interfere with an individual's life in this way?

I mean, I think they should overdose her on morphine rather than let her starve to death, but still...

Here I thought republicans were in support of small government.

What right does the federal government have to interfere with an individual's life in this way?

I mean, I think they should overdose her on morphine rather than let her starve to death, but still...
She has, IMHO, far more right to live than the murderers and rapists and child molesters on death row. Part of the function of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. The right to live is the most fundamental right of all. By not acting, the government would be giving its tacit approval to "pull the plug" on any other citizen without the ability to state his/her preference.

You're a singularly cold SOB, ain't ya!
*hands Raem a sweater*
Now he's a warm SOB! :D

I'm not sure if I'm right here but didn't the doctors try and ask Terri if she wanted to live, and then she managed to say 'I Waaaa-?'

Or was the news report I got that from ludacris?

The next of kin are allowed to pull the plug in so many other situations, what makes this one any different from the rest, exactly? Because her parents are holding onto some insane hope for something that simply isn't going to happen and are putting up a fight over a shell that used to be their daughter?
She may as well be dead, her parents are just prolonging the "life" of her body.

Furthermore, didn't Bush send the most people to death, like ever or something?

*hands Raem a sweater*
Now he's a warm SOB! :D

I'm not sure if I'm right here but didn't the doctors try and ask Terri if she wanted to live, and then she managed to say 'I Waaaa-?'

Or was the news report I got that from ludacris?
that was a myth. Terry does not have the physical brain structures needed for communication on that level, period. she can make noises, sure, but she is physically not capable of answering the question about whether she wants to live. her parents are trying to perpetuate the lie that she communicates and interacts with them, despite the fact that this is medically impossible given the state of her brain...it's jello, to be frank. her brain has been mush for quite some time, and she is no more capable of conscious interaction than is a bowl of that same gellatin desert.

she did, however, apparently make her wishes on that subject quite clear to her husband long before this situation arose, and she wished to be allowed to die if she were ever in such a state.

... didn't Bush send the most people to death, like ever or something?
Well, I can see I need to add your name to those like Skapedro, Chess Squares and MKUltra in the File for Mindlessness. :rolleyes:

Well, I can see I need to add your name to those like Skapedro, Chess Squares and MKUltra in the File for Mindlessness. :rolleyes:
why is that? i think it's a legit question:

if it's okay to end people's lives against their wishes, why should it be against the law to allow people to die in accordance with their wishes?

Well, I can see I need to add your name to those like Skapedro, Chess Squares and MKUltra in the File for Mindlessness. :rolleyes:
...?

You realize I dont' live in your country and generally don't care. I just heard this some time back, that during his term as govornor of Texas, more people were executed than under anyone else's time as govornor. If you would like to refute that, then fine. If not, then please don't stoop to name calling and being a jerk.

Also, didn't he allow the execution of someone who was mentally retarded?

You're a singularly cold SOB, ain't ya!

Indeed.

There's no reason why she shouldn't die. For all intents and purposes, she already is. She's not even really a person anymore, just a heap of living tissue. There's no one there.

if it's okay to end people's lives against their wishes, why should it be against the law to allow people to die in accordance with their wishes?
Don't you get it, man? We want to imprison and execute all left-wing commie pinko filth and let live the tyrannical Christian majority.

The hypocrisy of conservatism: Small government in theory, big government when it comes to overstepping Constitutional bounds and ruling people's private lives.

Mmm, I can taste the "COMMUNSMI/LIBERALISM/SOCIALISM LOOKS GOOD IN WORDS BUT THYR HYPOCRITCIAL 2 LMAO LAMO LOLLO!!1" retardedness coming already.

Well, I can see I need to add your name to those like Skapedro, Chess Squares and MKUltra in the File for Mindlessness. :rolleyes:
Long live ad hominem arguments!

Well, I can see I need to add your name to those like Skapedro, Chess Squares and MKUltra in the File for Mindlessness. :rolleyes:
Actually, it's Skapedroe :D

The hypocrisy of conservatism: Small government in theory, big government when it comes to overstepping Constitutional bounds and ruling people's private lives.
Exactly why I'm libertarian

Indeed.

There's no reason why she shouldn't die. For all intents and purposes, she already is. She's not even really a person anymore, just a heap of living tissue. There's no one there.
Kinda like a foetus, yes?

Actually, it's Skapedroe :D
Why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:

Kinda like a foetus, yes?
That looks like the first footstep of an abortion hijack to me, and I have to be honest, I can't muster up the passion to care about walking down that road. So let's just not go there.

Kinda like a foetus, yes?
Now now, Eutrusca, don't let that limey, Eurotrash spelling pervade your red-blooded American vocabulary.

Kinda like a foetus, yes?
Like a fetus that is in the middle of a miscarriage...

A non-sentient lump of living tissue without potential to become anything more.

Long live ad hominem arguments!
Actually, in order for there to be an "ad hominem argument" two things must be present: an argument, and a "homen" making it. In this case there was neither.

That looks like the first footstep of an abortion hijack to me, and I have to be honest, I can't muster up the passion to care about walking down that road. So let's just not go there.
please, yes...let's just drop that avenue, PLEASE, since there are plenty of abortion threads for us all to visit if we really want to have that discussion. let this topic survive unhijacked for at least a few more pages...pretty please?

Why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:
I smell* a thread hijack, to the abortion debate.

*with my big Jewish nose I might add - it's never wrong :D

Right. Topic realignment: Right-to-die, spousal next of kin rights, etc.

Discuss.

Irrespective of various thoughts on how she got there, at this point she basically has no cerebral cortex. You know, that important part of our brain used in higher thought. After a certain time of inactivity parts of you brain will die off and unless you are very young you aren't getting their processes back. This means that she is literally nothing but living tissue. The person that was Terry Schiavo is no longer there. As such, the smart thing is to let the husk die. Now, it would be more humane to set something up like lethal injection or even a hollowpoint .45 through the head. Unfortunately the way laws are currently set up she can only be allowed to starve to death.

Right. Topic realignment: Right-to-die, spousal next of kin rights, etc.

Discuss.
groovy!

i think every person should have the right to die. doctors should be permitted to administer lethal injections if that is what the individual says they want in such a situation. the individual owns their life, the government does not, and there should never be a case in which the government makes a decision like this one.

i believe that the next-of-kin should be empowered to make this decision if the individual is not able to do so for themselves, though i believe there should be a fair hearing to assess whether the next of kin is able to make this decision and if the next of kin has any serious conflict of interest in the matter. in terms of the conflict of interest, what springs to mind is a scenario i heard about in which a husband was accused of beating his wife so badly she went into a coma, and then was in a position of deciding whether or not she should be allowed to die. clearly he was not in a reasonable position to make that choice, since he was charged with putting her in that state to begin with. but beyond such extraordinary cases, the next of kin should be making this decision, and NEVER the government or the courts.

i would far rather entrust my life to the man i picked for my husband than entrust it to the government, the courts, or the political whims of the "moral majority." my life is not theirs to barter about.

groovy!

i think every person should have the right to die. doctors should be permitted to administer lethal injections if that is what the individual says they want in such a situation. the individual owns their life, the government does not, and there should never be a case in which the government makes a decision like this one.

i believe that the next-of-kin should be empowered to make this decision if the individual is not able to do so for themselves, though i believe there should be a fair hearing to assess whether the next of kin is able to make this decision and if the next of kin has any serious conflict of interest in the matter. in terms of the conflict of interest, what springs to mind is a scenario i heard about in which a husband was accused of beating his wife so badly she went into a coma, and then was in a position of deciding whether or not she should be allowed to die. clearly he was not in a reasonable position to make that choice, since he was charged with putting her in that state to begin with. but beyond such extraordinary cases, the next of kin should be making this decision, and NEVER the government or the courts.

i would far rather entrust my life to the man i picked for my husband than entrust it to the government, the courts, or the political whims of the "moral majority." my life is not theirs to barter about.

Well, I mean, both in general and specifically pertaining to this case. No A-word arguments.

Another conflict of interest would be if the spouse stood gain significant insurance compensation, or basically any other motivation for what might otherwise be described as murder.

I smell* a thread hijack, to the abortion debate.

*with my big Jewish nose I might add - it's never wrong :D
I hate topics about abortion. They're not so much "debates" as they are shouting matches.

This all stems from the fact that Terri Schiavo wrote no living will, nor gave her designated guardian the power of attorney. If she made these decisions ahead of time, this wouldn't be an issue. However, I hope it serves as a lesson. Write a living will, appoint a guardian, and grant him/her power of attorney should you be unable to communicate. I know I am. This entire thing is disgusting. She has become the object of both a family feud, and a political brawl. Terri Schiavo's life is already a living Hell, so why make it worse?

Another conflict of interest would be if the spouse stood gain significant insurance compensation, or basically any other motivation for what might otherwise be described as murder.
indeed. that's why i think the hearing would be important. however, in this case (Terry's) there have been MANY hearings, many legal proceedings, many investigations, and many years for the parents to make their case. her husband has been repeatedly found to be the right person to make this choice. the subject has been covered so thoroughly it's getting silly, and the answer has always remained the same: her husband is her next of kin, it's his call, and it's almost certain that he will choose to do exactly what she would want done anyhow.

Irrespective of various thoughts on how she got there, at this point she basically has no cerebral cortex. You know, that important part of our brain used in higher thought. After a certain time of inactivity parts of you brain will die off and unless you are very young you aren't getting their processes back. This means that she is literally nothing but living tissue. The person that was Terry Schiavo is no longer there. As such, the smart thing is to let the husk die. Now, it would be more humane to set something up like lethal injection or even a hollowpoint .45 through the head. Unfortunately the way laws are currently set up she can only be allowed to starve to death.
I agree. She is dead already. Why let her live a life where she can't even think?

This all stems from the fact that Terri Schiavo wrote no living will, nor gave her designated guardian the power of attorney. If she made these decisions ahead of time, this wouldn't be an issue. However, I hope it serves as a lesson. Write a living will, appoint a guardian, and grant him/her power of attorney should you be unable to communicate. I know I am. This entire thing is disgusting. She has become the object of both a family feud, and a political brawl. Terri Schiavo's life is already a living Hell, so why make it worse?
indeed. i'm barely old enough to buy a beer, but i have had a DNR on file since i was legally able to do so. i am utterly horrified by the possibility that my body could be kept alive to be abused and used the way Terry's has been, and even more horrified that persons in my government think they have the right to make that choice for me.

This all stems from the fact that Terri Schiavo wrote no living will, nor gave her designated guardian the power of attorney. If she made these decisions ahead of time, this wouldn't be an issue. However, I hope it serves as a lesson. Write a living will, appoint a guardian, and grant him/her power of attorney should you be unable to communicate. I know I am. This entire thing is disgusting. She has become the object of both a family feud, and a political brawl. Terri Schiavo's life is already a living Hell, so why make it worse?
Well most young people don't expect to have a heart attack and go into a coma in their twenties. Do you have a living will?

i think every person should have the right to die. doctors should be permitted to administer lethal injections if that is what the individual says they want in such a situation. the individual owns their life, the government does not, and there should never be a case in which the government makes a decision like this one.

i believe that the next-of-kin should be empowered to make this decision if the individual is not able to do so for themselves, though i believe there should be a fair hearing to assess whether the next of kin is able to make this decision and if the next of kin has any serious conflict of interest in the matter. in terms of the conflict of interest, what springs to mind is a scenario i heard about in which a husband was accused of beating his wife so badly she went into a coma, and then was in a position of deciding whether or not she should be allowed to die. clearly he was not in a reasonable position to make that choice, since he was charged with putting her in that state to begin with. but beyond such extraordinary cases, the next of kin should be making this decision, and NEVER the government or the courts.

i would far rather entrust my life to the man i picked for my husband than entrust it to the government, the courts, or the political whims of the "moral majority." my life is not theirs to barter about.
I agree with you, but in this case there was no clear prior decision made and the only testimony in existence is that of the husband who now has a common law wife he shacks up with while his wife lies in a vegetative state in a hospital. Not exactly what I would consider to be a reliable witness.

The lady left no "living will," and had apparently never told her parents how she felt about being kept alive after serious accident or injury. I sympathize with the parents. If they want to keep her alive, they should be allowed to do so.

Well most young people don't expect to have a heart attack and go into a coma in their twenties. Do you have a living will?
I plan to get one now.

indeed. i'm barely old enough to buy a beer, but i have had a DNR on file since i was legally able to do so. i am utterly horrified by the possibility that my body could be kept alive to be abused and used the way Terry's has been, and even more horrified that persons in my government think they have the right to make that choice for me.
But you don't get it: this all stems from the fact that Terri Schaivo granted no legal authority to anyone. It doesn't matter who the hell is next of kin, but unless the Supreme Court makes a ruling (where their decisions are final), it can be contested. Theoretically, every legal issue can remain in limbo forever.

I agree with you, but in this case there was no clear prior decision made and the only testimony in existence is that of the husband who now has a common law wife he shacks up with while his wife lies in a vegetative state in a hospital. Not exactly what I would consider to be a reliable witness.

be clear on this point: Terry's husband says that he "shacked up" rather than getting a divorce because he knew her parents had no intention of honoring her wishes. if he divorced her, her parents would force her to continue living, and her husband says that she wanted to be allowed to die. he says that he remained married to her so he could continue fighting for her right to die, even though he was essentially remaining wed to a corpse. yes, he found another woman who he cares for...15 years would be a long time to be alone, and widowers are not expected to remain solitary for life.


The lady left no "living will," and had apparently never told her parents how she felt about being kept alive after serious accident or injury. I sympathize with the parents. If they want to keep her alive, they should be allowed to do so.
whether or not you like it, the law is clear: her parents do NOT have the right to make that choice. her husband has the authority, her parents do not. that's how the marital contract works, that's what the law recognizes.

put it another way; if the parents were the ones fighting to allow her to die, and the husband was insisting on keeping her alive, who would you be supporting?

But you don't get it: this all stems from the fact that Terri Schaivo granted no legal authority to anyone. It doesn't matter who the hell is next of kin, but unless the Supreme Court makes a ruling (where their decisions are final), it can be contested. Theoretically, every legal issue can remain in limbo forever.
according to the current laws, when she married her husband she gave him that legal authority (and he gave her the same in return). in this case, and in many cases that have come up in the past, it most certainly does matter who is next of kin. that's how it's been decided in countless situations in the past. i don't know why this poor woman was picked to be a political toy, but that's really all this case amounts to. people are allowed to die by the word of their next of kin all the time, and yet for some reason we've now got a disgusting crowd of politicians trying to lay hands on her life and use it for their own ends.

whether or not you like it, the law is clear: her parents do NOT have the right to make that choice. her husband has the authority, her parents do not. that's how the marital contract works, that's what the law recognizes.

You keep saying the "law is clear". Maybe you are right but could you point to a law or case where it is up to someone else to pull the plug? I know the courts have long recognized it is a fundamental right for a person to refuse medical treatment themselves, but do you really have the authority to make the decision for someone else?

EDIT= I was too slow, you just answered my question.

according to the current laws, when she married her husband she gave him that legal authority (and he gave her the same in return). in this case, and in many cases that have come up in the past, it most certainly does matter who is next of kin. that's how it's been decided in countless situations in the past. i don't know why this poor woman was picked to be a political toy, but that's really all this case amounts to.
That, and a giant family feud.
[/quote] people are allowed to die by the word of their next of kin all the time, and yet for some reason we've now got a disgusting crowd of politicians trying to lay hands on her life and use it for their own ends.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't call it disgusting. Maybe Terri Schaivo would've wanted to be kept alive. In any case, the reason why she didn't die already was because she isn't in a coma or anything. My mom's friend has a sister with the mind of a three month old. She's been kept alive that way for almost fifty years, and yet no one killed her. That is partially because she came from a large family, and it is impossible to tell who is next-of-kin, especially when her siblings grew up.

Living wills and/or durable powers of attorney are not novelties. They are well established, widely known devices. For that reason I think the courts and the rest of us should assume that anyone who was competent before they lost their faculties and chose not to execute one or the other made a decision to leave matters up to their next of kin.

Bush has no respect for the authority of the states, individuals or other nations. The guy is dangerous and destructive, but he's POTUS because he came off like a more fun guy to have a beer with than John Cary. I love America like I love my family, but sometimes they both really piss me off.

dont want to sound cruel... but she has been on the tube for like what? 10 years.... and they think things are going to change tomorrow?.... bush isnt lettin stem cell research... so she is screwed.... dont get me wrong i love bush... but i disagree with him on lots.... she needs to die... sorry anyone who disagrees, but it is true

. My mom's friend has a sister with the mind of a three month old. She's been kept alive that way for almost fifty years, and yet no one killed her. That is partially because she came from a large family, and it is impossible to tell who is next-of-kin, especially when her siblings grew up.
Still a different case. Can she form words and properly focus and recognize various known individuals? If the answer is yes it's a completely different case than the one at hand.

bush isnt lettin stem cell research.
No, he isn't using government funding for embryonic stem cell research, biig difference then barring or restricting it.

I can see the point Terri's parents made at the beginning of this whole situation. Now I am creeped out as hell to be left in terri's situation, a husk of a person living off of feeding machines, but the Catholic religion, of which Terri is from, is pretty strict on life issues. Now I am not trying to make this a religious debate on this forum, but that is one of the major arguments being used by her parents.
Now that being said, this woman fell into a coma back in 1990, and after repeated court hearings, her husband has been found to be in the right. The fact that this has dragged on for 15 years is where the big tragedy is. one of the fundamental problems we have in this country is a lack of resolution and completness in subjects. This isnt the first time something has taken years to complete. Her husband is trying to move on with his life after a terrible loss and is having to struggle to finish something that should have been finished the first time this went to court.
Think of all the money that is being spent over this one case! I am 22 years old now. That means my parents had to pay for this when it started and I am having to pay for it now.

be clear on this point: Terry's husband says that he "shacked up" rather than getting a divorce because he knew her parents had no intention of honoring her wishes. if he divorced her, her parents would force her to continue living, and her husband says that she wanted to be allowed to die. he says that he remained married to her so he could continue fighting for her right to die, even though he was essentially remaining wed to a corpse. yes, he found another woman who he cares for...15 years would be a long time to be alone, and widowers are not expected to remain solitary for life.

whether or not you like it, the law is clear: her parents do NOT have the right to make that choice. her husband has the authority, her parents do not. that's how the marital contract works, that's what the law recognizes.

put it another way; if the parents were the ones fighting to allow her to die, and the husband was insisting on keeping her alive, who would you be supporting?
And you're sure his motives were pure and not motivated by insurance, etc. Right. Well, if my own wife were in a vegetative or semi-vegetative state my time would be split between trying to keep her alive and time with my children and grandchildren. I would do my best to honor her, rather than giving up on her or shacking up with someone else.

Still a different case. Can she form words and properly focus and recognize various known individuals? If the answer is yes it's a completely different case than the one at hand.
Well, that I don't know. I've never seen her, and I have no desire to see her.