NationStates Jolt Archive

Check this out:

Young Criminal (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050323/ids_photos_ts/r4209066064.jpg)

I find it very ironic that someone would be arrested for trying to give a dying woman water. What a horrible death: to die of starvation and dehydration because the law allows your husband to have absolute authority over your life if you don't leave a living will.

What the fuck? Things are really getting out of hand when the ARREST A KID FOR GIVING HER WATER.

I find it ironic that the family won't accept the fact that terry has been a vegitable for 15 years, her husband has power of attorney, and the national congress can't accept its role to stay out of the issue.

If it had been left to god, she'd be dead. If it were left to me, she'd be dead. I know I wouldn't want to live that way. Non-existance. All you can do is stare, you don't even register whats going on. Its not even human anymore.

While I support the right to die, I can't agree with letting someone die slowly like this. If you are going to let someone go like that make it as quick as possible.

I find it ironic that the family won't accept the fact that terry has been a vegitable for 15 years, her husband has power of attorney, and the national congress can't accept its role to stay out of the issue.

If it had been left to god, she'd be dead. If it were left to me, she'd be dead. I know I wouldn't want to live that way. Non-existance. All you can do is stare, you don't even register whats going on. Its not even human anymore.
How do you feel about starving or dehydrating someone to death? I bet you wouldn't do that to your dog! Why not just inject "it" with poison and put "it" out of "its" misery? (sarcasm intended).

If we allowed a dog to die this sort of death we would face charges of animal cruelity.

We can give our pets a death of peaceful diginty but not our friends, family, loved ones...

Check this out:

Young Criminal (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050323/ids_photos_ts/r4209066064.jpg)

I find it very ironic that someone would be arrested for trying to give a dying woman water. What a horrible death: to die of starvation and dehydration because the law allows your husband to have absolute authority over your life if you don't leave a living will.
He tresspassed.

If he gave her a glass of water it wouldn't do any good. She can't swallow.

How do you feel about starving or dehydrating someone to death? I bet you wouldn't do that to your dog! Why not just inject "it" with poison and put "it" out of her misery? (sarcasm intended).


I don't own a dog.


Why not, let her die but as long as Euthanasia is illegal, than this is the only way to let her come to her natural end isn't it?

Check this out:

Young Criminal (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050323/ids_photos_ts/r4209066064.jpg)

I find it very ironic that someone would be arrested for trying to give a dying woman water. What a horrible death: to die of starvation and dehydration because the law allows your husband to have absolute authority over your life if you don't leave a living will.
Jeez, what is this country coming to? *shakes head*

What the fuck? Things are really getting out of hand when the ARREST A KID FOR GIVING HER WATER.

They arrested him for tresspassing. Last time I checked that was actually a crime.


If he gave her a glass of water it wouldn't do any good. She can't swallow.

It might have done some good. She probably would have drowned and the whole stupid spectacle would be over with.

How do you feel about starving or dehydrating someone to death? I bet you wouldn't do that to your dog! Why not just inject "it" with poison and put "it" out of "its" misery? (sarcasm intended).
Well, if the right wing politicians in your country hadn't passed laws against entuanasia, then perhaps a doctor could overdose her on something and make it quick.

She has no pain receptors in her brain anymore anyways... it's not like it's going to hurt her to die like this. It is crappy though.

He tresspassed.

If he gave her a glass of water it wouldn't do any good. She can't swallow.
Probably true, but I do understand that the family is closely watched, has to go thru security checkpoints, and is closely watched when in the room, for fear of giving her ice chips - standard for patients with difficulty swallowing and to get rid of a dry mouth.

Check this out:

Young Criminal (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050323/ids_photos_ts/r4209066064.jpg)

I find it very ironic that someone would be arrested for trying to give a dying woman water. What a horrible death: to die of starvation and dehydration because the law allows your husband to have absolute authority over your life if you don't leave a living will.

Try not to be deliberately obtuse.

He was arrested for trespassing. He and another 11 people (including his father and 2 siblings) were "trying to give her water" by blocking the entrance to the hospital.

Whether you agree with the Schavio case or not, surely you don't think children should run around hospitals bringing people counter-indicated substances.

Whether you agree with the Schavio case or not, surely you don't think people should be allowed to block the entrance to a hosptial.

I was watching Oprah today (hail Oprah!) and the family was on the show saying that while unable to respond she was aware and would follow them about the room with her eyes, make sounds at the end of jokes and reply to some stimulas in non-meaningful ways. This isn't exactly a vegitable...

They arrested him for tresspassing. Last time I checked that was actually a crime.
Yes, and a very threatening criminal he was. Attempting to keep someone alive who is slowly starving to death. Put him in jail and throw away the key.

Probably true, but I do understand that the family is closely watched, has to go thru security checkpoints, and is closely watched when in the room, for fear of giving her ice chips - standard for patients with difficulty swallowing and to get rid of a dry mouth.

well, if she's going to die, let her do it. Stop trying to screw around with it.

He tresspassed.

If he gave her a glass of water it wouldn't do any good. She can't swallow.

Worse than that. See, she can breathe, which means that water would end up in her lungs.

To be murdered by the pro-life movement who wants to save your life. Sweet, sweet irony.

What I want to know is, where are all the religious nuts?

I mean, okay, either her soul is trapped in this nonfunctioning body and she should be freed to go to Heaven, or her soul has already fled and the body is meaningless. Maybe that's why I haven't seen much from a religous perspective on this case.

Yeah, it sucks. Life sucks. Remind me why this is a NATIONAL issue? Why the entire NATION is up in arms?!

It might have done some good. She probably would have drowned and the whole stupid spectacle would be over with.
True. Then everyone would shut up about it.

He was arrested for tresspassing - the glass of water was just the reason he was tresspassing. Read the article before you pass judgement; it's only s a single short paragraph!

Try not to be deliberately obtuse.

He was arrested for trespassing. He and another 11 people (including his father and 2 siblings) were "trying to give her water" by blocking the entrance to the hospital.

Whether you agree with the Schavio case or not, surely you don't think children should run around hospitals bringing people counter-indicated substances.

Whether you agree with the Schavio case or not, surely you don't think people should be allowed to block the entrance to a hosptial.
"counter-indicated"? Like dihydrogen oxide - water to the layman? And yes I do think people should be allowed to block the entrance to a hospital, as long as new patients arriving are not interfered with. Same free-speech rights there as anywhere else. I bet you would have no problem if it were a bunch of antiwar protesters in front of a military hospital.

Remind me why this is a NATIONAL issue? Why the entire NATION is up in arms?!

cause it opens the Euthanasia door. But the Supreme Court closed that one pretty quickly.


The religious right is there too, they're busy lobbying for blanket legislation on this issue.

Worse than that. See, she can breathe, which means that water would end up in her lungs.

To be murdered by the pro-life movement who wants to save your life. Sweet, sweet irony.
Kind of like how it's ironic that an eating disorder is what caused her to go into this state and now she's being starved to death?

"counter-indicated"? Like dihydrogen oxide - water to the layman? And yes I do think people should be allowed to block the entrance to a hospital, as long as new patients arriving are not interfered with. Same free-speech rights there as anywhere else. I bet you would have no problem if it were a bunch of antiwar protesters in front of a military hospital.

the problem is that they're on private grounds. If they were on the street, it'd be okay, but once they got on the hospitals property it became a no-no.

Kind of like how it's ironic that an eating disorder is what caused her to go into this state and she's being starved to death?

Hey, it is ironic. But the only ones to blame for that are the same people who want to keep her body functioning.

I'm all for giving her a quick shot. There's nothing left there but what amounts to a golem.

well, if she's going to die, let her do it. Stop trying to screw around with it.
That's right - "it" is not a human being, can't suffer, feel pain, etc. "It" is simply not useful to society, so is worthy only of throwing away with the trash - after a long period of suffering - oh, that's right - "it" is just a vegetable (sarcasm intended again).

Of course, a 17-year old that deliberately plans and executes a murder of a completely innocent woman, brags about not getting the death penalty because he is a juvenile, is a worthy human being, useful to society, and must not suffer.

Vegetable = garbage
Murderer = worthwhile human being

Interesting where people's priorities are.

While I support the right to die, I can't agree with letting someone die slowly like this. If you are going to let someone go like that make it as quick as possible.

aside from the fact that it is illegal to do anything beyond witholding medical treatment in these situations, terminal patients that are fully 'there' who have chosen to stop eating and drinking don't complain of hunger or thirst - the body seems to just deal with it.

That's right - "it" is not a human being, can't suffer, feel pain, etc. "It" is simply not useful to society, so is worthy only of throwing away with the trash - after a long period of suffering - oh, that's right - "it" is just a vegetable (sarcasm intended again).

Of course, a 17-year old that deliberately plans and executes a murder of a completely innocent woman, brags about not getting the death penalty because he is a juvenile, is a worthy human being, useful to society, and must not suffer.

Vegetable = garbage
Murderer = worthwhile human being

Interesting where people's priorities are.
I think "it" in this context was referring to her inevitable death. Not her.

That's right - "it" is not a human being, can't suffer, feel pain, etc. "It" is simply not useful to society, so is worthy only of throwing away with the trash - after a long period of suffering - oh, that's right - "it" is just a vegetable (sarcasm intended again).

Of course, a 17-year old that deliberately plans and executes a murder of a completely innocent woman, brags about not getting the death penalty because he is a juvenile, is a worthy human being, useful to society, and must not suffer.

Vegetable = garbage
Murderer = worthwhile human being

Interesting where people's priorities are.

1st part, just about right. Except that whole sarcasm point. I think she's a vegitable, she wouldn't survive if it wasn't for life support, she's been gone for 15 years, she shouldn't have to endure more of this pointless existance. Let her die with some dignity stop prolonging whats going to happen eventually. Like this - my mother used to be a dietition (before becoming a mother). The nutrient solution they feed to people doesn't give them everything they need. It will keep them alive but it erodes at their body, so, if she ever woke up, she would most likely be in a worse state than she is now.

2nd part - where the hell did that come from? Just cause I don't support the death penalty doesn't mean I'm soft. I support life sentances with no parole for all violent crime. Much worse than death penalty.


EDIT: if you read carefully, you will realize the 'it' pointed to inevitable death, not her personally.

I think "it" in this context was referring to her inevitable death. Not her.
The quote is hard to not interpret in the context that "it" = Terri Schiavo.

"If it had been left to god, she'd be dead. If it were left to me, she'd be dead. I know I wouldn't want to live that way. Non-existance. All you can do is stare, you don't even register whats going on. Its not even human anymore."

Well, if the right wing politicians in your country hadn't passed laws against entuanasia, then perhaps a doctor could overdose her on something and make it quick.

She has no pain receptors in her brain anymore anyways... it's not like it's going to hurt her to die like this. It is crappy though.
Doctors aren't allowed to do so, not only by law but as a matter of ethics. The Hippocratic oath prevents them from causing harm. Same reason the only thing a doctor does at a lethal injection is pronounce the death.

The quote is hard to not interpret in the context that "it" = Terri Schiavo.

"If it had been left to god, she'd be dead. If it were left to me, she'd be dead. I know I wouldn't want to live that way. Non-existance. All you can do is stare, you don't even register whats going on. Its not even human anymore."
well, sorry about that slip, I usually don't do that.

1st part, just about right. Except that whole sarcasm point. I think she's a vegitable, she wouldn't survive if it wasn't for life support, she's been gone for 15 years, she shouldn't have to endure more of this pointless existance. Let her die with some dignity stop prolonging whats going to happen eventually. Like this - my mother used to be a dietition (before becoming a mother). The nutrient solution they feed to people doesn't give them everything they need. It will keep them alive but it erodes at their body, so, if she ever woke up, she would most likely be in a worse state than she is now.

2nd part - where the hell did that come from? Just cause I don't support the death penalty doesn't mean I'm soft. I support life sentances with no parole for all violent crime. Much worse than death penalty.


EDIT: if you read carefully, you will realize the 'it' pointed to inevitable death, not her personally.

You are saying you AGREED with the sarcastic statement I made - that she was not worth anything to society, only good for throwing away with the trash - and then you say let this worthless thing "die with dignity"?! Trash deserves dignity?

I was watching Oprah today (hail Oprah!) and the family was on the show saying that while unable to respond she was aware and would follow them about the room with her eyes, make sounds at the end of jokes and reply to some stimulas in non-meaningful ways. This isn't exactly a vegitable...

Unfortunately, science shows that response to stimula in comatose may be reflex. Nonetheless, it is a stupid situation. The family is scared of letting her go(who wouldn't be?), they're pissed at her husband because they feel he is trying to dispense her, the government can't seem to know where it's place is, and political and religious nutjobs are making it impossible to legalize euthanasia. Fact is, the constitution is like the bible. For everything it does support, you can find something to contradict it. In other words, the constitution is very vague as to what rights we actually have. We have the right to "liberty" and "freedom". However, there is nothing to guide our intepretation of the document. The constitution doesn't really guarantee any rights to its citizens. It only describes the government structure of the states and declares the US to be a military nation.

"counter-indicated"? Like dihydrogen oxide - water to the layman? And yes I do think people should be allowed to block the entrance to a hospital, as long as new patients arriving are not interfered with. Same free-speech rights there as anywhere else. I bet you would have no problem if it were a bunch of antiwar protesters in front of a military hospital.

Try looking up "trespassing." You don't have a "free speech" right to be on private property.

Also, you might read this article (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:JqsZrg9V7WgJ:www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/11176657.htm+Woodside+Hospice+Pinellas+Park&hl=en) about the impact of the protestors on other people whose loved ones are at the hospice. Perhaps your compassion is a little lopsided.

There are hospital orders about what each patient may or may not have. Layman shouldn't be running around any hosptial or hospice giving people stuff in violations of those orders. As has been noted here, a glass of water would drown Ms. Schiavo. While I may think that would be a mercy, it is not a stranger's place.

You are saying you AGREED with the sarcastic statement I made - that she was not worth anything to society, only good for throwing away with the trash - and then you say let this worthless thing "die with dignity"?! Trash deserves dignity?

read it again.

1st part - pretty much right. Except for the sarcasm bit

That I didn't agree with, if you read the explanation below, you would understand.

You are saying you AGREED with the sarcastic statement I made - that she was not worth anything to society, only good for throwing away with the trash - and then you say let this worthless thing "die with dignity"?! Trash deserves dignity?

Using loaded words doesn't make your argument look stronger. It just makes it look stupid.

The quote is hard to not interpret in the context that "it" = Terri Schiavo.

"If it had been left to god, she'd be dead. If it were left to me, she'd be dead. I know I wouldn't want to live that way. Non-existance. All you can do is stare, you don't even register whats going on. Its not even human anymore."
That isn't what you quoted though. You quoted:

"well, if she's going to die, let her do it. Stop trying to screw around with it."

In which case, "it" was obviously her death.

read it again.

1st part - pretty much right. Except for the sarcasm bit

That I didn't agree with, if you read the explanation below, you would understand.
Sarcasm is when someone says something in an outrageous way to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the position. When you take out the sarcasm, you then make the statement true and one you agree with. Perhaps that is not what you meant.

Do you think that Terri Schiavo is useless to society, and thus should be disposed of at our convenience?

I was watching Oprah today (hail Oprah!) and the family was on the show saying that while unable to respond she was aware and would follow them about the room with her eyes, make sounds at the end of jokes and reply to some stimulas in non-meaningful ways. This isn't exactly a vegitable...

The definition of "vegetative state" is not being unconscious, as this article explains: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/23/MNGGABTH351.DTL


Unfortunately, her family is seeing what they want to see. It is perfectly understandable that they WANT to believe that their beloved daughter/sister is not beyond recovery. It is, however, the consensus of neurologists that she is.

While I think it would be much more suitable for doctors to euthanize her, the law prohibits this, and the only option left to let her finally rest is to remove her feeding tube. The only comfort is that it is almost certain that she is not aware of what is happening to her: "Without her feeding tube or water, and barring legal intervention, Schiavo probably has less than two weeks to live. But in a vegetative state, does she feel hunger, thirst or pain? "As a neurologist, I would say no," said Smith." (from the article linked above)

That isn't what you quoted though. You quoted:

"well, if she's going to die, let her do it. Stop trying to screw around with it."

In which case, "it" was obviously her death.
I quoted several answers in this thread. I never directly referenced who I got the "it" from. That is not the quote I got it from.

Unfortunately, science shows that response to stimula in comatose may be reflex. Nonetheless, it is a stupid situation. The family is scared of letting her go(who wouldn't be?), they're pissed at her husband because they feel he is trying to dispense her, the government can't seem to know where it's place is, and political and religious nutjobs are making it impossible to legalize euthanasia.

Up to here I agree completely. A rational, humane solution would be to speed her painlessly on her way.

Fact is, the constitution is like the bible. For everything it does support, you can find something to contradict it. In other words, the constitution is very vague as to what rights we actually have. We have the right to "liberty" and "freedom". However, there is nothing to guide our intepretation of the document. The constitution doesn't really guarantee any rights to its citizens. It only describes the government structure of the states and declares the US to be a military nation.

Yikes. The Constitution is more specific. It does enumerate rights. And it has a specific mechanism for interpretation -- the judiciary. Its not perfect, but its pretty damn good.

The Rule of Law is inviolable.

Terry schiavo is dead, her body functions because a machine pumps nutrients into it.

Jesus Hamas USA is sending kids to do its dirty work now?

I quoted several answers in this thread. I never directly referenced who I got the "it" from. That is not the quote I got it from.
That was what you quoted when you went off on that specific rant.

The Rule of Law is inviolable.

Terry schiavo is dead, her body functions because a machine pumps nutrients into it.

Jesus Hamas USA is sending kids to do its dirty work now?

So if the law said all people who use the words "Jesus Hamas USA" in a sentence must be put to death, that would be inviolable to you?

Careful with absolute statements.
Laws reflect the values of the society that makes them.

Sarcasm is when someone says something in an outrageous way to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the position. When you take out the sarcasm, you then make the statement true and one you agree with. Perhaps that is not what you meant.

Do you think that Terri Schiavo is useless to society, and thus should be disposed of at our convenience?

I think the courts have uniformly ruled that Terri Schiavo wished to die under these circumstances.

I think keeping Ms. Schiavo's body alive against her will is unconscionable.

I think keeping Ms. Schiavo's body alive serves no purpose, is inhumane, and unjustifiable.

Clear enough?

The Rule of Law is inviolable.

Terry schiavo is dead, her body functions because a machine pumps nutrients into it.

Jesus Hamas USA is sending kids to do its dirty work now?
As I understand it her involuntary responses (breathing, heart beating) are still functional. She is however, unable to eat. Okay, nitpicking done.

i would just like to take the opportunity to point out that 18,000 children with fully-functioning brains are going to starve to death over the course of the next 24 hours. just like 18,000 did in the last 24 hours, and the 24 before that. how about we deal with the real problem here?

That was what you quoted when you went off on that specific rant.
True. But, once again, I did not directly say that was the quote I got the derogatory use of "it" from, and have since clarified.

Up to here I agree completely. A rational, humane solution would be to speed her painlessly on her way.



Yikes. The Constitution is more specific. It does enumerate rights. And it has a specific mechanism for interpretation -- the judiciary. Its not perfect, but its pretty damn good.

Hmm... are you talking about the judiciary system or judiciary clauses? I have read but perhaps my version was different.

We DO have a judiciary system. It reinforces our rights however it does not give us rights. It is based on a group of people and our rights are relative to whether laws are passed or not.

i would just like to take the opportunity to point out that 18,000 children with fully-functioning brains are going to starve to death over the course of the next 24 hours. just like 18,000 did in the last 24 hours, and the 24 before that. how about we deal with the real problem here?
I pointed this out in another thread on the same subject. One person agreed and then it was ignored.

Terri Schiavo

I think we can all agree that this woman deserves all our sympathy, prayers, and general goodwill. She is innocent; she has done no harm to anyone and because her husband probably caused the very injury from which she now suffers, he seems to be anxious to silence her forever. That scum that calls itself a husband will pay, eventually.

This woman is not in a coma! She is not in a vegetative state! Any fool who says so is woefully ignorant. She has suffered damage, to be sure, but she can communicate, she can understand and make things understood - it has surfaced recently that she used to be taken in a wheelchair to the local mall, for God's sake! And her monster of a husband is trying to make it sound as though she has no understanding of what's going on and wouldn't want to live this way.

In case any of you didn't know, Terri Schiavo has been incapacitated since 1990 -- this is nothing new.

The "Cult of Death"

Republicans and Democrats seem to agree that ideally, Terri Schiavo should have a normal life. Yet what has happened? Democrats accuse Republicans of taking a "human tragedy" and turning it into a political playground that can be used to reach the minds of voters -- this is insane!

Since the out-of-control leftists have turned this into a political match . . .

The liberals and their death cult, which demands the murder of unborn humans, assisted suicide, and stem-cell research (don't get me started on that one), all be gathered under the umbrella of "privacy," have been trying to turn this land into something ghoulish and horrible for as long as I can remember.

Since they're private activities, why the hell are people reaching into my back pocket to pay for it?

The liberals are playing a very old game: their last stronghold is the judicial force.

The Court

The creatures in black robes who have the audacity and gaul to insist that they be called "Honor" and "Justice" (my God!) have been looked up to for a long time; for decades, people have bowed and scraped unnecessarily to the judicial branch of our government. It really is shameless.

Think about it: they put off life-or-death rulings just because they are too busy. They get life terms in the Supreme Court, which is unfair.

And I hope no one throws the "you can't make reasonable decisions when confronted with a time limit" argument - that's ludicrous. At least have some sort of regular confirmation, like once every five years, the Senate has to check up on them to see what they've done.

Look at people like Sandra Day O'Conner, supposedly conservative at the outset, but look what she is now! This brutal and undemocratic manipulation should really be stopped.

Oksana. Our rights are not relative.

first off it is ironic that a kid who was trying to give her water, would indeed kill her. Second she is a vegitable, and 80 percent of her brain is dead. Everything above the brain stem which controls breathing (including the occupital cortex which controls movement) is dead. There is no hope for her, you can't regrow a brain. Also she will not starve to death, she will die of dehydration, but since her brain is mostly dead, she will feel nothing. Congress and the president stepped way outside their jursitiction by trying to override the courts. Euthunazia should be legal, the government has no right to be involved in the way you want to die. Fuck this country, it least in oregon we have physician assisted suicide

I think we can all agree that this woman deserves all our sympathy, prayers, and general goodwill. She is innocent; she has done no harm to anyone and because her husband probably caused the very injury from which she now suffers, he seems to be anxious to silence her forever. That scum that calls itself a husband will pay, eventually.
Actaully, it was her own eating disorder that put her in that condition.

This woman is not in a coma! She is not in a vegetative state! Any fool who says so is woefully ignorant. She has suffered damage, to be sure, but she can communicate, she can understand and make things understood - it has surfaced recently that she used to be taken in a wheelchair to the local mall, for God's sake! And her monster of a husband is trying to make it sound as though she has no understanding of what's going on and wouldn't want to live this way.
Yes, you know more than the experts.

And the rest was pretty much garbage that I don't feel like paying attention to. Blech.

I think the courts have uniformly ruled that Terri Schiavo wished to die under these circumstances.

I think keeping Ms. Schiavo's body alive against her will is unconscionable.

I think keeping Ms. Schiavo's body alive serves no purpose, is inhumane, and unjustifiable.

Clear enough?
Ah, how we dodge and weave.
I ask again: Is Terri Schiavo of any value to society, and to be treated as someone of value?

As far as keeping her alive against her will, we don't really know that, do we? We just have here husband's word, who has a very good financial motive for wanting her death.

Oksana. Our rights are not relative.

Funny you say that because this woman's right to live or die, to die with dignity, for her family to see her pass with some meaning, IS relative to what the judicial system says. Otherwise, if it was not, they would not have stepped in in the first place.

I pointed this out in another thread on the same subject. One person agreed and then it was ignored.

it was probably me that agreed. perhaps we should just take up posting it every page or so on each of these discussions. or break into the fox and cnn and msnbc, etc. studios and repeat it over and over while slapping their goddamn talking heads.

*snip*

heh, no surprise this guy's from texas, really

As far as keeping her alive against her will, we don't really know that, do we? We just have here husband's word, who has a very good financial motive for wanting her death.
And you know, the word of her friends...

At any rate, her husband is the one who has power of attorney, it's his decision. He's not the first person to have to make such a decision, nor will he be the last.

In three weeks, you won't give a damn about any of this.

Evidently, Dakini, anyone who would say that a woman who is communicating with the people around her is a vegetable is woefully ignorant.

Yes, I'm sure you don't feel like dealing with the issue, if you're going to take aposition against it.

...it has surfaced recently that she used to be taken in a wheelchair to the local mall, for God's sake! And her monster of a husband is trying to make it sound as though she has no understanding of what's going on and wouldn't want to live this way.

Exactly! And people say the same thing about my potted fern.. but I put that in a basket on the front of my bike and took it for a ride around the neighbourhood just last week! So... yeah! </sarcasm>

Seriously, what the hell point did you think you were making there?

As for being able to communicate, color me skeptical.

hahahhaha....stereotypes are creating for a reason, and novus arcadia fits perfectly with the southern conservative born-again christian one.

Another aspect that is missing is that Terry Schiavo as well as other comatose patients, are using medical services that patients who will live could be using.

i would just like to take the opportunity to point out that 18,000 children with fully-functioning brains are going to starve to death over the course of the next 24 hours. just like 18,000 did in the last 24 hours, and the 24 before that. how about we deal with the real problem here?
So because there are so many other injustices elsewhere, we should ignore the ones closer to home?
Start a thread on how to solve the problem of child starvation, and we can discuss. Otherwise, it has no relevance to this arguement.

Ah, how we dodge and weave.
I ask again: Is Terri Schiavo of any value to society, and to be treated as someone of value?

As far as keeping her alive against her will, we don't really know that, do we? We just have here husband's word, who has a very good financial motive for wanting her death.

Your arguments are ridiculous.

First, no she is nothing but a drain on society. She is a vegetable who will never wake up and serves only to drain resources from those who can be helped.

Second, we aren't going on the husbands word. He took it to the courts. The courts decided in his favour. At this point, the choice isn't his, the decision is made.

Third, there is no financial gain for the husband. There is no money left. Not to mention the fact that he was offered 700, 000 by the family and 1,000,000 by private interests to walk away. He refused. Both sums are far more then he ever stood to gain from this.

What the hell is going on here?? I'm trying to support life (I'm not a Christian, by the way), and people are criticizing me!

Is this extreme liberalism so rampant that it affects even the most mundane communication?

Hmm... are you talking about the judiciary system or judiciary clauses? I have read but perhaps my version was different.

We DO have a judiciary system. It reinforces our rights however it does not give us rights. It is based on a group of people and our rights are relative to whether laws are passed or not.

I am not sure I understand your question.

The Constitution provides for the judiciary to interpret laws, including the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 37 (1803). (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html )

The Constitution -- particularly the Bill of Rights -- enumerates specific rights. It is true the rights are not self-executing and require some interpretation. Although all 3 branches of government should avoid infringing any of our rights, the judiciary is the ultimate enforcer and interpreter of our rights.

Setting aside whether rights are granted by government versus being natural or inalienable (which I don't think was your point), whether the judicial creates new rights is a matter of viewpoint. The judiciary does recognize rights that are not specifically enumerated as protected by the Constitution.

The system is not perfect. There is no way to have a pefect human institution. But I am not sure how you would propose our rights could be better protected.

Densim, you're leaving out important details.

The court accepted hearsay, nothing more.

Densim, you're leaving out important details.

The court accepted hearsay, nothing more.

What's your point? There's nothing but hearsay on both sides.

The fact that the husbands story is corroborated by her sister, who really has nothing to gain from her death serves to strengthen his case, as well.

The parents are just deluded. While it's understandable that they want to hold on to their daughter, frankly, they're worse then dead-baby parents.

that's right it's the liberals ahhhh the liberals are coming the liberals are c oming

Evidently, Dakini, anyone who would say that a woman who is communicating with the people around her is a vegetable is woefully ignorant.
Except that the expert neurologists who examined her consider those reflexes, not attempts at communication.

Yes, I'm sure you don't feel like dealing with the issue, if you're going to take aposition against it.
I"m not saying anything because not only does what you said seem full of shit, but I'm not american, so I don't care.

heh, no surprise this guy's from texas, really

Dear God, are you this juvenile all the time?

They should put her tube back in and pour percocets and vodka down it, sweet, blissful (but possibly nauseating, so add some gravol too) death.

Dakini, I think we're running around in circles... if you're talking about smiling and crying and saying a word here or there, that's just an unconscious reaction, to be sure.

But when it occurs consistently and she speaks words pertaining to the individual situation at hand, she's not a vegetable.

How is it a crime to give something (or someone, depending on perspective) water? Heres how:

That "person" is braindead and becoming a waste of our tax dollars. If you don't like that simple fact, think about this. If the person is not braindead, they are incapable of movement or communication and, very well, could be in extreme physical pain, if they are still capabel of feeling pain, not to mention emotional distress.

The real crime is to allow a case like this create a precident for bannign mercy killings and for allowing such blatant waste of our medical resources to continue when they could be used better elsewhere. Its basic logic. Let those who will not survive die, don't prolong them, particularly when they have no quality of life.

Add to that the fact that the husband has power of attorney and you have a pretty good case for killing her.

And seriously, what are you going to say in rebuttal? I believe in the sanctity of life? Yeah, well so do I. The sanctity of life, not the blind faith in life. Life carries inherent value, and we can't allow that value to depreciate so far as this woman's has.

So because there are so many other injustices elsewhere, we should ignore the ones closer to home?
Start a thread on how to solve the problem of child starvation, and we can discuss. Otherwise, it has no relevance to this arguement.

more like, "there is no injustice in this case at all (other than attempted federal meddling), but since we are all suddenly so concerned about the horror of starving to death, how about we focus that passion on people who could actually benefit from our efforts?"

and then there is the triage issue - 18,000 children (per day!) who could otherwise live full and happy lives vs one woman who is all but dead and will never wake up because there is no one left to wake up. it isn't exactly a hard choice.

I am not sure I understand your question.

The Constitution provides for the judiciary to interpret laws, including the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 37 (1803). (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html )

The Constitution -- particularly the Bill of Rights -- enumerates specific rights. It is true the rights are not self-executing and require some interpretation. Although all 3 branches of government should avoid infringing any of our rights, the judiciary is the ultimate enforcer and interpreter of our rights.

Setting aside whether rights are granted by government versus being natural or inalienable (which I don't think was your point), whether the judicial creates new rights is a matter of viewpoint. The judiciary does recognize rights that are not specifically enumerated as protected by the Constitution.

The system is not perfect. There is no way to have a pefect human institution. But I am not sure how you would propose our rights could be better protected.

I have skimmed it and bookmarked it. I will definitely read it in detail when I get time and can think more clearly. I want to believe that we have prescribed rights in the constitution, but after recently reading it, I can't say I do. Of course, with the internet, it is difficult to get a full copy and one that is as authentic as possible. When we read it in school, it was an abridged version and it was "reworded" for comprehension. Rereading it, I discovered that what we read in the 8th grade must have "reedited" forcomprehension, too.

Dear God, are you this juvenile all the time?

Look who's talking, mr "OMG teh liberals eat babies!!1"

Dakini, I think we're running around in circles... if you're talking about smiling and crying and saying a word here or there, that's just an unconscious reaction, to be sure.

But when it occurs consistently and she speaks words pertaining to the individual situation at hand, she's not a vegetable.
If she actually said anything for the past 15 years, the doctors would have asid something.

However, they observed her and found no such cognitive ability.

Hell, the part of the brain responsable for that kind of thing is long gone at this point. It's impossible for her to do anything other than breathe and digest.

Uhh, who the hell made you a judge of the quality of life?

What's next, old people, severely retarded people? Deformed people? What? When does it stop?

And no, this is not a matter of perspective - this woman is a person, a human being.

Your arguments are ridiculous.

First, no she is nothing but a drain on society. She is a vegetable who will never wake up and serves only to drain resources from those who can be helped.

Second, we aren't going on the husbands word. He took it to the courts. The courts decided in his favour. At this point, the choice isn't his, the decision is made.

Third, there is no financial gain for the husband. There is no money left. Not to mention the fact that he was offered 700, 000 by the family and 1,000,000 by private interests to walk away. He refused. Both sums are far more then he ever stood to gain from this.
First, following that logic, we should euthanize all retarded infants, since they only drain parental and societal resources. Perhaps you actually agree with that, as well.

Second, we are going on his word. The courts merely decided his word was good enough. The choice is his.

Third, yes there is. See the following:

link 1 (http://www.inclusiondaily.com/archives/04/10/21/102304flschiavomichael.htm)

and this:

link 2 (http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm)

look man, 80% of her brain is gone. The only thing left is her brain stem which is why she is not on a ventalator. The rest of her brain is gone, and a few hours of video tape is not going to prove anything, especially when used against the opinion of court apointed doctors and other neruological specialists

Dear God, are you this juvenile all the time?

Why yes, yes I am. Oh, and hush on the god bit, I'm incognito.

What's your point? There's nothing but hearsay on both sides.

The fact that the husbands story is corroborated by her sister, who really has nothing to gain from her death serves to strengthen his case, as well.

The parents are just deluded. While it's understandable that they want to hold on to their daughter, frankly, they're worse then dead-baby parents.
Intereresting legal point of the day, hearsay is admissible if the witness who said the original statement is "unavailable" which includes people who are sick or dead. Federal Rule of Evidence 804(a)

Thus, there is nothing wrong with the husband offering Terri's statements about her wishes regarding medical treatment. Of course it is up to the jury to decide if they buy his story but still.

more like, "there is no injustice in this case at all (other than attempted federal meddling), but since we are all suddenly so concerned about the horror of starving to death, how about we focus that passion on people who could actually benefit from our efforts?"

and then there is the triage issue - 18,000 children (per day!) who could otherwise live full and happy lives vs one woman who is all but dead and will never wake up because there is no one left to wake up. it isn't exactly a hard choice.
Well, I believe there is injustice here, and I suspect I'm not going to change your mind that there isn't. However, just because I believe what is happening to Terri Schiavo is wrong does not mean that I don't think 18,000 starving children is important as well.

Except that the expert neurologists who examined her consider those reflexes, not attempts at communication.
A Nobel Peace Prize winning neurologist said that there is a chance she can recover if they'll let him work with her. He's seen her and interacted with her.

To the dude who said the judiciary branch enforces the laws...they don't. It was Jeb Bush's responsibility to enforce the laws, and if it goes on to the Supreme Court it will be W's responsibility to enforce the laws inacted by the SC.

Haven't you people ever heard of Pat Boone's son? The same thing happened to him, and he recovered.

For those of you who spout this bullshit about how she is still sentient:

This is a CAT scan of a brain. (http://www.aurorahealthcare.org/yourhealth/healthgate/getcontent.asp?URLhealthgate=%2214800.html%22)

This is a CAT scan of Terry Schiavo's brain. (http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT%20scan.png)

Note that a CAT scan measures actual physical matter rather than brain activity. Meaning that's a giant hole in her brain.

This woman is gone, and she is not coming back, ever.

Dakini, I think we're running around in circles... if you're talking about smiling and crying and saying a word here or there, that's just an unconscious reaction, to be sure.

But when it occurs consistently and she speaks words pertaining to the individual situation at hand, she's not a vegetable.

You should check your facts.

Here is a link (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/flsct92304opn.pdf) to one of the many court opinions on the matter.

After a full trial on the matter, Terri Schiavo has been found by clear and convincing evidence to be in a persistent vegative state.

It has also been found by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Schiavo would wish to cease life-preserving measures under these circumstances.

Every court that has heard the matter has agreed.

Try to reconcile your knee-jerk opinions with the facts.

Terri Schiavo

I think we can all agree that this woman deserves all our sympathy, prayers, and general goodwill. She is innocent; she has done no harm to anyone and because her husband probably caused the very injury from which she now suffers, he seems to be anxious to silence her forever. That scum that calls itself a husband will pay, eventually.

.

You get the same response as the last slandering whackjob to rant about mr schiavo being a criminal or whatever.

It is amazing that in the fifteen years since terry schiavo's anorexia gave her a heart attack and the recent years of intense publicity for the case, not a single allegation of wrongdoing on mr schiavo's part has been seriously alleged by the florida police or any other reputable body.

Do you think maybe he wants to kill her because he is secretly a nazi? Her maiden name is SCHINDLER after all.

Maybe the florida police are nazis too and thats why they wont charge him for his heinous plot.

Maybe all the judges who have ruled on the case so far are nazis too.

Maybe terry schiavo sends money to terrorists.

Maybe he helped plan 9/11.

He's probably a drug dealer too, come to think of it.

And a serial killer and a pederast.

Where do these crazy, dishonest, slanderous allegations stop? Where do you whackjobs draw the line?

That's right - "it" is not a human being, can't suffer, feel pain, etc. "It" is simply not useful to society, so is worthy only of throwing away with the trash - after a long period of suffering - oh, that's right - "it" is just a vegetable (sarcasm intended again).

Of course, a 17-year old that deliberately plans and executes a murder of a completely innocent woman, brags about not getting the death penalty because he is a juvenile, is a worthy human being, useful to society, and must not suffer.

Vegetable = garbage
Murderer = worthwhile human being

Interesting where people's priorities are.

This is obviously an issue that you feel really strongly about. Let me begin by stating that I respect your right to hold your opinions, and I respect the basic sentiment behind your feelings - a sentiment about human dignity I feel we all share, though we all manifest it in different ways, and different beliefs.

That said, I feel you do use biased language, of a kind meant to insinuate things that are not present in the original argument. "worthy only of throwing away with the trash" is a good example. You feel (if I haven't misinterpreted you), that so long as a human being is still breathing, the human being is alive, and should be accorded the same rights as any other breathing human being. Others would disagree; they would say there is more to being alive than simply breathing and a few muscle spasms. They would say that the state of being alive requires brain activity above and beyond the minimal state that qualifies the term "vegetative" - or, if the brain activity isn't present at the time, some viable possibility that it will return at a future point. Lacking these things, many would say that the human being has lost everything that defined personality or identity, that this person has no self-awareness or hope of future self-awareness, and thus that the human being is in a state equivalent to death.

This is the premise on which you differ with many on this thread. And that's fine, so long as you remember that this is where the difference lies, and only here. Your statement, "worthy only of throwing away with the trash," refers to a whole other matter, one in which I don't think you guys disagree.

That matter is the rights of the deceased. Your statement muddies the issue by accusing the opposing party of treating the dead like trash when your real issue is that they treat what you feel is still alive as something that is dead; this is why you feel there is a conflict when they talk of dignity. In actuality, however, this talk of dignity only has to do with the dignity of the deceased (the category, again, into which many of this thread feel Schiavo is already a part of). Thus, when they speak of dying with dignity, it's a matter of offering dignity to the body in recognition of and respect for the person - the living human being with a personality, an identity, and more than minimal brain functions - that once existed within. A fair analogy (again, basing this on the view that the essential parts of Terri are already deceased) would be to keeping a corpse splayed out in one's living room. There is no dignity in that, and no respect. The group you are in discourse with feels there is an equivalent disrespect in keeping a woman's body alive when what they feel is the essential core of her existence is gone.

In this way, they can talk of the dignity of the deceased, a dignity that one can only hope to be afforded by the world at large, while at the same time stating that the dignity afforded to living persons is no longer at issue here.

So, again, I don't think you guys differ in terms of dignity for the deceased; it's only your interpretation of what it means to be deceased which has sparked this debate. That's why your language is misleading.

Also, in response to the rest of your post, which I feel touches on a different matter (the comparison between a murderer and someone in a vegetative state), I would like to offer the following:

1) As already stated above, the body in a persistent vegetative state has no plausible chance of returning to society, to being a productive member of society. Indeed, the body in a persistent vegetative state can only be expected to change in one way, and that is physical death.

2) A murderer, however, regardless of age, is still alive, still has higher brain functions, and still has the ability to change in ways other than physical death. For this reason, the murderer may yet prove able to become a productive member of society again. In all frankness, the young murderer has more chance of this than the body in a persistent vegetative state.

3) Also, following up on the above statements, if one group sees the body in a persistent vegetative state as equivalent to being dead, then the comparison you are making, between a person I should think everyone recognises as still living and a body that does not meet many people's requirements of life, is invalid in terms of weighing the matter of dignity. This reason, and the reason discussed in 2), account for why the murderer is seen as having "more worth" to society.

Anyway, I hope that clarified matters. In any case, I hope this argument is not upsetting you or anyone else here. I mean that sincerely. Online debate should never leave us feeling crummy, essentially since we share more core sentiments than we often realise. It's usually only in our application of these sentiments that we differ so greatly.

Peace.

For those of you who spout this bullshit about how she is still sentient:

This is a CAT scan of a brain. (http://www.aurorahealthcare.org/yourhealth/healthgate/getcontent.asp?URLhealthgate=%2214800.html%22)

This is a CAT scan of Terry Schiavo's brain. (http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT%20scan.png)

Note that a CAT scan measures actual physical matter rather than brain activity. Meaning that's a giant hole in her brain.

This woman is gone, and she is not coming back, ever.
Huh, there is a huge black gap in there...

It is amazing that in the fifteen years since terry schiavo's anorexia gave her a heart attack






she had bulimia which caused her to have a potassium defecitcy which caused her heart to stop beating for several minutes. that is all.....i agree with you...

First, following that logic, we should euthanize all retarded infants, since they only drain parental and societal resources. Perhaps you actually agree with that, as well.

Oh hey, a slippery slope fallacy! A winner is you!


Second, we are going on his word. The courts merely decided his word was good enough. The choice is his.

His word, plus corroberation. What about that don't you understand? But the choice is no longer in his hands. Now that the court has ordered the feeding tube removed, it's their choice, and their responsibility.

Third, yes there is. See the following:

link 1 (http://www.inclusiondaily.com/archives/04/10/21/102304flschiavomichael.htm)

and this:

link 2 (http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm)

Oh...What's this? He turned down more cash then he'd ever get off the settlement?
(http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/11/Tampabay/1_million_offered_to_.shtml) Goodness! What a monster!

Oh, God. . . . I remember New Granada.

I wonder if anyone remembers hearing about her falling over something in the dark hallway of her home? Am I imagining things? Could someone resolve that story? What the hell was that?

As for there being no investigation by the Florida police, they arrived at their home that night and no, of course you can't make a charge unless something can be proven.

As for speculation - it goes on nonstop! I hear talk about it all the time.

Did you know that after receiving I don't know how many truckloads of money, he immediately put his wife on Medicade?

Did you know that after receiving I don't know how many truckloads of money, he immediately put his wife on Medicade?

What are you talking about? 700,000 of the settlement they won went straight into a trust in which every single dollar spent must be okayed by a judge. I don't know where you get your information, but it's just flat out wrong.

"There is no amount of money anyone can offer him to induce him to betray his promise to Terri. . . . He's simply not going to betray her for money."

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww......

May I humbly submit to my friend that regardless of how much money was put into a trust fund, Terri is on Medicade? Look it up.

Last time I checked, that was fraud.

Out of the guy's own mouth, this statement made by Terri about not wanting to live the way she's living now, was based on their watching a documentary or TV movie together, and she casually mentions to him: "I would never want to live like that."

Note that he's trucking around with a woman (a woman with whom he had children) at this moment.

Another aspect that is missing is that Terry Schiavo as well as other comatose patients, are using medical services that patients who will live could be using.


actually the hospice she is in is for terminal patients

Immediately after her conditioned was made clear he picked up with some woman (not the one who had his kids, but one before that), who said she couldn't stand the way he talked about waiting for his wife to die.

And don't forget the nurse's statement that he injected her with insulin in several places on her body, when no one was in the room.

Last time I checked, that was fraud.

Out of the guy's own mouth, this statement made by Terri about not wanting to live the way she's living now, was based on their watching a documentary or TV movie together, and she casually mentions to him: "I would never want to live like that."

Note that he's trucking around with a woman (a woman with whom he had children) at this moment.

Out of the guys own mouth? Or out of the mouths of politicians trying to create sound-bytes?

It's the latter, in case you didn't realize. While at the courts, it was determined that she mentioned it on multiple occasions. To her sister too, since she corroberated the husbands story.

And so what if he's trucking around with another woman? Terri Shiavo has been a vegetable for 15 years. He's spent plenty time waiting and hoping she'd come back, but once it became clear she wasn't, why should he be expected to mourn for the rest of his life?

Christ, people need to move on. Frankly, her parents should take some notes.

And don't forget the nurse's statement that he injected her with insulin in several places on her body, when no one was in the room.

I don't suppose you see the inherent contridiction in that statement? Just how ridiculous it is?

Sarcasm is when someone says something in an outrageous way to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the position. When you take out the sarcasm, you then make the statement true and one you agree with. Perhaps that is not what you meant.

Do you think that Terri Schiavo is useless to society, and thus should be disposed of at our convenience?

I'm going to stop arguing because it is late.

Yes. I think she should be allowed to die. End of story.

And the entire fucking judicial system needs to be revamped, all the way to the Supreme Court (since that's where the major damage is done, anyway).

On a positive note...I heard that law offices in Florida are swamped with people who want to enact Living Wills.

So, if we're lucky, we won't have to deal with a situation like this EVER AGAIN
---

Oh, and erhm....she's already gone. :(

It's not the situation one would hope for, but she really should never have made it this far. The only humane thing to do, in my view, is to let her die.

I have skimmed it and bookmarked it. I will definitely read it in detail when I get time and can think more clearly. I want to believe that we have prescribed rights in the constitution, but after recently reading it, I can't say I do. Of course, with the internet, it is difficult to get a full copy and one that is as authentic as possible. When we read it in school, it was an abridged version and it was "reworded" for comprehension. Rereading it, I discovered that what we read in the 8th grade must have "reedited" forcomprehension, too.

The Marbury case only explains the power of judicial review. Now that I understand your concerns, it may not be that helpful for you.

At this link (http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/), you will find a reliable authentic copy of the Constitution including amendments, along with reliable annotations.

This (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html) is another unimpeachable source.

If you are really suspicious, at this link (http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/charters_downloads.html) you can download high-resolution images of the actual parchment of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc., from the U.S. National Archives.

Also, here is a link (http://members.aol.com/IpsoFacto3/constit.html) to tons of other links with good information about the Constitution.

I hope this helps. Contact me view telegram if you have more questions.

It's almost been a week now. I personally think its now too late to re-insert the feeding tube. At this time her Kidneys and Livers are probably starting to malfunction. I feel sorry for Terri. To suffer through 15 years of Hell, but hopefully in the next few days she'll be with the angels. God Bless you Terri.

As for the parents. I'm sorry for their eventual lost, and I know they didn't want to let their daughter go. I mean if I was a father, I would've felt the same way, I mean I wouldn't want to see my own flesh and blood die before me. But, I think they should take in comfort, knowing that soon she won't be suffering anymore.

As to the husband. For someone who turned down alot of money, for someone who spent the first 7 years for treatment, and the second 8 years trying to fight for her right to die, your ok.

And the entire fucking judicial system needs to be revamped, all the way to the Supreme Court (since that's where the major damage is done, anyway).

Yeah, damn that judiciary and it's enforcing the seperation of powers!

Look, the congress bill was a Bill of Attainder. Whatever your opinion of the judiciary, the fact of the matter is they can't allow it. It's explicitly against the Constitution.

I find this totally crazy that the police should arrest a young boy for JUST giving water to a dying woman ...

This is for the police : :mp5:

I find this totally crazy that the police should arrest a young boy for JUST giving water to a dying woman ...

This is for the police : :mp5:

Probably a lot of other people would too... if that was what had happened.

Now go look up the definition of "trespassing".

Hey, Novus, I love how you're so good at, y'know, giving sources...

And the entire fucking judicial system needs to be revamped, all the way to the Supreme Court (since that's where the major damage is done, anyway).

Get. A. Grip.

Before you decide our entire judicial system needs revamped, perhaps you should educate yourself.

Here are some facts:

The following consists of excerpts from the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/flsct92304opn.pdf) on Sept. 23, 2004 (with my edits in brackets):

In May of 1998, eight years after Theresa lost consciousness, Michael petitioned the guardianship court to authorize the termination of life-prolonging procedures. By filing this petition, which the Schindlers opposed, Michael placed the difficult decision in the hands of the court.

After a trial, at which both Michael and the Schindlers presented evidence, the guardianship court issued an extensive written order authorizing the discontinuance of artificial life support. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Theresa Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and that Theresa would elect to cease life-prolonging procedures if she were competent to make her own decision. This order was affirmed on direct appeal, see Schiavo I, 780 So. 2d at 177.

...

The severity of Theresa’s medical condition was explained by the Second
District as follows:
The evidence is overwhelming that Theresa is in a permanent or persistent vegetative state. It is important to understand that a persistent vegetative state is not simply a coma. She is not asleep. She has cycles of apparent wakefulness and apparent sleep without any cognition or awareness. As she breathes, she often makes moaning sounds. Theresa has severe contractures of her hands, elbows, knees, and feet.

Over the span of this last decade, Theresa’s brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid.

Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true
miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an
unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her
and care for her most private needs. She could remain in this state for
many years.

In affirming the trial court’s order, the Second
District concluded by stating:
In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we
conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.
Schiavo I, 780 So. 2d at 180.

[Although the guardianship court’s final order authorizing the termination of
life-prolonging procedures was affirmed on direct appeal, the litigation continued because the Schindlers began an attack on the final order. After several court and appellate decisions against the Schindlers, they were granted a new hearing.]

The Second District permitted the Schindlers to present evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the judgment was no longer equitable and specifically held:
To meet this burden, they must establish that new treatment offers sufficient promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo’s cerebral cortex—significantly improving the quality of Mrs. Schiavo’s life—so that she herself would elect to undergo this treatment and would reverse the prior decision to withdraw life-prolonging procedures.
Id.

The Second District required an additional set of medical examinations of Theresa and instructed that one of the physicians must be a new, independent physician selected either by the agreement of the parties or, if they could not agree, by the appointment of the guardianship court. See id. at 646.

After conducting a hearing for the purpose set forth in the Second District’s
decision, the guardianship court denied the Schindlers’ motion for relief from
judgment. See In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 851 So. 2d 182, 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Schiavo IV). In reviewing the trial court’s order, the Second District explained that it was “not reviewing a final judgment in this appellate proceeding. The final judgment was entered several years ago and has already been affirmed by this court.” Id. at 185-86. However, the Second District carefully examined the record:
Despite our decision that the appropriate standard of review is
abuse of discretion, this court has closely examined all of the evidence
in this record. We have repeatedly examined the videotapes, not
merely watching short segments but carefully observing the tapes in
their entirety. We have examined the brain scans with the eyes of
educated laypersons and considered the explanations provided by the
doctors in the transcripts. We have concluded that, if we were called
upon to review the guardianship court’s decision de novo, we would
still affirm it.
Id. at 186.

Finally, the Second District concluded its fourth opinion in the Schiavo case with the following observation:

The judges on this panel are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law. Each of us, however, has our own family, our own loved ones, our own children. From our review of the videotapes of Mrs. Schiavo, despite the irrefutable evidence that her cerebral cortex has sustained the most severe of irreparable injuries, we understand why a parent who had raised and nurtured a child from conception would hold out hope that some level of cognitive function remained. If Mrs. Schiavo were our own daughter, we could not but hold to such a faith.

But in the end, this case is not about the aspirations that loving parents have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo’s right to make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her husband. . . . It may be unfortunate that when families cannot agree, the best forum we can offer for this private, personal decision is a public courtroom and the best decision-maker we can provide is a judge with no prior knowledge of the ward, but the law currently provides no better solution that adequately protects the interests of promoting the value of life. We have previously affirmed the guardianship court’s decision in this regard, and we now affirm the denial of a motion for relief from that judgment.

...

Theresa’s nutrition and hydration tube was removed on October 15, 2003.
On October 21, 2003, the Legislature enacted chapter 2003-418, the
Governor signed the Act into law, and the Governor issued executive order No. 03-201 to stay the continued withholding of nutrition and hydration from Theresa. The nutrition and hydration tube was reinserted pursuant to the Governor’s executive order.

On the same day, Michael Schiavo brought the action for declaratory judgment in the circuit court. Relying on undisputed facts and legal argument, the circuit court entered a final summary judgment on May 6, 2004, in favor of Michael Schiavo, finding the Act unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to Theresa. Specifically, the circuit court found that chapter 2003-418 was unconstitutional on its face as an unlawful delegation of legislative authority and as a violation of the right to privacy, and unconstitutional as applied because it allowed the Governor to encroach upon the judicial power and to retroactively abolish Theresa’s vested right to privacy.

In the linked opinion, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision on Sept. 23, 2004.

During the course of the litigation, 3 separate guardians ad litem – independent individuals with no stake in the case – have been appointed by the courts. 2 were attorneys and one was a doctor. The last was requested by Gov. Jeb Bush. All have concluded that Ms. Schiavo would wish the life-preserving measures to cease under her current circumstances and have testified to that conclusion in the trial and various hearings.

There has been an extensive trial, a separate extensive hearing at which multiple qualified physicians testified, and at least 7 separate appeals. This includes appeals that have been heard by the Florida Supreme Court twice, that have gone to the US Supreme Court before, and have been decided by both federal and state courts.

Here are links to copies of just some of the orders and opinions in the case:
Order by Judge Greer setting Oct. 15, 2003 as the date when removal of the feeding tube can begin (Sept. 17, 2003) (http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/Order%20of%20Death%20091703.pdf)
Order by Fla. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals denying motion for a stay (March 16, 2005) (http://www.2dca.org/schiavo/order.pdf)
Order setting March 18, 2005 as the day to withdraw Schiavo's feeding tube (Feb. 25, 2005) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/22505ctord.pdf)
U.S. Supreme Court Order rejecting a request to consider arguments on the case (March 17, 2005) (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/031705pzr.pdf)
US District Court Order denying the request of Terri Schiavo’s parents to reinsert a feeding tube into their daughter (March 22, 2005) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32205fjord.pdf)
11th Circuit Opinion In 2-1 vote, a federal appeals court denies a legal request to reinsert a feeding tube into Terri Schiavo (March 23, 2005) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32305opn11.pdf)
The 11th Circuit Order denying Terri Schiavo’s parents request for a rehearing (March 23, 2005) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32305norhrng.pdf)

After a full trial, a second extensive hearing, dozens of motions, numerous court rulings, numerous appeals, etc., the courts have uniformly held that, by clear and convincing evidence, Ms. Schiavo is in a persistent vegatative state and would wish to die under these circumstances.

Based on the "hearsay" you've read or heard you disagree factually with all of these judges, guardians ad litem, etc., who have no personal stake in the matter, are trained to decide these questions, and have heard extensive facts -- including the presentations of Ms. Schiavo's parents. Tough. Your opinion is unreasonable.

We execute people who have received far less judicial review of their cases than this.

A Nobel Peace Prize winning neurologist said that there is a chance she can recover if they'll let him work with her. He's seen her and interacted with her.

To the dude who said the judiciary branch enforces the laws...they don't. It was Jeb Bush's responsibility to enforce the laws, and if it goes on to the Supreme Court it will be W's responsibility to enforce the laws inacted by the SC.

Haven't you people ever heard of Pat Boone's son? The same thing happened to him, and he recovered.


Are you refering to William P. Cheshire?

He didn't formally examine her. Just a bedside check and viewed the family video tapes.

All other neurologists that formally examined her said she is in a PVS. There are tests you do to declare somebody is in a PVS.

Finally, he has been associated with the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, an organization formed in the 1990s by leading Christian bioethicists. His viewpoints just might be guided by an agenda.

Did you know that after receiving I don't know how many truckloads of money, he immediately put his wife on Medicade?

Ever look at medical costs? My girl's birth listed for $27000 for a day and half at the hospitol.

Now speculate the costs over 15 years.

Those truckloads of money drove off awhile ago.

And the entire fucking judicial system needs to be revamped, all the way to the Supreme Court (since that's where the major damage is done, anyway).

Yea! not enough good christian judges!

They should be judging from morality rather then the laws! :rolleyes:

That was attempted already. It was called the inquistion.

I find it very ironic that someone would be arrested for trying to give a dying woman water. What a horrible death: to die of starvation and dehydration because the law allows your husband to have absolute authority over your life if you don't leave a living will.

According to the doctors it is only horrible for the husband, her loved ones and the significant number of people in this world that suddenly claim they have been on a first name basis with "Terri". If you accept their diagnosis she herself won't feel a thing.
What is a crime in my book is abusing children to try to win sympathy of the people. What is a crime in my book is upsetting a lot of other patients and their relatives in the same hospital. What is a crime in my book is blocking the entrance to a hospital. And of course, if you believe she is still alive, drowning her is murder. Then again, that last one I can excuse in this specific case.

What the hell is going on here?? I'm trying to support life (I'm not a Christian, by the way), and people are criticizing me!
Is this extreme liberalism so rampant that it affects even the most mundane communication?

You are arguing to preserve biological life. Preserving her body. Others place a higher value on the non-physical things that made Terri Terri. Personality. Hopes. Desires. Final wishes. The courts and the experts seem convinced she no longer has those, but that doesn't mean one can't honour them.

Dakini, I think we're running around in circles... if you're talking about smiling and crying and saying a word here or there, that's just an unconscious reaction, to be sure.
But when it occurs consistently and she speaks words pertaining to the individual situation at hand, she's not a vegetable.

I agree. But according to the doctors and the court neither case applies to Terri. No uttered words. No consistent facial reactions. No repeatability. If you smile at a Mickey Mouse balloon (yes, I know that video is old) it may be a sign of conciousness. If you do that only once in a few 100 tries and have the same expressions on completely random occasions it seems more likely to have been a coincidence.

To the "who decides who lives and who dies" question: That's easy. The only person that can decide if his/her life is worth living is the person himself (lets limit it to he for easier typing) or someone he has personally granted permission to decide on his behalf in case he cannot do so (by being in a coma for instance). Marriage in principle is such a contract.

Naturally one must make sure this decision is rational and not a temporary feeling due to e.g. breaking up with your fiancé - which is why proper lifetestaments, made at a time one can (still) think clearly, are important. Unfortunately most people lack the courage/motivaton to make one until it is too late.