NationStates Jolt Archive

The brain has regenerative properties in some cases. What if her autopsy shows that she was aware and would have improved with rehabilitation? What if it also shows that her brain damage was caused by trauma and not from coronary arrest?

It won't. If it does, then I'll give you a cookie.

It won't. If it does, then I'll give you a cookie.

mmmmmmmmm....chocolate? I love chocolate.

Well, that didn't trivialise a potentially serious issue.

mmmmmmmmm....chocolate? I love chocolate.
Sure. Chocolate. Wrapped in a hundred dollar bill.

The brain has regenerative properties in some cases. What if her autopsy shows that she was aware and would have improved with rehabilitation? What if it also shows that her brain damage was caused by trauma and not from coronary arrest?
Will an autopsy even be performed? Last I heard, the husband had insisted on cremation with no autopsy. :confused:

What if the autopsy shows that it was really jimmy carter in disguise?

Then everyone is guilty of assassinating the president~!

What if an autopsy shows that it was a space alien?

Then aliens really DO exist~!

What if an autopsy shows that her brain turned into diamonds?

Who gets to keep them~?

What if the autopsy shows that she died of a gunshot wound and ISNT REALLY terry schiavo?

Will the real terry schiavo ever surface ~?

What if the autopsy shows that she was really a human clone?

Who was responsible for this feat of science ~?




So many questions that the autopsy will answer.


:rolleyes:


False rumor spreaders bear false witness.

:mad:

Hello!!! her organs should have been harvested loooooong ago!! :rolleyes:


I need something to spread on my toast.



on a serious note, how the fuck did this ever become such a huge issue? The husband has power of attorney, nuff said.

Will an autopsy even be performed? Last I heard, the husband had insisted on cremation with no autopsy. :confused:


That was rumored falsely for a long time but recently it has been reported that he has ordered a full autopsy prior to cremation.

What if the autopsy shows that it was really jimmy carter in disguise?

Then everyone is guilty of assassinating the president~!

What if an autopsy shows that it was a space alien?

Then aliens really DO exist~!

What if an autopsy shows that her brain turned into diamonds?

Who gets to keep them~?

What if the autopsy shows that she died of a gunshot wound and ISNT REALLY terry schiavo?

Will the real terry schiavo ever surface ~?

What if the autopsy shows that she was really a human clone?

Who was responsible for this feat of science ~?




So many questions that the autopsy will answer.


:rolleyes:


False rumor spreaders bear false witness.

Well said.

As always.

(Well, almost always. :p )

I think to let her rest in peace, an autopsy should be preformed. To prove if she really was a vegtable, or rehab would have helped.

That would put all of this controversy behind us, and let the family mourn in peace.

Regardless of how the autopsy comes out:

1. You can get an expert witness who will say anything you like about the autopsy - one way or the other.
2. I'm sure that a plaintiff's attorney has already contacted the dead woman's parents - probably more than one firm by now.
3. In civil court, you don't need a unanimous jury to win.
4. Her parents are going to sue her husband for causing her, and them, pain and suffering.

I think to let her rest in peace, an autopsy should be preformed. To prove if she really was a vegtable, or rehab would have helped.

That would put all of this controversy behind us, and let the family mourn in peace.


How magnanimous of you to make a decision like that for the schiavo's in this difficult time for them.

:rolleyes:

The brain has regenerative properties in some cases. What if her autopsy shows that she was aware and would have improved with rehabilitation? What if it also shows that her brain damage was caused by trauma and not from coronary arrest?
Putting aside just how they could tell how the brain damage occurred 14 years after the event, if it did indeed show that she was indeed capable of functioning I would lose complete faith in the American Medical Industry.

All those dozens of well-trained doctors whose fields of specialty were brain injuries and who testified in numerous court cases and appeals (and I'm including the independent court-appointed doctors here as well) should be stricken off the medical registrar and never be allowed to work in the medical field again.

Also, I would hope that all those learned judges who presided over so many trials and appeals and who carefully weighed up the mountains of evidence supplied by said doctors as to her state, would also likewise be kicked out of their profession for not having seen through said doctors apparent complete lack of ability in diagnosing brain damage.

Following on from this, I hope that Bush sees the futility of the current medical and judicial system and scrapes it in favour of the only thing that obviously knows the real answers - that of people ranting on the internet, as they patently know more than anyone else on any subject.

I don't really care that they killed her; I just don’t like how they killed her. THEY FRICKING STARVED AND DEHYDRATEDED HER TO DEATH! Even if she had brain damage I am sure he body could fell the agonizing pain of a very slow death. It's cruelty and it's wrong. Hell the electric chair is a better way to die. She never did anything wrong why make her suffer so...

Enough is enough. Let it rest

This entire issue of who decides when someone should die, based on what criteria is desperately in need of being addressed. With continuing advances in medical science, the incidence of people being less than fully functional will increase.

As one who believes in freedom, I have to say that first choice should go to the individual, where possible.

Decision point one is, "How do we determine when the individual is no longer able to make this choice, and who is to decide this?"

Second choice should go to the immediate family.

Decision point two is, "When there is a conflict within the immediate family, or when there is no immediate family, who is to decide?"

Third choice should go to the individual State ( in the US ).

Decision point three is, "How should the State make this decision?"

My suggestion is that a medical review board with legal standing be formed at the State level. The board should be comprised of medical experts in viability/death-dying, and medical ethicists. There should be a non-voting advisory board consisting of elected representatives of the public, which can offer spiritual and ethical advice to the medical review board.

The purpose of the medical review board would be to make the decisions at the decision points listed above ... and nothing else.

What do you think???

3. In civil court, you don't need a unanimous jury to win.
4. Her parents are going to sue her husband for causing her, and them, pain and suffering.

Actually they can't. Case would never even be heard. He followed all legal protocal and can't be held responsible in any civil or legal manner. Every thing he did, he did legally. They have no grounds to sue him. Sorry, it's a non-starter.

Putting aside just how they could tell how the brain damage occurred 14 years after the event, if it did indeed show that she was indeed capable of functioning I would lose complete faith in the American Medical Industry.

I lost faith in them a long time ago. They are completely fraudulent now and the FDA is now almost completely corrupted. I have no faith in them and I do not trust them anymore then I would trust a common criminal.

I lost faith in them a long time ago. They are completely fraudulent now and the FDA is now almost completely corrupted. I have no faith in them and I do not trust them anymore then I would trust a common criminal.
Why don't you trust doctors?

Will an autopsy even be performed? Last I heard, the husband had insisted on cremation with no autopsy. :confused:
Here's why you should try broadening your outlook by getting your news from sources other than FOX:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4390501.stm

The husband of Terri Schiavo, wants a post-mortem examination once his wife has died.
Mrs Schiavo's parents, who have fought to keep her alive, are reported to have agreed to the request.

All those dozens of well-trained doctors whose fields of specialty were brain injuries and who testified in numerous court cases and appeals (and I'm including the independent court-appointed doctors here as well) should be stricken off the medical registrar and never be allowed to work in the medical field again.

Met plenty of "expert witnesses" who were actually idiots - many are doctors well past the prime of their practice and may not have actually practiced in years.

Also, I would hope that all those learned judges who presided over so many trials and appeals and who carefully weighed up the mountains of evidence supplied by said doctors as to her state, would also likewise be kicked out of their profession for not having seen through said doctors apparent complete lack of ability in diagnosing brain damage.
Yes, we all know that judges are infallible, just like the Pope.

Following on from this, I hope that Bush sees the futility of the current medical and judicial system and scrapes it in favour of the only thing that obviously knows the real answers - that of people ranting on the internet, as they patently know more than anyone else on any subject.

No, you won't have to worry. Since there are "expert witnesses" who are all covered in the glory that was their career, who will testify to anything you like, there's going to be a lawsuit.

This was not really about Terri - it was an ugly situation between the son-in-law and the parents. Otherwise, they would have worked this out without going to court.

The mere fact that they have fought and fought in court for this long tells me that both parties are beyond reason. So I predict a civil lawsuit. I bet there are plenty of plaintiff's lawyers egging them on right now.

I lost faith in them a long time ago. They are completely fraudulent now and the FDA is now almost completely corrupted. I have no faith in them and I do not trust them anymore then I would trust a common criminal.

Don't get me started about Vioxx...

Enough is enough. Let it rest
^--- cold hard truth. Please act accordingly

Will an autopsy even be performed? Last I heard, the husband had insisted on cremation with no autopsy. :confused:

There was a request by the husband for an autopsy. This was after it was announced that in the state of Florida, in case of future questions as to cause of death, all bodies must be autopsied before they are creamated. Many states have this to prevent destruction of evidence if suspicions of wrongful death come up. The autopsy will be performed by the medical examiner's office. It will probably be days, if not weeks before all forensic testing is done and a conclusive answer is reached. If, however, they do find scarring in the brains indicative of trauma....oops.

What if the autopsy shows that it was really jimmy carter in disguise?

Then everyone is guilty of assassinating the president~!

What if an autopsy shows that it was a space alien?

Then aliens really DO exist~!

What if an autopsy shows that her brain turned into diamonds?

Who gets to keep them~?

What if the autopsy shows that she died of a gunshot wound and ISNT REALLY terry schiavo?

Will the real terry schiavo ever surface ~?

What if the autopsy shows that she was really a human clone?

Who was responsible for this feat of science ~?




So many questions that the autopsy will answer.


:rolleyes:


False rumor spreaders bear false witness.

You are missing the obvious truth here. Jimmy Hoffa has been hiding out as Terry Schiavo, and if we kill her (I mean him, no her, ah screw it) we will be killing Hoffa, whom found what seemed to be the perfect place to hide out.

This entire issue of who decides when someone should die, based on what criteria is desperately in need of being addressed. With continuing advances in medical science, the incidence of people being less than fully functional will increase.

As one who believes in freedom, I have to say that first choice should go to the individual, where possible.

Decision point one is, "How do we determine when the individual is no longer able to make this choice, and who is to decide this?"

Second choice should go to the immediate family.

Decision point two is, "When there is a conflict within the immediate family, or when there is no immediate family, who is to decide?"

Third choice should go to the individual State ( in the US ).

Decision point three is, "How should the State make this decision?"

My suggestion is that a medical review board with legal standing be formed at the State level. The board should be comprised of medical experts in viability/death-dying, and medical ethicists. There should be a non-voting advisory board consisting of elected representatives of the public, which can offer spiritual and ethical advice to the medical review board.

The purpose of the medical review board would be to make the decisions at the decision points listed above ... and nothing else.

What do you think???So you say you believe in freedom, yet you argue that if there is a conflict, the State should immediately take over?
Where is the freedom then?

Why don't you trust doctors?

Ha, you have to be kidding right. Nobody should. I was practically a guinea pig for a lot of antidepressant medicines for a while and I gained 30 pounds ect. Now some of the medicines tried on me have been found unsafe and I could have died from them. Also if you look at the FDA they have banned medicines that could cure many diseases because guess what, THEY DON"T WANT CURES. All they care about is money. They love temporary pain relieves like aspirin that are actually proven to hurt you body over time yet they don't do anything about it. I could go on and on.

I lost faith in them a long time ago. They are completely fraudulent now and the FDA is now almost completely corrupted. I have no faith in them and I do not trust them anymore then I would trust a common criminal.

Well, cross your little fingers and toes and hope you never get sick or injured. :headbang:

Ha, you have to be kidding right. Nobody should. I was practically a guinea pig for a lot of antidepressant medicines for a while and I gained 30 pounds ect. Now some of the medicines tried on me have been found unsafe and I could have died from them. Also if you look at the FDA they have banned medicines that could cure many diseases because guess what, THEY DON"T WANT CURES. All they care about is money. They love temporary pain relieves like aspirin that are actually proven to hurt you body over time yet they don't do anything about it. I could go on and on.
My experiences with doctors haven't been so bad. That's why I had to ask.

Still, even if they're not perfect they have the only treatments that actually work.

Yes, it would be tragic if an autopsy proved to be contrary to the previous diagnosis, but, the human brain is a complex organ. We have may come a long way with medicine, but we still have yet to crack the secrets of the brain.

Well, cross your little fingers and toes and hope you never get sick or injured. :headbang:

Lol, I am not saying all medicine is bad I am saying the FDA and antidepressant medicines are bad.

I don't really care that they killed her; I just don’t like how they killed her. THEY FRICKING STARVED AND DEHYDRATEDED HER TO DEATH! Even if she had brain damage I am sure he body could fell the agonizing pain of a very slow death. It's cruelty and it's wrong. Hell the electric chair is a better way to die. She never did anything wrong why make her suffer so...


don't like it?

repeal the anti-euthinasia laws

The brain has regenerative properties in some cases. What if her autopsy shows that she was aware and would have improved with rehabilitation? What if it also shows that her brain damage was caused by trauma and not from coronary arrest?

I don't think it an autopsy will show any trauma, since the cause of the damage was already known. According to what I saw on CNN yester day, she sent into cardiac arrest due to an undiagnosed potassium deficiency and lost heart function for a time. During that time, the loss of oxygen was what damaged her brain.

This entire issue of who decides when someone should die, based on what criteria is desperately in need of being addressed. With continuing advances in medical science, the incidence of people being less than fully functional will increase.

As one who believes in freedom, I have to say that first choice should go to the individual, where possible.

Decision point one is, "How do we determine when the individual is no longer able to make this choice, and who is to decide this?"

Second choice should go to the immediate family.

Decision point two is, "When there is a conflict within the immediate family, or when there is no immediate family, who is to decide?"

Third choice should go to the individual State ( in the US ).

Decision point three is, "How should the State make this decision?"

My suggestion is that a medical review board with legal standing be formed at the State level. The board should be comprised of medical experts in viability/death-dying, and medical ethicists. There should be a non-voting advisory board consisting of elected representatives of the public, which can offer spiritual and ethical advice to the medical review board.

The purpose of the medical review board would be to make the decisions at the decision points listed above ... and nothing else.

What do you think???

Do you realize how close this is to what happened? :headbang:

The primary difference being that, rather than leave it to medical review board alone to determine the worth of a life, Florida law left it to a court (an existing neutral party) to determine first if, by clear and convincing evidence, the individual wanted to be allowed to die.

The presumption is for life in the absence of clear and convincing evidence.

And the courts, in addition to hearing from experts from each side, appoint independent experts and guardians ad litem to provide input.

Your "proposal" changes practically nothing. The system already works -- except for the hysterical and dogmatic.

Here's why you should try broadening your outlook by getting your news from sources other than FOX:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4390501.stm

I channel surf the different news stations...CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc...and FOX was the first station I heard this on by at least a couple of hours. ABC took almost a whole day to report it.

Note on the "agonizing death:"

A) Terry schiavo 'wasnt home'

B) Her body was pumped with morphine

Lol, I am not saying all medicine is bad I am saying the FDA and antidepressant medicines are bad.

Because you gained weight on some antidepressants? :rolleyes:

There are these little warnings with medicines. Changes in weight -- particularly weight gain are common side effects.

Not everyone responds well to antidepressants, but they have saved thousands of lives and made tens of thousands more worth living.

Get a little damn perspective.

My experiences with doctors haven't been so bad. That's why I had to ask.

Still, even if they're not perfect they have the only treatments that actually work.

Wrong. Many herbal medicines that have been PROVEN to work are outlawed here in the US by the FDA. The FDA also tried to ban acupuncture if you didn't know. Only reason they couldn’t was because its not actually a drug.

Actually they can't. Case would never even be heard. He followed all legal protocal and can't be held responsible in any civil or legal manner. Every thing he did, he did legally. They have no grounds to sue him. Sorry, it's a non-starter.

I'm sure there's a lawyer trying to think of a way. You would be surprised at the stuff that makes it to trial.

My experiences with doctors haven't been so bad. That's why I had to ask.

Still, even if they're not perfect they have the only treatments that actually work.

You just have to make sure you get a second opinion in matters where you think you might be killed.

Because you gained weight on some antidepressants? :rolleyes:

There are these little warnings with medicines. Changes in weight -- particularly weight gain are common side effects.

Not everyone responds well to antidepressants, but they have saved thousands of lives and made tens of thousands more worth living.

Get a little damn perspective.

You didn't see the ect. did you. I didn't just gain weight. I had extreme migraines and got sick many times and when I stopped being an idiot and went of the medicine it all stopped. I think antidepressants are bad because they don't go through enough testing and are released to soon. Barley any of them are approved for children yet doctors prescribe them constantly to the children of the world. Please don't make me go into this further my hands are tired of typing so much.

Edit: Oh and about perspective, I have it. I have looked things up many times and could argue forever about this.
Edit2: I am not saying every last antidepressant is completely evil, I just think our society needs a little lesson about medicine. WE TAKE TOO MUCH. We don't need all of these medicines all of the time. Medicines shouldn’t be used so much when they don’t need to be.

It doesn't matter what the autopsy finds. It won't change a thing. Micheal Schiavo was her legal guardian - for better or worse - and had the right to request that treatment be suspended.

All it will prove is that Michael Schaivo is a twat. But we knew that anyway.

Wrong. Many herbal medicines that have been PROVEN to work are outlawed here in the US by the FDA. The FDA also tried to ban acupuncture if you didn't know. Only reason they couldn’t was because its not actually a drug.
I agree that some herbal medicines do work, but plants produce a whole bunch of active chemicals, and the proportions of those chemicals vary by season, soil chemistry, and genetic factors. Because of that it's damn near impossible to carefully regulate the dosage of herbal drugs. In some herbs the effective dose is so close to the lethal dose that one must ban them to be safe.

Wrong. Many herbal medicines that have been PROVEN to work are outlawed here in the US by the FDA.
I'm fairly sure that unless the herbal medicines of which you speak contain an illegal compound, you could obtain them still. They just won't have a statement on them saying "This remedy works to treat $DISEASE".

Also, this "PROVEN"ness is fairly interesting. Perhaps you have a link to a study or something?

I'm sure there's a lawyer trying to think of a way. You would be surprised at the stuff that makes it to trial.

Get over yourself.

Let's see

... doctors 'r stoopid

... lawyers and judges 'r stoopid

... teachers and professors 'r stupid

Everybody is stoopid, unless they carry a gun -- that makes 'em smart. :rolleyes:

There are little things called education, specialties, and experience. Some people do know more than you do about some things.

It doesn't matter what the autopsy finds. It won't change a thing. Micheal Schiavo was her legal guardian - for better or worse - and had the right to request that treatment be suspended.

All it will prove is that Michael Schaivo is a twat. But we knew that anyway.

Oh, there's got to be a way to show that he brought undue mental suffering upon her parents. You'll note that they kept bringing up his supposed "abuse" of their daughter prior to the accident.

Any halfwit plaintiff's lawyer could probably put something together. Enough to make Mr. Schiavo at least spend all his remaining money on lawyer for the next ten years - even if he wins.

Hrmmm ...

No blood wraiths, no horsemen, no Jesus popping up in everyone's breakfast cereal and giving them the kiss of death, no hail, no locusts, no zombies ...

Looks like Terry Schiavo's death didn't do a damn thing except reduce world population by 1. A wholly unremarkable thing.

Can we let it go now?

In a legal battle, people will use any means necessary.

Either way - it's long past due for the public to butt the fuck out.

Oh, there's got to be a way to show that he brought undue mental suffering upon her parents. You'll note that they kept bringing up his supposed "abuse" of their daughter prior to the accident.

Any halfwit plaintiff's lawyer could probably put something together. Enough to make Mr. Schiavo at least spend all his remaining money on lawyer for the next ten years - even if he wins.

Haha. To true. A motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action is hardly ever granted because the twaty plaintiff needs "some discovery".

I think it is a slam dunk for summary judgment though.

I wouldn't imagine that the case would be all that expensive to defend.

Can we let it go now?
Not until CNN tells us it's ok.

I agree that some herbal medicines do work, but plants produce a whole bunch of active chemicals, and the proportions of those chemicals vary by season, soil chemistry, and genetic factors. Because of that it's damn near impossible to carefully regulate the dosage of herbal drugs. In some herbs the effective dose is so close to the lethal dose that one must ban them to be safe.

You are right to an extent. TO be safe they don't have to be BANNED. We can control how they are grown and eliminate all of these factors. They just need more funding and testing.

Edit: Also I would like to note that almost all successful breakthrough medicines are created from plants. For example penicillin is made from mold (although mold isn't a plant really it is made from natural substances).

Oh, there's got to be a way to show that he brought undue mental suffering upon her parents. You'll note that they kept bringing up his supposed "abuse" of their daughter prior to the accident.

Any halfwit plaintiff's lawyer could probably put something together. Enough to make Mr. Schiavo at least spend all his remaining money on lawyer for the next ten years - even if he wins.
He should counter-sue, for all the mental suffering her parents put him through over the last 6 years, for not letting him exercise his rights as Terri's legal guardian and for allowing (if not starting) all those rumours about his behaviour in the first place.

He should counter-sue, for all the mental suffering her parents put him through over the last 6 years, for not letting him exercise his rights as Terri's legal guardian and for allowing (if not starting) all those rumours about his behaviour in the first place.

Oh, you bet. You're looking at some people who have been fighting for years in court. They're not going to stop now...

Terri may be at rest. But the people who are still alive will never be.

You are right to an extent. TO be safe they don't have to be BANNED. We can control how they are grown and eliminate all of these factors. They just need more funding and testing.
Better to extract the active chemicals and put a carefully measured ammount into each tablet.

Haha. To true. A motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action is hardly ever granted because the twaty plaintiff needs "some discovery".

I think it is a slam dunk for summary judgment though.

I wouldn't imagine that the case would be all that expensive to defend.
I've seen discovery last as long as three years.

Better to extract the active chemicals and put a carefully measured ammount into each tablet.

Not really, because most of the time that creates overdosed pills and harmful side effects that were not there when using the actual plant.

The brain has regenerative properties in some cases. What if her autopsy shows that she was aware and would have improved with rehabilitation? What if it also shows that her brain damage was caused by trauma and not from coronary arrest?
I suppose that Michael Schiavo will be fucked then.

Not really, because most of the time that creates overdosed pills and harmful side effects that were not there when using the actual plant.

Yes, it makes so much more sense to medicate yourself with untested and unregulated twigs and berries rather than highly regulated medications derived from plants that have undergone extensive clinical trials. :rolleyes:

Herbal medicines -- which I use as well as prescriptions -- can have just as dangerous -- if not more dangerous -- side-effects and reactions than prescription medication. The primary difference is that herbal medicines have no warning labels, are not tested for safety and effectiveness, and are not regulated.

To blindly reject modern medicine for holistic medicine is even more ridiculous than rejecting holistic and ancient medicine. Each has something to contribute. But one is more rigorously proven safe and effective than the other.

Florida judge is villain to Christian right (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7347210/)


ok this is going a bit to far... the guy was just doing his job and where do these idiots find the right to condemn people to hell? A man the realy don't even know.

Florida judge is villain to Christian right (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7347210/)


ok this is going a bit to far... the guy was just doing his job and where do these idiots find the right to condemn people to hell? A man the realy don't even know.
They believe they can because they are deluded by their "religion" that they follow like the good little flock of mindless sheep that they are. They are immune to their own massive short comings and thus, are enabled in this to lash out at others that aren't conformists like them.

The brain has regenerative properties in some cases. What if her autopsy shows that she was aware and would have improved with rehabilitation? What if it also shows that her brain damage was caused by trauma and not from coronary arrest?

And what about when it does not show any of these things?

Will you write Mr. Schiavo and apologize for libeling him?

How will he be compensated for the hate and villification?

The brain has regenerative properties in some cases. What if her autopsy shows that she was aware and would have improved with rehabilitation? What if it also shows that her brain damage was caused by trauma and not from coronary arrest?

This is incredibly unlikely, since they spent 8 years trying to rehabilitate her and nothing worked.

However, if it does, it will be another note to the tragedy, nothing more. Micheal Schiavo will still have made his decision based on the best medical examination he could get and what he believed to be his wife's wishes. If he was wrong, that is a tragedy - but not a wrongdoing.

You just have to make sure you get a second opinion in matters where you think you might be killed.
Given the topic of discussion, was this pun intentional?

Yes, it makes so much more sense to medicate yourself with untested and unregulated twigs and berries rather than highly regulated medications derived from plants that have undergone extensive clinical trials. :rolleyes:

Herbal medicines -- which I use as well as prescriptions -- can have just as dangerous -- if not more dangerous -- side-effects and reactions than prescription medication. The primary difference is that herbal medicines have no warning labels, are not tested for safety and effectiveness, and are not regulated.

To blindly reject modern medicine for holistic medicine is even more ridiculous than rejecting holistic and ancient medicine. Each has something to contribute. But one is more rigorously proven safe and effective than the other.

I am not completely rejecting it. You aren't getting my point. I just think we need less medicine and to at lest try herbal medicines and give them proper testing to make them work without side effects because they have great potential (and destroy the FDA and replace it with something else). My point: Take less medicine; we don't need to be constantly drugged to be happy.

I am not completely rejecting it. You aren't getting my point. I just think we need less medicine and to at lest try herbal medicines (and destroy the FDA and replace it with something else). My point: Take less medicine; we don't need to be constantly drugged to be happy.

Some people do.

Some people would die unless constantly drugged.

Some people would be very, very unhappy unless constantly drugged.

What may work for you is fine for you. But don't assume that is best for all.

"We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again - and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore." --Mark Twain

I don't really care that they killed her; I just don’t like how they killed her. THEY FRICKING STARVED AND DEHYDRATEDED HER TO DEATH! Even if she had brain damage I am sure he body could fell the agonizing pain of a very slow death. It's cruelty and it's wrong. Hell the electric chair is a better way to die. She never did anything wrong why make her suffer so...

which is the main point of the debate. She wasn't allowed to die...she was made to die. Food and water are a natural need. She required no extraordinary life saving intervention. What if autopsy finds that this manner of death was imposed on a perceptive human being? I for one thought that the removal of life support meant the disconnection to machines that maintain the body's functions such as breathing and heartbeat. I had no idea that it included the killing of someone by withholding required nutrition and hydration. I would never want to die like that and wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Given the topic of discussion, was this pun intentional?

You're a big winner! I keep trying to leave puns around in various threads, and the occasional joke, but everyone is too upset about everything to notice.

Now, it wouldn't have been a problem, if euthanasia was legalised for such situtations because then the people who requested it would NOT have to be killed in such a cruel way.

Even our pets have the right to euthanasia, and yet, humans aren't allowed such rights when it the situation would warrant it.

And what about when it does not show any of these things?

Will you write Mr. Schiavo and apologize for libeling him?

How will he be compensated for the hate and villification?
Oh, both parties in the case will be in civil court for the rest of their lives and you know it.

The brain has regenerative properties in some cases. What if her autopsy shows that she was aware and would have improved with rehabilitation? What if it also shows that her brain damage was caused by trauma and not from coronary arrest?




Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....... Oops? :D

Get over yourself.


Most people, regardless of education and specialty, are stupid.

You can receive the best education in the world, and it will not raise your intelligence by even a fraction of a percent.

Let's go over the long, long list of industrial accident trials I've been involved with, and see how stupid a person can be, and how much care their employer can take, and see how stupid the law, the court, and a jury can be.

Not to mention how stupid the plaintiff can be - thinking that they'll actually get any money after their attorney is finished taking it.

You're a big winner! I keep trying to leave puns around in various threads, and the occasional joke, but everyone is too upset about everything to notice.

Really? I have to admit I usually just scan your threads because I usually end up thinking..."Yeah...what he said!!" I'll pay better attention.

Here's why you should try broadening your outlook by getting your news from sources other than FOX:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4390501.stm

Nice dig at Fox since this was only a recent developement :rolleyes:

Even CNN was saying one wasn't going to be performed

There was a request by the husband for an autopsy. This was after it was announced that in the state of Florida, in case of future questions as to cause of death, all bodies must be autopsied before they are creamated. Many states have this to prevent destruction of evidence if suspicions of wrongful death come up. The autopsy will be performed by the medical examiner's office. It will probably be days, if not weeks before all forensic testing is done and a conclusive answer is reached. If, however, they do find scarring in the brains indicative of trauma....oops.

And there goes Mr. Shiavo's alibi

Really? I have to admit I usually just scan your threads because I usually end up thinking..."Yeah...what he said!!" I'll pay better attention.

I put the one about Terri Schiavo appearing on MTV Unplugged, and no one said anything. Not even a shout of "oh, that's gross".

You know what they call the person who barely passes their medical exams?

Doctor

They're human, they make mistakes, they misinterpret findings...even the best of them The worst of them eventually can't afford malpractice insurance any more.

which is the main point of the debate. She wasn't allowed to die...she was made to die. Food and water are a natural need. She required no extraordinary life saving intervention. What if autopsy finds that this manner of death was imposed on a perceptive human being? I for one thought that the removal of life support meant the disconnection to machines that maintain the body's functions such as breathing and heartbeat. I had no idea that it included the killing of someone by withholding required nutrition and hydration. I would never want to die like that and wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

1) Close. She was allowed to forgo being forcibly kept alive. They had to shove tubes into her to feed her body. That is invasive and we have the right to refuse it.

2) To a degree of medical certainty, she could not feel pain. Nonetheless, as a precaution she was given morphine.

3) It is primarily the Roman Catholic Church that has drawn highly technical lines between assisting someone to deny, abstaining medical treatment, abstaining from forcible feeding, and witholding food or water. Kind of like counting angels on the head of the pin. If you are going to get all worked up about it, then look into these teachings and vent in the right direction.

The main point of the debate are two facts you refuse to acknowledge:

1) She wanted to be allowed to die. She has that right. It was not her husband's decision. It was not her family's decision. It was hers.

2) She was, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state. Unusually bad one at that. Almost her entire brain was gone and replaced with spinal fluid. Brain = liquid. No feel. No think. No get better.

I channel surf the different news stations...CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc...and FOX was the first station I heard this on by at least a couple of hours. ABC took almost a whole day to report it.

I thought I heard it on Fox News. Of course, I've been tuning it out most of the time because this was all they were talking about!

Most people, regardless of education and specialty, are stupid.

You can receive the best education in the world, and it will not raise your intelligence by even a fraction of a percent.

Let's go over the long, long list of industrial accident trials I've been involved with, and see how stupid a person can be, and how much care their employer can take, and see how stupid the law, the court, and a jury can be.

Not to mention how stupid the plaintiff can be - thinking that they'll actually get any money after their attorney is finished taking it.

Good point.

And no matter how smart someone is, they can still be ignorant.

(And, btw, I do not think you are either stupid nor generally ignorant. As I am sure I do to you, you just tick me off sometimes. ;) You do a better job than I in not being insulting in response. And, I think we both express opinions about things we don't really know much about. :D ).

You know what they call the person who barely passes their medical exams?

Doctor

They're human, they make mistakes, they misinterpret findings...even the best of them The worst of them eventually can't afford malpractice insurance any more.

Sometimes not even the good ones can. PA is losing doctors because of malpractice insurance.

The main point of the debate are two facts you refuse to acknowledge:

1) She wanted to be allowed to die. She has that right. It was not her husband's decision. It was not her family's decision. It was hers.

2) She was, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state. Unusually bad one at that. Almost her entire brain was gone and replaced with spinal fluid. Brain = liquid. No feel. No think. No get better.

If she wanted to die, there isn't anything in writing to that effect. But, her husband could legally anything, and it would have the force of law. So, in effect, the decision was his, unless you have a copy of a living will signed by Terri Schiavo.

As for condition 2, that doesn't leave much to work with, legally or otherwise. Unfortunately, since they didn't post her medical records on the Internet in their entirety, it leaves some people wondering what her condition was - a doctor's statement notwithstanding. And, once again, it doesn't matter what anyone might think or believe once a court has ruled.

Everyone should have a living will.

I would reiterate that this is a lesson in what happens when you go to court to try and get what you want. It's ugly, and no one gets what they expected.

Mr. Schiavo expected a nice, quiet decision in a few weeks, and so, years ago he was expecting that they would have pulled the tube. He finally gets what he (and supposedly she) wanted. But, not after being turned into Satan The Circus Clown and standing for years in the middle of the circus tent. Initially, he probably wasn't expecting that.

And of course, her parents didn't get anything except huge legal bills.

And both parties got a terminal case of the ass.

The brain has regenerative properties in some cases. What if her autopsy shows that she was aware and would have improved with rehabilitation? What if it also shows that her brain damage was caused by trauma and not from coronary arrest?


What if it did show that all those doctors were right after all? Would you still think she should have been kept alive? What if it proved that she had consciousness but would still never recover? Would you still think she should ahve been kept alive?

Lets try an experiment. Have someone blindfold you, gag you and tie you down so that you could not move or talk for a week, and you are getting fed thru a tube. The first day might not be so bad (you could catch up on some much needed rest). the second day might be bearable (gives you time to think about your life or whatnot). The third day you may start to go a bit crazy and want out... and on and on.

Personally I dont think you could make it thru the first day. While you are in that state, think about being like that for a year - 5 years - 15 years. What would you want? What if you told your friends and loved ones that you didn't want to live like that had it ever happened to you, but they did not abide by those wishes? I want you to honestly think about this.

I think that having to be conscious in such a state would be much worse than not having consciousness of it. A literal hell. Although as a religious person you probably believe in a soul (I am not religious but I am spiritual and I believe in the existance of a soul or super-consciousness). Considering that angle, what do you think about trapping a soul in a useless consciousless body for decades? Do you think that it would be alright? Is that what you would want for yoruself?

Even if her husband did beat her into that state (as it seems you really want to believe), should she then have been kept alive against her wishes just to spite her husband? I really wonder if you have fully thought this thru.

This entire issue of who decides when someone should die, based on what criteria is desperately in need of being addressed. With continuing advances in medical science, the incidence of people being less than fully functional will increase.

As one who believes in freedom, I have to say that first choice should go to the individual, where possible.

Decision point one is, "How do we determine when the individual is no longer able to make this choice, and who is to decide this?"

Second choice should go to the immediate family.

Decision point two is, "When there is a conflict within the immediate family, or when there is no immediate family, who is to decide?"

Third choice should go to the individual State ( in the US ).

Decision point three is, "How should the State make this decision?"

My suggestion is that a medical review board with legal standing be formed at the State level. The board should be comprised of medical experts in viability/death-dying, and medical ethicists. There should be a non-voting advisory board consisting of elected representatives of the public, which can offer spiritual and ethical advice to the medical review board.

The purpose of the medical review board would be to make the decisions at the decision points listed above ... and nothing else.

What do you think???
its a good plan

supposing that the choice is to let the person die....

i think that after the 2nd decision point the decision should be considered "made" and followed through on unless someone WITH STANDING objects, this would include the doctors who actually treated the patient and close family members. if one of these people have serious reservations THEN it should go to a state review board to make sure that the person who actually made the 2nd level decision wasnt acting out of some kind of self interest.

if it passes that test, it should be carried out.

Schiavo's brain:
http://img125.exs.cx/img125/171/photo2005330218522sz.jpg

The brain has regenerative properties in some cases. What if her autopsy shows that she was aware and would have improved with rehabilitation? What if it also shows that her brain damage was caused by trauma and not from coronary arrest?

The brain has very little regenerative powers, not enough to get someone out of a vegetative state and its regenetive powers dimenish as the brain gets damaged

whispering legs isnt it time that you made a thread on medical and legal errors?

you are making great points that should be discussed in a thread by themselves.

The brain has very little regenerative powers, not enough to get someone out of a vegetative state and its regenetive powers dimenish as the brain gets damaged

Contrary to opinion, there are people who recover from traumatic brain injury who have gone into long-term coma or persistent vegetative state for years.

Some even manage a full recovery. One man was in a coma for 19 years and recovered.

But it's a case by case thing. You can't make the broad generalization that ALL cases should be unplugged, or ALL cases should remain alive as long as possible.

I don't really care that they killed her; I just don’t like how they killed her. THEY FRICKING STARVED AND DEHYDRATEDED HER TO DEATH! Even if she had brain damage I am sure he body could fell the agonizing pain of a very slow death. It's cruelty and it's wrong. Hell the electric chair is a better way to die. She never did anything wrong why make her suffer so...


By not feeding her, they are killing her, slowly, why not just give her some morphine,? They have sealed her fate anyways, why not make it quick?

Contrary to opinion, there are people who recover from traumatic brain injury who have gone into long-term coma or persistent vegetative state for years.

Some even manage a full recovery. One man was in a coma for 19 years and recovered.

Well, yeah. BUT HE WASN'T MISSING ALMOST ALL OF HIS ENTIRE GODDAMNED BRAIN! Jesus.

If she wanted to die, there isn't anything in writing to that effect. But, her husband could legally anything, and it would have the force of law. So, in effect, the decision was his, unless you have a copy of a living will signed by Terri Schiavo.

As for condition 2, that doesn't leave much to work with, legally or otherwise. Unfortunately, since they didn't post her medical records on the Internet in their entirety, it leaves some people wondering what her condition was - a doctor's statement notwithstanding. And, once again, it doesn't matter what anyone might think or believe once a court has ruled.

Everyone should have a living will.

I would reiterate that this is a lesson in what happens when you go to court to try and get what you want. It's ugly, and no one gets what they expected.

Mr. Schiavo expected a nice, quiet decision in a few weeks, and so, years ago he was expecting that they would have pulled the tube. He finally gets what he (and supposedly she) wanted. But, not after being turned into Satan The Circus Clown and standing for years in the middle of the circus tent. Initially, he probably wasn't expecting that.

And of course, her parents didn't get anything except huge legal bills.

And both parties got a terminal case of the ass.

I agree almost entirely with a couple of factual corrections.

It was not the husband's legal decision. That is a common misunderstanding. As guardian, he could not order the feeding tube disconnected. What he could do was ask the courts to order it on Mrs. Schiavo's behalf. The courts had to determine by clear and convincing evidence that Mrs. Schiavo would wish to refuse forcible feeding.

A great deal of court records are on the internet, but people choose to ignore them. One of Mrs. Schiavo's CAT scans is also on the internet. Statements from the reputable physicians and guardians ad litem are available. Some people simply refuse to believe the inconvenient.

And the parents legal battles have been funded by various right-wing and pro-life organizations.

But you are 100% right that everyone should have a living will and courts are rarely the best answer. For civil disputes, courts are almost never the best option.

Contrary to opinion, there are people who recover from traumatic brain injury who have gone into long-term coma or persistent vegetative state for years.

Some even manage a full recovery. One man was in a coma for 19 years and recovered.

But it's a case by case thing. You can't make the broad generalization that ALL cases should be unplugged, or ALL cases should remain alive as long as possible.

A coma is different from a vegetative state and doesnt always mean that there was brain damage. You can come back from a coma from a day to the second before your death.

It is in my honest opinion that regardless of what the findings of the autopsy are, Terri Shiavo will still be dead. If they find out she was not in a persistant vegetative state, it doesn't change the fact she died today (and I'm pretty sure that whatever supreme being(s) you may or may not believe in will not bring her back to life because the doctors made a mistake).

Please, as a sign of respect, let the dead rest. Its the last thing we can do for anyone who has just passed away.

By not feeding her, they are killing her, slowly, why not just give her some morphine,? They have sealed her fate anyways, why not make it quick?

Euthanization is illegal on humans

In Schiavo's case, her brain was almost completely gone. In such a state, there is NO way she can recover. Her case has been in courts and discussed by all sorts of doctors for YEARS and now some self-proclaimed wannabe-medical experts here claim that she would have recovered? What a joke. It's more a shame to have her suffer in that state for so long, even if she didn't personally experience it, her family did. It's good that it's finally over.

whispering legs isnt it time that you made a thread on medical and legal errors?

you are making great points that should be discussed in a thread by themselves.


IMHO, the primary legal error that a lot of people make is believing that "if I take my case to civil court, and sue the bastard, I'll get what I want".

Yes, you can hire a lawyer. Maybe a great lawyer, or law firm. A lot of people go broke chasing that dream - and 9 times out of 10 - you never get exactly what you expected.

One might ask "why not?" 9 times out of 10 it's not the lawyer's fault (there are some bad ones, but this is not the root cause of the problem in court).

Ever see that statue of a woman with a blindfold on? It's Justice personified. It's not a joke, either.

If it's at all possible try to settle your disputes with each other like rational humans - or try mediation. Once you go to court, rulings tend to be a mixed bag - and you may like part of the ruling, but you'll be livid about the rest of it.

Yesterday, SCOTUS ruled that you can bring suit against companies that engage in seemingly neutral practices that affect older employees in a discriminatory fashion. So, on the face of it, you're that employee, and you think you've won.... NOPE!

SCOTUS says, well, you're allowed to bring the suit, but in this case, the police department that employed you was reasonable in its policies, so you lose...

You've just spent years, and thousands of dollars riding this thing all the way to the Supreme Court. And now you have nothing to show for it.

this is a stupid thing to argue about, its like the cuban boy

I agree almost entirely with a couple of factual corrections.

It was not the husband's legal decision. That is a common misunderstanding. As guardian, he could not order the feeding tube disconnected. What he could do was ask the courts to order it on Mrs. Schiavo's behalf. The courts had to determine by clear and convincing evidence that Mrs. Schiavo would wish to refuse forcible feeding.

A great deal of court records are on the internet, but people choose to ignore them. One of Mrs. Schiavo's CAT scans is also on the internet. Statements from the reputable physicians and guardians ad litem are available. Some people simply refuse to believe the inconvenient.

And the parents legal battles have been funded by various right-wing and pro-life organizations.

But you are 100% right that everyone should have a living will and courts are rarely the best answer. For civil disputes, courts are almost never the best option.


He had power of attorney. So, although he's legally acting on her behalf, in reality he's saying whatever he wants. Not that it really matters in court.

I'm gonna go back and sue Adam and Eve for the whole eating the apple thing. And why not sue God too for failure to provide?

Folks, I'm sorry to say it, but death happens. It's childish and silly to think that a lawsuit can change what's been true for thousands of years. My mother recently died of a brain hemmorrhage, and while I could sue my dad for not keeping her on life support... all that would do is make me miserable.

The parents of Mrs. Schiavo need some serious grief counseling-- they've never made it out of the anger phase. Mr. Schiavo has the patience of a saint, in my opinion.

Because you gained weight on some antidepressants? :rolleyes:

There are these little warnings with medicines. Changes in weight -- particularly weight gain are common side effects.

Not everyone responds well to antidepressants, but they have saved thousands of lives and made tens of thousands more worth living.

Get a little damn perspective.
They made my bf want to slit his wrists....

They made my bf want to slit his wrists....
noproof that that was done by antidepressents, maybe it was the depression now stop trying to blame the companies

death by dehydration -

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/128/7/559


The controversial issue of legalizing physician-assisted suicide should be considered in light of legally available alternative methods of voluntary death. The increasingly polarized debate over this issue has failed to give due attention to an alternative: terminal dehydration. By voluntarily forgoing food and water, competent patients with terminal or incurable illness can escape intolerable, irremediable conditions without requiring transformation of the law and medical ethics. Terminal dehydration offers substantial advantages over physician-assisted suicide with respect to self-determination, access, professional integrity, and social implications but also has distinctive drawbacks as a humane means of voluntary death. This article analyzes clinical, ethical, and policy issues related to terminal dehydration compared with physician-assisted suicide.

They made my bf want to slit his wrists....

Having been suicidal at many points in my life (I'm currently on antidepressants, too), I can say with some experience that nothing can "make you" do something. A drug could take away inhibitions, but the desire has to exist beforehand.

Antidepressants are powerful tools, but just like a hammer, they can be misused. Treatment regimens that include counseling are important. You have to make sure you're not using that antidepressant hammer to hit yourself in the head.

Also for those who claim Michael Schiavo refused an autopsy, here's the truth:


from Reuters

Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, said on Monday that his client had requested an autopsy to prove the extent of Terri's brain damage and to dispel questions from critics that his plans to cremate his wife's body were aimed at hiding something.

A court has said in the past Michael Schiavo can cremate his wife's body and bury the remains in Pennsylvania, his home state. The Schindlers, who are Roman Catholics, had wanted a full burial.

Euthanization is illegal on humans

Not everywhere. And this action isn't considered euthanasia - even in the US. It is withdrawal of life-giving aid.

The brain has regenerative properties in some cases. What if her autopsy shows that she was aware and would have improved with rehabilitation? What if it also shows that her brain damage was caused by trauma and not from coronary arrest?

'What if' can be a powerful phrase indeed. 'What if' an autopsy reveals she was an alien? 'What if' her brain was inhabited by a colony of elves? It's fine and well to engage in medically unsubstantiated parlour speculation, but unless, dear Zooke, you are in a position of knowledgeable authority on the matter, you 'what if's, 'could be's, and 'perhaps's amount to nothing substantial whatsoever.

I find it highly illuminating that in your last speculative remark, you build on your previous thought that Schiavo might have been aware or capable of rehabilitation - and further, that you are calling into question the veracity of the medical history that delivered Schiavo into her vegetative state.

Seeing as how you seem to enjoy playing junior detective, and how you're seeing this as some sort of conspiracy, who are you inferring was responsible for inflicting this supposed 'trauma' you seem to feel may have been the true cause for her 'apparently' persistent vegetative state?

Just so you know, I'm not trying to be insensitive or cruel - my own brother-in-law continues to moulder in a hospital room in a vegetative state due to an auto accident two years ago. My sister-in-law, who had been estranged from him for some twelve months, was unable to legally convey his heartfelt wishes to not be kept alive in such a manner, as his parents were considered by law to be his immediate next-of-kin. Although my brother-in-law was a staunch Communist and an Atheist, his parents, fervent Catholics, refused to listen to their dead son's wife, and have drained all the money from an insurance claim keeping their brain-dead son in a private room at a private hospital. This is especially a shame, considering that the two of them had children together, and that money, which he would not have wanted to see spent on pointless expense, (i.e. the fruitless continuance of his non-life), could instead have been used for such living considerations as clothing, food, shelter or schooling for his surviving family.

Even the parents' parish priest tried to persuade them to understand that their son was an empty vessel, to try encouraging them to let go. But they are convinced that he will at some point in the future wake up and everything will be as it was, provided they say enough Rosaries. Hogwash.

The reality is, that no matter how strong my brother-in-law's immune system, and no matter how clean and antiseptic the hospital, eventually, an infection will set in unnoticed, his immune system will not be able to cope, and his body will follow his brain and finish the job of dying. Unfortunately for all concerned, my brother-in-law was a healthy man, a strong young man, and so chances are he will linger for, well - quite possibly decades before he completes his transaction with the Grim Reaper.

Meanwhile, there is no closure for his children, or for my sister-in-law. She had to stop taking the children for visits, because they're still young enough to find the whole thing rather confusing - my nephew asked his mother 'why Daddy is angry with him', and after a bit of a chat, my sister-in-law was able to deduce that her son thought his Dad was making a point of ignoring him, as though in anger. Her kids understand Death - but this kind of 'living Death' eludes them.

All of this is in aid of what, exactly? Is it really about the poor bastard with a food-tube stuck down their nose? Or is it about humouring the living - those who cannot come to grips with the reality that one of their children is going to pass into the great beyond before they do? Why deny Death, and ruin the lives of others in the process?

And why, dear Zooke, do you hope to imply some form of wrongdoing (i.e., 'trauma') in the case of Schiavo's PVS? Are you so vindictive that you would wish to see further suffering? Angst? Public airing of other people's sorrows?

Pray a Rosary? Pray on one for yourself - for forgiveness.

Not everywhere. And this action isn't considered euthanasia - even in the US. It is withdrawal of life-giving aid.

Not this, the guy who said get her killed by an overdose of morphine or some other drug, not removal of life support

They made my bf want to slit his wrists....

This has been eloquently answered by Salamae.

But I would add, even assuming this cause and effect, so?

I am deathly allergic to aspirin.
Should it be banned?
Do I run around telling everyone not to take the evil drug the profit-mongers are pushing?

No. I am part of the population that is adversely effected by that medication.

All medicines--including "natural" medicines--have potential side-effects. All of them have the potential to effect different people differently.

Your boyfriend should be, and probably was, put on a different medication. There are a wide variety of antidepressants.

What if it did show that all those doctors were right after all? Would you still think she should have been kept alive? What if it proved that she had consciousness but would still never recover? Would you still think she should ahve been kept alive?

Lets try an experiment. Have someone blindfold you, gag you and tie you down so that you could not move or talk for a week, and you are getting fed thru a tube. The first day might not be so bad (you could catch up on some much needed rest). the second day might be bearable (gives you time to think about your life or whatnot). The third day you may start to go a bit crazy and want out... and on and on.

Personally I dont think you could make it thru the first day. While you are in that state, think about being like that for a year - 5 years - 15 years. What would you want? What if you told your friends and loved ones that you didn't want to live like that had it ever happened to you, but they did not abide by those wishes? I want you to honestly think about this.

I think that having to be conscious in such a state would be much worse than not having consciousness of it. A literal hell. Although as a religious person you probably believe in a soul (I am not religious but I am spiritual and I believe in the existance of a soul or super-consciousness). Considering that angle, what do you think about trapping a soul in a useless consciousless body for decades? Do you think that it would be alright? Is that what you would want for yoruself?

Even if her husband did beat her into that state (as it seems you really want to believe), should she then have been kept alive against her wishes just to spite her husband? I really wonder if you have fully thought this thru.

The error in your experiment is that I would be in this state with my full intellect. I don't disagree that Mrs. Schiavo was left profoundly retarded. Is there any way that she could have been aware of her diminished intellect and mourn that loss? There has never been disagreement on her being able to see and hear, so we know that she experienced audio and video stimuli. If she were capable of improving with rehab, why would she have less hope of a contented life any more than people who are born with severe mental impairment? I've said it before and I'll say it again...intelligence is most valued by the intelligent. We say that we wouldn't want to live diminished. Ever wonder, if the mentally handicapped could formulate an opinion, if they would want to live with the stress and responsibility that we (the intelligent) do? Each of us are deaf, mute, and powerless in our own ways.

I don't persist in believing her husband beat her into this state. It's a question that has never been clinically proven to be true or false. Autopsy should resolve that question.

I really wonder if you have fully thought this thru.

If you have read my previous posts on this subject in other threads, you will know that I have thought this moral issue through more intensely and throughly than most everyone else on these boards. With this knowledge, I can only present my opinions based on my experience.

can an autopsy PROVE that she wasnt in a persistant vegetative state? is the lack of " a brain like jello" enough to prove she wasnt?

certainly if her brain turns out to be as bad as her scan showed, she was in PVS but if it looks "pretty good" (considering that she died of dehydration) is that proof that she was somewhat conscious?

in any case im as sure as i can be (given that i didnt know mrs schiavo) that she never told her husband "if im in a PVS and on a feeding tube, please starve me to death, but if im in a coma or minimally conscious but unable to swallow, let me live to the bitter end" i didnt read the court transcripts but i expect she said "i would never want to live on machines for years and years with no hope of recovery" or even "i wouldnt want to live like that"

he followed her wishes. thats enough for me.

IMHO, you can't tell much from the autopsy about the ability to have conscious or semi-conscious thought. It's probably not possible to accurately say exactly what type of consciousness (if any) she was experiencing, unless the cerebral cortex is entirely absent.

The error in your experiment is that I would be in this state with my full intellect. I don't disagree that Mrs. Schiavo was left profoundly retarded. Is there any way that she could have been aware of her diminished intellect and mourn that loss? There has never been disagreement on her being able to see and hear, so we know that she experienced audio and video stimuli. If she were capable of improving with rehab, why would she have less hope of a contented life any more than people who are born with severe mental impairment? I've said it before and I'll say it again...intelligence is most valued by the intelligent. We say that we wouldn't want to live diminished. Ever wonder, if the mentally handicapped could formulate an opinion, if they would want to live with the stress and responsibility that we (the intelligent) do? Each of us are deaf, mute, and powerless in our own ways.

I don't persist in believing her husband beat her into this state. It's a question that has never been clinically proven to be true or false. Autopsy should resolve that question.



If you have read my previous posts on this subject in other threads, you will know that I have thought this moral issue through more intensely and throughly than most everyone else on these boards. With this knowledge, I can only present my opinions based on my experience.

Did you see the movie Lorenzo's Oil? It is based on a true story about a kid with this rare disease taht affects the digestion or something with a 22 or 24 carbon chain lipid and that causes blindness, deafness and eventually death also diminishing the brain. In the end his mother was reading to him but he was able to communicate by blinking his eyes so if what you say is true then why doesnt she do something similar?

What if the media had never caught on to her situation? Then we wouldn't be talking about someone we've never met and whom we've only seen in videos and heard about from people who seek to use her as a political tool, demeaning her and dismissing her humanity! Then we wouldn't be able to try and make a political point by exploiting the pain and suffering of an entire family!

I'm so glad the media is a vapid tool for the government. It sets us off on the most idle, unimportant issues of the day!

IMHO, the primary legal error that a lot of people make is believing that "if I take my case to civil court, and sue the bastard, I'll get what I want".

Yes, you can hire a lawyer. Maybe a great lawyer, or law firm. A lot of people go broke chasing that dream - and 9 times out of 10 - you never get exactly what you expected.

One might ask "why not?" 9 times out of 10 it's not the lawyer's fault (there are some bad ones, but this is not the root cause of the problem in court).

Ever see that statue of a woman with a blindfold on? It's Justice personified. It's not a joke, either.

If it's at all possible try to settle your disputes with each other like rational humans - or try mediation. Once you go to court, rulings tend to be a mixed bag - and you may like part of the ruling, but you'll be livid about the rest of it.

Yesterday, SCOTUS ruled that you can bring suit against companies that engage in seemingly neutral practices that affect older employees in a discriminatory fashion. So, on the face of it, you're that employee, and you think you've won.... NOPE!

SCOTUS says, well, you're allowed to bring the suit, but in this case, the police department that employed you was reasonable in its policies, so you lose...

You've just spent years, and thousands of dollars riding this thing all the way to the Supreme Court. And now you have nothing to show for it.

dont get me ranting on the unfairness of the legal system, dammit. it could go on forever.

i assume that people are disagreeing with you on these points because they think it gives you "points" on your not wanting mrs schiavo to die this way. but geeez you make important points that only a fool would ignore in their own lives.

doctors make mistakes, you HAVE to look out for yourself. lawyers make mistakes you HAVE to look out for yourself. why should anyone disagree with that?

media sucks this is another cuban boy 4th time i said it.

This has been eloquently answered by Salamae.

But I would add, even assuming this cause and effect, so?

I am deathly allergic to aspirin.
Should it be banned?
Do I run around telling everyone not to take the evil drug the profit-mongers are pushing?

No. I am part of the population that is adversely effected by that medication.

All medicines--including "natural" medicines--have potential side-effects. All of them have the potential to effect different people differently.

Your boyfriend should be, and probably was, put on a different medication. There are a wide variety of antidepressants.
No, if anything, doctors should find out what predisposes people to have bad reactions when it comes to antidepressants and not medicate them with antidepressants.

They seem to perscribe them too readily, and without accompanying therapy. If you're on medication for depression, you should also be seeing someone about it.

And they're now saying that tehy shouldn't perscribe them to adolescents at all (my bf wasn't an adolescent when given the meds) as they tend to make things much, much worse for them.

I find it unconscionable that the liberal left is using this whole fiasco surrounding the Terri Schiavo case as their own political chew toy without any thought or consideration for the lives of Terri Schaivo, or her family. And where were all these people who are now criticizing the family of Terri Schaivo for caring for the rights of their daughter when the Clinton administration was busy denying the rights of the family of that little Cuban boy when the family had wanted to get custody of him after his mother had died in the attempt to emigrate to this country? The only difference I see here was that the prior incident had happened during a Democrat presidents' watch. This unfortunate incident transcends political boundaries. I would be every bit as upset even if it were a republican judge who had ordered the feeding tube removed. Who has the right to decide who lives or dies? Certainly not the judge, who had based his entire decision on the desires of Michael Schiavo. Certainly no-one else besides him has any evidence of any kind whatsoever that Terri wanted this, or have even heard her talk of this. No-one could possibly state with any degree of certainty that she could not have regained the ability to feed herself in time, and her family was more than willing to pay for any and all expenses for her care. As far as I am concerned, Judge Greer has ordered an innocent womans' death, by slow starvation. What part of "thou shalt not kill" does this man not understand? I am sure that this matter is not over. A judges job is to interpret the law, not ignore it when he has a political agenda to put forth. He has far exceeded his authority, and should be removed from office immediately. Please also note that Michael Schaivo had refused Terri's family's request to be with their daughter in her final moments after they had given up pursuing legal options. That speaks volumes to the content of the mans' character.

No, if anything, doctors should find out what predisposes people to have bad reactions when it comes to antidepressants and not medicate them with antidepressants.

They seem to perscribe them too readily, and without accompanying therapy. If you're on medication for depression, you should also be seeing someone about it.

And they're now saying that tehy shouldn't perscribe them to adolescents at all (my bf wasn't an adolescent when given the meds) as they tend to make things much, much worse for them.

Dont blame doctors they try to help so you shouldnt blame them for anything and if you didnt want your bf to take the antidepressant or for him to be suicidal for an unknown reason which you believe to be the antidepressant then he shouldnt have gone to the doctor.

It was also never proven that antidepressants make people suicidal. I believe the Sal? guy's opinion

I find it unconscionable that the liberal left is using this whole fiasco surrounding the Terri Schiavo case as their own political chew toy without any thought or consideration for the lives of Terri Schaivo, or her family. And where were all these people who are now criticizing the family of Terri Schaivo for caring for the rights of their daughter when the Clinton administration was busy denying the rights of the family of that little Cuban boy when the family had wanted to get custody of him after his mother had died in the attempt to emigrate to this country? The only difference I see here was that the prior incident had happened during a Democrat presidents' watch. This unfortunate incident transcends political boundaries. I would be every bit as upset even if it were a republican judge who had ordered the feeding tube removed. Who has the right to decide who lives or dies? Certainly not the judge, who had based his entire decision on the desires of Michael Schiavo. Certainly no-one else besides him has any evidence of any kind whatsoever that Terri wanted this, or have even heard her talk of this. No-one could possibly state with any degree of certainty that she could not have regained the ability to feed herself in time, and her family was more than willing to pay for any and all expenses for her care. As far as I am concerned, Judge Greer has ordered an innocent womans' death, by slow starvation. What part of "thou shalt not kill" does this man not understand? I am sure that this matter is not over. A judges job is to interpret the law, not ignore it when he has a political agenda to put forth. He has far exceeded his authority, and should be removed from office immediately. Please also note that Michael Schaivo had refused Terri's family's request to be with their daughter in her final moments after they had given up pursuing legal options. That speaks volumes to the content of the mans' character.

Did you get the cuban boy from me?

IMHO, you can't tell much from the autopsy about the ability to have conscious or semi-conscious thought. It's probably not possible to accurately say exactly what type of consciousness (if any) she was experiencing, unless the cerebral cortex is entirely absent.

:headbang: Her cerberal cortex is almost entirely absent and what is left is abnormal.

This is a small portion of the facts that I have posted numerous times.

Others have posted the CAT scan showing the missing cortex.

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):

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.

The error in your experiment is that I would be in this state with my full intellect. I don't disagree that Mrs. Schiavo was left profoundly retarded. Is there any way that she could have been aware of her diminished intellect and mourn that loss? There has never been disagreement on her being able to see and hear, so we know that she experienced audio and video stimuli. If she were capable of improving with rehab, why would she have less hope of a contented life any more than people who are born with severe mental impairment? I've said it before and I'll say it again...intelligence is most valued by the intelligent. We say that we wouldn't want to live diminished. Ever wonder, if the mentally handicapped could formulate an opinion, if they would want to live with the stress and responsibility that we (the intelligent) do? Each of us are deaf, mute, and powerless in our own ways.

:headbang: She was not merely mentally impaired. She had no brain to speak of.

You persist in spreading half-truths and lies. The court records are there. The medical consensus is there. You simply deny reality.

You claim to be genuinely distressed by this situation, yet cling to falsehoods that justify your distress.

I don't persist in believing her husband beat her into this state. It's a question that has never been clinically proven to be true or false. Autopsy should resolve that question.

Actually, these scandalous rumors were looked into and were proven false.

If you bothered to read the court records you would know this.

Instead, you continue to spread rumours and innuendo. That is immoral.


If you have read my previous posts on this subject in other threads, you will know that I have thought this moral issue through more intensely and throughly than most everyone else on these boards. With this knowledge, I can only present my opinions based on my experience.

Pride is stil a sin, right?

And perhaps your moral thought would be less misguided if it was premised on facts.

The error in your experiment is that I would be in this state with my full intellect. I don't disagree that Mrs. Schiavo was left profoundly retarded. Is there any way that she could have been aware of her diminished intellect and mourn that loss? There has never been disagreement on her being able to see and hear, so we know that she experienced audio and video stimuli. If she were capable of improving with rehab, why would she have less hope of a contented life any more than people who are born with severe mental impairment? I've said it before and I'll say it again...intelligence is most valued by the intelligent. We say that we wouldn't want to live diminished. Ever wonder, if the mentally handicapped could formulate an opinion, if they would want to live with the stress and responsibility that we (the intelligent) do? Each of us are deaf, mute, and powerless in our own ways.

I don't persist in believing her husband beat her into this state. It's a question that has never been clinically proven to be true or false. Autopsy should resolve that question.



If you have read my previous posts on this subject in other threads, you will know that I have thought this moral issue through more intensely and throughly than most everyone else on these boards. With this knowledge, I can only present my opinions based on my experience.

fine we will just gag and restrain you for 15 years. If that makes the experiment closer to Schaivos case and more acceptable to you. So now you can see and hear but intereact in absolutly no way whatsover. Even though nobody really believes that Ms Schaivo could actually see or hear anything outside of a few people who dont belive what all the doctors have concluded. There was a doctor on NPR this morning saying he worked with Ms Schaivo for 20 days, several hours a day and she gave no meaningful responses, the only responses given werent consistent with a PVS. He said he really wanted to believe that she had consciousness and worked to prove that she did but in the end he had to come to the conclusion that she had none whatsoever.

Lets also consider that a person born mentally handicapped doesnt know any different, where it is possible that a person that becomes mentally handicapped after having had "normal" mental capacity may be aware of the change in their quality of life. My sister is mentally and physically handicapped but her condition or any other mentally handicapped condition has nothing to do with Terri Schaivo.

Try the Experiment and you will then have time to actually think this thru more than anyone else on this board.

Did you get the cuban boy from me?

Answer: No.

I didn't notice your comment until now. File it under the heading of great minds think alike.

I find it unconscionable that the liberal left is using this whole fiasco surrounding the Terri Schiavo case as their own political chew toy without any thought or consideration for the lives of Terri Schaivo, or her family. And where were all these people who are now criticizing the family of Terri Schaivo for caring for the rights of their daughter when the Clinton administration was busy denying the rights of the family of that little Cuban boy when the family had wanted to get custody of him after his mother had died in the attempt to emigrate to this country? The only difference I see here was that the prior incident had happened during a Democrat presidents' watch. This unfortunate incident transcends political boundaries. I would be every bit as upset even if it were a republican judge who had ordered the feeding tube removed. Who has the right to decide who lives or dies? Certainly not the judge, who had based his entire decision on the desires of Michael Schiavo. Certainly no-one else besides him has any evidence of any kind whatsoever that Terri wanted this, or have even heard her talk of this. No-one could possibly state with any degree of certainty that she could not have regained the ability to feed herself in time, and her family was more than willing to pay for any and all expenses for her care. As far as I am concerned, Judge Greer has ordered an innocent womans' death, by slow starvation. What part of "thou shalt not kill" does this man not understand? I am sure that this matter is not over. A judges job is to interpret the law, not ignore it when he has a political agenda to put forth. He has far exceeded his authority, and should be removed from office immediately. Please also note that Michael Schaivo had refused Terri's family's request to be with their daughter in her final moments after they had given up pursuing legal options. That speaks volumes to the content of the mans' character.

This little rant has so little connection with reality it is not really worthy of a response.

I will note that Judge Greer is a Christian, a Republican, and a "compassionate" conservative. Happy, skippy?

Answer: No.

I didn't notice your comment until now. File it under the heading of great minds think alike.
im filing it under

"some people listen to rush limbaugh too often"

This little rant has so little connection with reality it is not really worthy of a response.

I will note that Judge Greer is a Christian, a Republican, and a "compassionate" conservative. Happy, skippy?

Not true. He was appointed by Dollar Bill Clinton. I see you're from California. That explains everything.

I find it unconscionable that the liberal left is using this whole fiasco surrounding the Terri Schiavo case as their own political chew toy without any thought or consideration for the lives of Terri Schaivo, or her family. And where were all these people who are now criticizing the family of Terri Schaivo for caring for the rights of their daughter when the Clinton administration was busy denying the rights of the family of that little Cuban boy when the family had wanted to get custody of him after his mother had died in the attempt to emigrate to this country? The only difference I see here was that the prior incident had happened during a Democrat presidents' watch. This unfortunate incident transcends political boundaries. I would be every bit as upset even if it were a republican judge who had ordered the feeding tube removed. Who has the right to decide who lives or dies? Certainly not the judge, who had based his entire decision on the desires of Michael Schiavo. Certainly no-one else besides him has any evidence of any kind whatsoever that Terri wanted this, or have even heard her talk of this. No-one could possibly state with any degree of certainty that she could not have regained the ability to feed herself in time, and her family was more than willing to pay for any and all expenses for her care. As far as I am concerned, Judge Greer has ordered an innocent womans' death, by slow starvation. What part of "thou shalt not kill" does this man not understand? I am sure that this matter is not over. A judges job is to interpret the law, not ignore it when he has a political agenda to put forth. He has far exceeded his authority, and should be removed from office immediately. Please also note that Michael Schaivo had refused Terri's family's request to be with their daughter in her final moments after they had given up pursuing legal options. That speaks volumes to the content of the mans' character.

First of all, blame the liberals for this is the height of hyppocrisy. I mean, was it not the religious right that pushed this all the way to the supreme court 3 times? Was it not Florida Republicans who made anticonstitutionnal law for that specific case? Was it not the Republicans who voted a law to help Mrs. Schiavo parents to have yet another bout of legal recourse? Was it not President Bush that flew specifically for this very cause from Texas to Washington at great expenses? Blaming the left for the media circus is a cheap shot at someone who isn't even to blame.

Secondly, from what I've read of your post, you seem to be blissfully unaware of the details of this particular case. Go have a look at some sources posted from both sides then come back when you have a grasp of the facts.

The brain has regenerative properties in some cases. What if her autopsy shows that she was aware and would have improved with rehabilitation? What if it also shows that her brain damage was caused by trauma and not from coronary arrest?

Another question: what if the autopsy finds she was sexually abused by her parents for years. And that THEY were responsible for her condition. And that this was the reason the parents tried everything in their power to make sure there would not be an autopsy by keeping her alive...

Hey - it is just as likely as all those conspiracy theories surrounding the husband..

Secondly, from what I've read of your post, you seem to be blissfully unaware of the details of this particular case. Go have a look at some sources posted from both sides then come back when you have a grasp of the facts.

Re-read the first line again. I believe we are in basic agreement.

Dont blame doctors they try to help so you shouldnt blame them for anything and if you didnt want your bf to take the antidepressant or for him to be suicidal for an unknown reason which you believe to be the antidepressant then he shouldnt have gone to the doctor.

It was also never proven that antidepressants make people suicidal. I believe the Sal? guy's opinion
Uh... I never said that I didn't want him to take the antidepressants. At the time, he needed them, he was suffering extreme anxiety attacks due to chest pains (they weren't heart issues, but when you're having chest pains, I suppose the concern is there)
I'm just saying that medication isn't the be all and end all of treatment, in the case of psychiatric kinds of medication, a person should be seeing a psychologist while on the medication so any negative reactions can be picked up before something happens to a person or so they can report anything that isn't right to them in a shorter time frame and get on new meds or ease off them. I mean, if you go to a normal doctor and they perscribe meds, often they will suggest a follow up visit to make sure that things are going ok. Why should it be any different with antidepressants?

Not true. He was appointed by Dollar Bill Clinton. I see you're from California. That explains everything.

Prove it.

And, fyi, Judge Greer holds an elected position. :rolleyes:

Try reading. It's fun and educational!

Re-read the first line again. I beleive we are in basic agreement.

LOL. :D

Don't give up on the reading. You'll get the hang of it.

Re-read the first line again. I beleive we are in basic agreement.
Oops....

This one went straight over my head. I apologize. I've been fighting dumb people for too long, I almost forgot how sarcasm looked like.

Prove it.

And, fyi, Judge Greer holds an elected position. :rolleyes:

Try reading. It's fun and educational!

BTW, on the lack of cortex, I hadn't read every post yet. And, I was answering on the subject of what might be possible to determine from an autopsy.

I had already concluded that the court already held some evidence of a lack of conscious thought (or hope of recovery) - otherwise, they may have ruled differently.

Having been suicidal at many points in my life (I'm currently on antidepressants, too), I can say with some experience that nothing can "make you" do something. A drug could take away inhibitions, but the desire has to exist beforehand.

Antidepressants are powerful tools, but just like a hammer, they can be misused. Treatment regimens that include counseling are important. You have to make sure you're not using that antidepressant hammer to hit yourself in the head.
He wasn't suicidal before the medication. He gets on it, takes it as directed and then he gets upset about one little thing and gets hold of a knife and comes pretty damn close to using it.

And he wasn't in counselling before or after being perscribed the anti-depressants.

BTW, on the lack of cortex, I hadn't read every post yet. And, I was answering on the subject of what might be possible to determine from an autopsy.

I had already concluded that the court already held some evidence of a lack of conscious thought (or hope of recovery) - otherwise, they may have ruled differently.

Got it. And you were clear about that. Sorry.

My quick, sharp tongue (fingers?) got a bit away from me again. I should have just emphasized the facts about the lack of cortex, which so many keep ignoring.

LOL. :D

Don't give up on the reading. You'll get the hang of it.

I read quite a bit, thank you. My problem is that I don't believe everything I read or hear. Unlike some people......

(Why Cat Tribe, I do believe I am finished debating with closed, small little minds here, who resort to name calling as a first line of defense for their weak, pathetic little arguments. Anyone wishing an intelligent discourse feel free to post...... I'm out..... Skippy.)

fine we will just gag and restrain you for 15 years. If that makes the experiment closer to Schaivos case and more acceptable to you. So now you can see and hear but intereact in absolutly no way whatsover. Even though nobody really believes that Ms Schaivo could actually see or hear anything outside of a few people who dont belive what all the doctors have concluded. There was a doctor on NPR this morning saying he worked with Ms Schaivo for 20 days, several hours a day and the had absolutely no responses that werent consistent with a PVS. He said he really wanted to believe that she had consciousness and worked to prove that she did but in the end he had to come to the conclusion that she had none whatsoever.

Lets also consider that a person born mentally handicapped doesnt know any different, where it is possible that a person that becomes mentally handicapped after having had "normal" mental capacity may be aware of the change in their quality of life. My sister is mentally and physically handicapped but had nothing to do with Terri Schaivo.

I'm not basing the following on fact, but my own musings. I think this entire story became front page news because of peoples' ignorance, mine included. I don't think most people realized that a desire to not be kept alive through artifical means could mean that we would be forced to die through the lack of basic needs. For hundreds of years suicide has been viewed as unacceptable. Now, we are easing into acceptance through "right to death with dignity", "doctor assisted suicide", and "euthenasia". We have accepted the removal of equipment that results in immediate death for those that requested it. But, we have found out that other, more long-term, agonizing methods are used in the realm of life support denial. Countless people have scrambled to prepare living wills, and many have ammended theirs so that they will not meet death in such a way. Another element of Mrs. Schiavo's case that have caused people to question her death is the guardianship issue...parent (blood relative) vs spouse. Some have rough relationships with their SO's, others with their parents. Some have no one to speak for them. Who makes the decision? IMO, if there are differing views on the wishes of a person who has not documented them, then I believe the guardianship should go to the person or people who want to allow them to live. If an error is made, the error of an unjust death is unconscionable. How can we call ourselves civilized if we force death upon the handicapped, the criminal, the insane, the unborn, anyone? The decision for death, whether our own or another's, is not in our realm.

Do you realize that based on your criteria, Helen Keller would have died as a baby from starvation?

Have you heard of the boiling frog?

I'm not basing the following on fact, but my own musings. I think this entire story became front page news because of peoples' ignorance, mine included. I don't think most people realized that a desire to not be kept alive through artifical means could mean that we would be forced to die through the lack of basic needs. For hundreds of years suicide has been viewed as unacceptable. Now, we are easing into acceptance through "right to death with dignity", "doctor assisted suicide", and "euthenasia". We have accepted the removal of equipment that results in immediate death for those that requested it. But, we have found out that other, more long-term, agonizing methods are used in the realm of life support denial. Countless people have scrambled to prepare living wills, and many have ammended theirs so that they will not meet death in such a way. Another element of Mrs. Schiavo's case that have caused people to question her death is the guardianship issue...parent (blood relative) vs spouse. Some have rough relationships with their SO's, others with their parents. Some have no one to speak for them. Who makes the decision? IMO, if there are differing views on the wishes of a person who has not documented them, then I believe the guardianship should go to the person or people who want to allow them to live. If an error is made, the error of an unjust death is unconscionable. How can we call ourselves civilized if we force death upon the handicapped, the criminal, the insane, the unborn, anyone? The decision for death, whether our own or another's, is not in our realm.

Do you realize that based on your criteria, Helen Keller would have died as a baby from starvation?

Have you heard of the boiling frog?

Well said Zooke. Very well said. I couldn't have said it better. :)

they didn't think Hellen Keller had any consciousness? Or could she move, eat, reacts to stimuli and display signs of consciousness?

they didn't think Hellen Keller had any consciousness? Or could she move, eat, reacts to stimuli and display signs of consciousness?

She was just deaf, blind, and mute literally.

I'm not basing the following on fact, but my own musings. I think this entire story became front page news because of peoples' ignorance, mine included. I don't think most people realized that a desire to not be kept alive through artifical means could mean that we would be forced to die through the lack of basic needs. For hundreds of years suicide has been viewed as unacceptable. Now, we are easing into acceptance through "right to death with dignity", "doctor assisted suicide", and "euthenasia". We have accepted the removal of equipment that results in immediate death for those that requested it. But, we have found out that other, more long-term, agonizing methods are used in the realm of life support denial. Countless people have scrambled to prepare living wills, and many have ammended theirs so that they will not meet death in such a way. Another element of Mrs. Schiavo's case that have caused people to question her death is the guardianship issue...parent (blood relative) vs spouse. Some have rough relationships with their SO's, others with their parents. Some have no one to speak for them. Who makes the decision? IMO, if there are differing views on the wishes of a person who has not documented them, then I believe the guardianship should go to the person or people who want to allow them to live. If an error is made, the error of an unjust death is unconscionable. How can we call ourselves civilized if we force death upon the handicapped, the criminal, the insane, the unborn, anyone? The decision for death, whether our own or another's, is not in our realm.


Do you realize that based on your criteria, Helen Keller would have died as a baby from starvation?

Have you heard of the boiling frog?

Bravo, Zooke. Well said.

I would also be remiss at this point if I did not point out that my wife is a teacher in a public school of mentally handicapped kids.... at least half of her class cannot feed themselves either. This does not mean that they should be killed, just because some members of society have dictated that their lives have no value. Christopher Reeve for that matter could not feed himself unassisted. They can feel and they can love. Which is more than I have seen from some of those that have posted here today.

She was just deaf, blind, and mute literally.


that didnt answer my question

that didnt answer my question

Deaf=Unable to hear
Blind=unable to see
Mute=unable to communicate.

By your definition, she should've been put to death.

Bravo, Zooke. Well said.

I would also be remiss at this point if I did not point out that my wife is a teacher in a public school of mentally handicapped kids.... at least half of her class cannot feed themselves either. This does not mean that they should be killed, just because some members of society have dictated that their lives have no value. Christpher Reeve for that matter could not feed himself unassisted. They can feel and they can love. Which is more than I have seen from some of those that have posted here today.

You are talking about people with actual consciousness, while Terri had none. No difference you say?

I read quite a bit, thank you. My problem is that I don't believe everything I read or hear. Unlike some people......

(Why Cat Tribe, I do believe I am finished debating with closed, small little minds here, who resort to name calling as a first line of defense for their weak, pathetic little arguments. Anyone wishing an intelligent discourse feel free to post...... I'm out..... Skippy.)

In other words, once your rant was challenged, you couldn't find the proof. :rolleyes:

Deaf=Unable to hear
Blind=unable to see
Mute=unable to communicate.

By your definition, she should've been put to death.


That wasnt my question and that wasnt my definition. try again. Answer the question directly.

Deaf=Unable to hear
Blind=unable to see
Mute=unable to communicate.

By your definition, she should've been put to death.

Brain = liquid = no think, no feel.

Is that too hard to follow?

Bravo, Zooke. Well said.

I would also be remiss at this point if I did not point out that my wife is a teacher in a public school of mentally handicapped kids.... at least half of her class cannot feed themselves either. This does not mean that they should be killed, just because some members of society have dictated that their lives have no value. Christpher Reeve for that matter could not feed himself unassisted. They can feel and they can love. Which is more than I have seen from some of those that have posted here today.

One of my daughter-in-laws is a special ed teacher on the elementary school level. She always has great stories of what her students have accomplished. I don't have the patience to do what she does, but she loves it and I am inspired by some of these children. I might also add that one of my sons has remarried and one of his new step-children has Downs Syndrome. He's a lovable cuddle. I can't imagine what kind of person could look at him and think that he would be better off dead...or that the world would be improved with his absence. What gives us the right to set the criteria for life?

I'd appreciate a response to my post, Zooke darling. I know it's tough considering how contentious the issue is, and what with all the other posts you'e contending with, but it would feel awful good if I didn't have the impression of shouting (at length) into the ether.

My post is located top of page 8, post# 106, or click here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=409050&page=8&pp=15

Or are you not up to talking with someone who HAS a family member suffering from a PVS, someone whose parents refuse to consider anyone's wishes but their own?

-DT.

You are talking about people with actual consciousness, while Terri had none. No difference you say?

You are off an a tangent here. If she could feed herself, we would not be having this discussion now. She demonstrated consciousness. Look at the videos with an objective eye. The judges' criteria for having the feeding tube removed was the central fact that she was not mentally competent enough to be able to feed herself. This COULD have changed over time. A moot point now, though.

Thank you for differing with my viewpoint without being abusive. I respect you for that.

One of my daughter-in-laws is a special ed teacher on the elementary school level. She always has great stories of what her students have accomplished. I don't have the patience to do what she does, but she loves it and I am inspired by some of these children. I might also add that one of my sons has remarried and one of his new step-children has Downs Syndrome. He's a lovable cuddle. I can't imagine what kind of person could look at him and think that he would be better off dead...or that the world would be improved with his absence. What gives us the right to set the criteria for life?


So you find no difference between someone with down syndrome and PVS? Have you been listening to all teh explanations about what PVS actually is? Or are you just goin to keep ignoring real points and putting words into other peoples mouths.

I've said all I could say. Ignore whatever points you like and twist wahatever words you wish to. Good day and wash your windows.

What if Terri Schiavo's autopsy proves she was not in a vegetative state?

That would be almost as embarrassing as not finding WMD's in Iraq.

You are off an a tangent here. If she could feed herself, we would not be having this discussion now. She demonstrated consciousness. Look at the videos with an objective eye. The judges' criteria for having the feeding tube removed was the central fact that she was not mentally competent enough to be able to feed herself. This COULD have changed over time. A moot point now, though.

Thank you for differing with my viewpoint without being abusive. I respect you for that.


She wasn't removed from the feeding tube because she couldn't feed herself. Also there is a lot of literature on PVS that those in a PVS can demonstrate movements and sound that would simulate consciousness but in actuallity is not.

Brain = liquid = no think, no feel.

Is that too hard to follow?

Morphine=painkiller

If she couldn't feel then why the morphine?

That would be almost as embarrassing as not finding WMD's in Iraq.

Leave Iraq out of this please.

Frankly, I look forward to the autopsy.

She was just deaf, blind, and mute literally.
She wasn't mute.

It took her much longer to learn to speak as most people, but she couldn't hear what was being said nor could she see how someone moved their mouth. She learned to speak by putting her hands on the throat and mouth of her teacher.

She wasn't anywhere near a vegetative state... she could still walk around and make noises (later learning sign language and how to speak as well as learning to read and write) if you put food in front of her and placed her hands in such a way to indicate the food was there, she could eat it on her own.

Moreover, her cerebral cortex wasn't half wiped out.

Morphine=painkiller

If she couldn't feel then why the morphine?
In case she could. It was a precaution.

In case she could. It was a precaution.

Just stating that if she can't feel as people on here 100% stated she couldn't, then why?

Morphine=painkiller

If she couldn't feel then why the morphine?

Primarily to keep idiots from worrying about her suffering. But also as a precaution.

Pain response != thought.

Brain still equals liquid.

Really repeat Brain = liquid about 50 times until you get it.

She wasn't removed from the feeding tube because she couldn't feed herself. Also there is a lot of literature on PVS that those in a PVS can demonstrate movements and sound that would simulate consciousness but in actuallity is not.

Possibly. But the only person who really could prove the veracity of that statement was Terri Schaivo herself. Who certainly cannot possibly do so now. Besides, it doesn't really matter to me if she was in a PVS state or not. To me, the central issue is whether Michael Schaivo had the right to order the feeding tube removed without a living will in place, and no witnesses whatsoever to testify that she indeed did not want to live if she was to fall into this state. Her parents wanted to take up ALL responsibilites for her care. Why was he so dead set to see her die?

Ha, you have to be kidding right. Nobody should. I was practically a guinea pig for a lot of antidepressant medicines for a while and I gained 30 pounds ect. Now some of the medicines tried on me have been found unsafe and I could have died from them. Also if you look at the FDA they have banned medicines that could cure many diseases because guess what, THEY DON"T WANT CURES. All they care about is money. They love temporary pain relieves like aspirin that are actually proven to hurt you body over time yet they don't do anything about it. I could go on and on.

Oh God help you if you EVER have to: eat fried potatoes, rice that has been in the fridge over night, well done beef, sugar, eggs, most preservatives, take any kind of medication, play any kind of sport that involves going outdoors, use a computer(lap tops cause sterility), type, drive, stay in the sun, stay out of the sun, move, stay still, bathe, etc.... Have you ever read the findings? By all means we should all have cancer and be dead with how bad EVERYTHING is for us. asitic salasilic acid, aspirin, has great medicinal effects, too. Just WAY too strong.

Possibly. But the only person who really could prove the veracity of that statement was Terri Schaivo herself. Who certainly cannot possibly do so now. Besides, it doesn't really matter to me if she was in a PVS state or not. To me, the central issue is whether Michael Schaivo had the right to order the feeding tube removed without a living will in place, and no witnesses whatsoever to testify that she indeed did not want to live if she was to fall into this state. Her parents wanted to take up ALL responsibilites for her care. Why was he so dead set to see her die?

How about because he loved her dearly? Why do you perceive this as some sort of theft? He loved her enough to want her to complete her life's journey. Maybe if you've had family members in a PVS you'd understand. I suppose you're just content to see the world in terms of property and ownership, however.

Possibly. But the only person who really could prove the veracity of that statement was Terri Schaivo herself. Who certainly cannot possibly do so now. Besides, it doesn't really matter to me if she was in a PVS state or not. To me, the central issue is whether Michael Schaivo had the right to order the feeding tube removed without a living will in place, and no witnesses whatsoever to testify that she indeed did not want to live if she was to fall into this state. Her parents wanted to take up ALL responsibilites for her care. Why was he so dead set to see her die?

WEll if that is your worry then worry no more. Every single court case up to the Supreme Court has decided in favor of Micheal Shaivo. Plus yes there were witnesses that testified in favor of Micheal Schaivo that that is what Mrs Schaivo wanted. So worry not, the right for Mr Schaivo to request that her wishes to be fulfilled have been tried and tested in a several courts of law.

As for letting her parent go against her wishes and keep her alive when she did not want to be. Wouldnt you rather honor your wifes wishes than let her parents do soemthgn that would be against her will?

and no witnesses whatsoever to testify that she indeed did not want to live if she was to fall into this state.

Quite a lot of people will be most surprised to learn they do not exist according to you. As will the people that heard them give testimony.

Her parents wanted to take up ALL responsibilites for her care. Why was he so dead set to see her die?

Maybe, just maybe, because he genuinely believed that was what she wanted ? In which case he is one of the most devoted husbands in existence.

Or maybe because he believed living like that is worse than Hell. Which I would personally agree with, but that is irrelevant. In that case he put his own opinion above hers, for which he should be tried.

Its sad to see your kid go before you and so it mustve been for the schiavos, but i think she was in a PVS cuz if after 14 years shes still cant respond to stimuli, there's nothing really that could be done, thinking otherwise is foolish and thye have to LET GO.. i mean they knew this would happen one day...

In fact, why don't all of you just take a frickin' reality check here?

HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE A RELATIVE currently in a PVS?

I DO.

So take all your gossipy, mean-spirited implications about Mike Schiavo and just CRAM THEM.

You're all a bunch of frickin' idiots where this issue is concerned.

I'd appreciate a response to my post, Zooke darling. I know it's tough considering how contentious the issue is, and what with all the other posts you'e contending with, but it would feel awful good if I didn't have the impression of shouting (at length) into the ether.

My post is located top of page 8, post# 106, or click here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=409050&page=8&pp=15

Or are you not up to talking with someone who HAS a family member suffering from a PVS, someone whose parents refuse to consider anyone's wishes but their own?

-DT.

'What if' can be a powerful phrase indeed. 'What if' an autopsy reveals she was an alien? 'What if' her brain was inhabited by a colony of elves? It's fine and well to engage in medically unsubstantiated parlour speculation, but unless, dear Zooke, you are in a position of knowledgeable authority on the matter, you 'what if's, 'could be's, and 'perhaps's amount to nothing substantial whatsoever.

I find it highly illuminating that in your last speculative remark, you build on your previous thought that Schiavo might have been aware or capable of rehabilitation - and further, that you are calling into question the veracity of the medical history that delivered Schiavo into her vegetative state.

Seeing as how you seem to enjoy playing junior detective, and how you're seeing this as some sort of conspiracy, who are you inferring was responsible for inflicting this supposed 'trauma' you seem to feel may have been the true cause for her 'apparently' persistent vegetative state?

Just so you know, I'm not trying to be insensitive or cruel - my own brother-in-law continues to moulder in a hospital room in a vegetative state due to an auto accident two years ago. My sister-in-law, who had been estranged from him for some twelve months, was unable to legally convey his heartfelt wishes to not be kept alive in such a manner, as his parents were considered by law to be his immediate next-of-kin. Although my brother-in-law was a staunch Communist and an Atheist, his parents, fervent Catholics, refused to listen to their dead son's wife, and have drained all the money from an insurance claim keeping their brain-dead son in a private room at a private hospital. This is especially a shame, considering that the two of them had children together, and that money, which he would not have wanted to see spent on pointless expense, (i.e. the fruitless continuance of his non-life), could instead have been used for such living considerations as clothing, food, shelter or schooling for his surviving family.

Even the parents' parish priest tried to persuade them to understand that their son was an empty vessel, to try encouraging them to let go. But they are convinced that he will at some point in the future wake up and everything will be as it was, provided they say enough Rosaries. Hogwash.

The reality is, that no matter how strong my brother-in-law's immune system, and no matter how clean and antiseptic the hospital, eventually, an infection will set in unnoticed, his immune system will not be able to cope, and his body will follow his brain and finish the job of dying. Unfortunately for all concerned, my brother-in-law was a healthy man, a strong young man, and so chances are he will linger for, well - quite possibly decades before he completes his transaction with the Grim Reaper.

Meanwhile, there is no closure for his children, or for my sister-in-law. She had to stop taking the children for visits, because they're still young enough to find the whole thing rather confusing - my nephew asked his mother 'why Daddy is angry with him', and after a bit of a chat, my sister-in-law was able to deduce that her son thought his Dad was making a point of ignoring him, as though in anger. Her kids understand Death - but this kind of 'living Death' eludes them.

All of this is in aid of what, exactly? Is it really about the poor bastard with a food-tube stuck down their nose? Or is it about humouring the living - those who cannot come to grips with the reality that one of their children is going to pass into the great beyond before they do? Why deny Death, and ruin the lives of others in the process?

And why, dear Zooke, do you hope to imply some form of wrongdoing (i.e., 'trauma') in the case of Schiavo's PVS? Are you so vindictive that you would wish to see further suffering? Angst? Public airing of other people's sorrows?

Pray a Rosary? Pray on one for yourself - for forgiveness.


I didn't answer your post because I didn't want to deal with putting this into words again. This is the last time I do it. My daughter was epileptic. She went into seizue and for about 5 hours the doctors misdiagnosed a brain aneurysm as epileptic activity. In those hours the collection of blood so severely damaged her brain that it's swelling pushed her brain stem into her spinal column. She was left unable to maintain autonomic nervous system responses such as respiration or a heartbeat. After extensive tests by a team of neurologists, her father, fiance', siblings, and I decided unanimously to remove her from life support. If she had shown any of the responses evident in video of Mrs. Schiavo, we would have moved Heaven and Hell to give her a chance at life. We have all been emotionally affected by the Schiavo story. On Easter we all talked together, in person and via phone, and affirmed that we would have done everything that Mrs. Schiavo's parents have done if it would have meant a chance for her.

As for the questions I posed...I am not advocating absolute belief that they are substantive. They are merely questions that have not been answered adequately. This is a "what if" scenerio...what if the accusations and questions are true? It has nothing to do with vindictivness or hatred. I wanted to know the response from those on both sides of the issue if the worst became known. How do we deal with it and what steps do we take to prevent it from happening again? A valid topic of discussion in my view.

So you find no difference between someone with down syndrome and PVS? Have you been listening to all teh explanations about what PVS actually is? Or are you just goin to keep ignoring real points and putting words into other peoples mouths.

I've said all I could say. Ignore whatever points you like and twist wahatever words you wish to. Good day and wash your windows.

No, I don't find a difference. Every single person is precious. I just think we are on a very slippery slope. Did you notice that most of the protester's at Mrs Schiavo's nursing home were disabled? They're worried...and they have a right to be in view of what has happened.

As for the window washing...I've done that and a lot of other chores around here trying to stay busy and not think so much about the Schiavo case. It strikes too close to home.

All that said, I'm signing off for a while now. I'm sure something around here needs cleaning.

WEll if that is your worry then worry no more. Every single court case up to the Supreme Court has decided in favor of Micheal Shaivo. Plus yes there were witnesses that testified in favor of Micheal Schaivo that that is what Mrs Schaivo wanted. So worry not, the right for Mr Schaivo to request that her wishes to be fulfilled have been tried and tested in a several courts of law.

As for letting her parent go against her wishes and keep her alive when she did not want to be. Wouldnt you rather honor your wifes wishes than let her parents do soemthgn that would be against her will?

Refusing to hear the case is not the same as hearing the case. The Supreme Court decided nothing.

However, if nothing else come of this, I think we all can agree that it shows the need in today's society of preparing a living will so that there are no questions regarding our what we want regarding our health care after we are unable to articulate them ourselves. And no ambiguities.

Another comment on the autopsy situation, or rather a question. I had thought that Michael Schiavo had ordered her cremated. Is this true?

Another comment on the autopsy situation, or rather a question. I had thought that Michael Schiavo had ordered her cremated. Is this true?
She'll be cremated after the autopsy. THis has been known for quite awhile now.

Take Care Zooke! I'm available if you want to talk.

They are merely questions that have not been answered adequately.

Answered adequately to the standards of the Schiavo's, or to your own, Zooke?

This isn't, should not, be a matter for public consumption - this is a family matter, as surely as your daughter, and my brother-in-law were matters for our own families to consider.

Why can't anyone just leave Mike Schiavo alone? Would everybody be happy what- putting him on trial for murder? This seems to be what some people here are ultimately implying - that Mike Schiavo is a murderer, somehow.

If that's what you're getting at, then why not come right out and say it?

In fact, why don't all of you just take a frickin' reality check here?

HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE A RELATIVE currently in a PVS?

I DO.

So take all your gossipy, mean-spirited implications about Mike Schiavo and just CRAM THEM.

You're all a bunch of frickin' idiots where this issue is concerned.

Amen.

And you have my sympathy and support. :(

Amen.

And you have my sympathy and support. :(

(Which my nasty nature can't help but note none of those claiming a monopoly on compassion bothered to offer.)

Maybe because we just found out about it?

In fact, why don't all of you just take a frickin' reality check here?

HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE A RELATIVE currently in a PVS?

I DO.

So take all your gossipy, mean-spirited implications about Mike Schiavo and just CRAM THEM.

You're all a bunch of frickin' idiots where this issue is concerned.

You have my sympathy Dobbs. If you do want to talk, you can email me or IM me.

I'll keep you in my prayers.

Amen.

And you have my sympathy and support. :(

(Which my nasty nature can't help but note none of those claiming a monopoly on compassion bothered to offer.)

One cannot help but wonder what motivated THIS sudden outpouring of sympathy. Oh yes, the nasty nature. I forgot. Makes the attack of sincerity rather dubious at best. I will offer my sympathies in the only way that really matters. I'll say a prayer for your brother, Dobbs Town, and any and all people also in this unfortunate situation.

Enough said. I'm out.

Amen.

And you have my sympathy and support. :(


I would be remiss if I were not to say thanks for your sympathy and support.

It takes a depth of love that is terribly profound to say goodbye to a family member in a PVS. All the more so when there are meddlesome 'do-gooders' who refuse to let that family member go.

Otto, my brother-in-law, has really been dead for two years. He will never recover. His spirit needs to be released from the physical body that binds him to this place. Journey, interrupted.

This has nothing to do with the rights of Christians, or murder conspiracies, or what the pundits at FoxNews have to say. This is a family matter. So unless you're named Schiavo, mind your Ps and Qs.

What about the Pundits on CNN and MSNBC? WHy do you pick on Fox News? That's right! I forgot. Its conservative.

One cannot help but wonder what motivated THIS sudden outpouring of sympathy. Oh yes, the nasty nature. I forgot. Makes the attack of sincerity rather dubious at best. I will offer my sympathies in the only way that really matters. I'll say a prayer for your brother, Dobbs Town, and any and all people also in this unfortunate situation.

Enough said. I'm out.

Perhaps you can look for that proof while you're gone ...

Then you can join the grownups at the big table.

I would be remiss if I were not to say thanks for your sympathy and support.

It takes a depth of love that is terribly profound to say goodbye to a family member in a PVS. All the more so when there are meddlesome 'do-gooders' who refuse to let that family member go.

Otto, my brother-in-law, has really been dead for two years. He will never recover. His spirit needs to be released from the physical body that binds him to this place. Journey, interrupted.

This has nothing to do with the rights of Christians, or murder conspiracies, or what the pundits at FoxNews have to say. This is a family matter. So unless you're named Schiavo, mind your Ps and Qs.

You are welcome. And I apologize again for interjecting the political point. The sympathy was heartfelt.

It is precisely because I am outraged at the intrusion into a private matter that I have been posting on this topic.

Mr. Schiavo has been wrongly villified and libeled. And some people should be ashamed of themselves.

Perhaps your perspective has opened a few closed minds.

Perhaps you can look for that proof while you're gone ...

Then you can join the grownups at the big table.

Stop with the attacks already Cat-Tribe!

I HAVE seen the proof. I just prefer not to look at it with the same rose colored glasses you have on. My assessments are simply not yours. But not the less valid for that. And if you are a grown up, then thanks, I think I'll just sit here with the children. The stink of your hatred makes it impossible to sit too closely to you anyway.

Now, I'm out.

I HAVE seen the proof. I just prefer not to look at it with the same rose colored glasses you have on. My assessments are simply not yours. But not the less valid for that. And if you are a grown up, then thanks, I think I'll just sit here with the children. The stink of your hatred makes it impossible to sit too closely to you anyway.

Now, I'm out.

Goes for you too Myotisinia!

Nothing is gained by these attacks but more of them.

Please stop.

I HAVE seen the proof. I just prefer not to look at it with the same rose colored glasses you have on. My assessments are simply not yours. But not the less valid for that. And if you are a grown up, then thanks, I think I'll just sit here with the children. The stink of your hatred makes it impossible to sit too closely to you anyway.

Now, I'm out.

What proof?

As they disagree with the assessment of every guardian ad litem and every judge from the Florida state trial court through the Florida Supreme Court through to the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, your "assessments" are presumptively wrong in the absence of the slightest bit of proof or logical argument.

And, if you will recall, you claimed Judge Greer -- an elected Florida state judge who is a conservative Christian Repulican -- was appointed by Clinton. When asked for proof you pulled this same "you're full of hate" snit and ran away. Speaks for itself.

Goes for you too Myotisinia!

Nothing is gained by these attacks but more of them.

Please stop.


Are you and Panhan going to post an appology thread in general when the autopsy concludes that mr schiavo didnt beat his wife into a coma or whatever you hate mongers would have us believe?

And (although this is proven conclusively already by brain images) that her brain was essentially gone, meaning that in no circumstances could she recuperate?

Are you going to appologize for slurring mrs schiavo by claiming falsely that she wanted to be kept alive and casting slurs on her husband?

Are you going to appologize for your slurs on the judges involved?

??

Are you and Panhan going to post an appology thread in general when the autopsy concludes that mr schiavo didnt beat his wife into a coma or whatever you hate mongers would have us believe?

I might! And I am not a hate monger! Stop with the attacks! It doesn't solve anything.

And (although this is proven conclusively already by brain images) that her brain was essentially gone, meaning that in no circumstances could she recuperate?

Where's the MRI? oh wait, she couldn't have one. CAT scans aren't perfect.

Are you going to appologize for slurring mrs schiavo by claiming falsely that she wanted to be kept alive and casting slurs on her husband?

That I won't do because there is nothing in writing as to her wishes and can you show me where I so called "slurred her wishes"?

Are you going to appologize for your slurs on the judges involved?

I don't like judges in general.

Will you apologize for all the attacks against those that fought to keep her alive if things come back that he did beat her into this or yet that her brain wasn't as full of jelly as people said it was? As WL stated earlier, docs have been wrong before.

What about the Pundits on CNN and MSNBC? WHy do you pick on Fox News? That's right! I forgot. Its conservative.

See, you're all uptight over nothing. I picked Fox News partly because they're conservative, as I certainly feel news is meant to be just that - news, not some partisan BS that supports one side or the other...and Fox News isn't about news, it's about cheerleading for various right-wing causes celebres.

I also picked it because I needed to fill out a phrase. I was writing. Sure I could have said something else, but I didn't. Not everybody writes as though they're assembling a jigsaw puzzle. Sometimes it just comes spilling out rather quickly. So I needed to quickly reference a place known for political punditry. Fox News leapt to mind.

Don't blame my conscious or subconscious mind for picking that one out of the ether. Hey, the execs at Fox pride themselves on their news not being 'news' per se, but 'entertainment' - hence their heavy reliance on partisan editorials and punditry. They're interested in sensationalism, because the bottom line is selling ad space. So, blame Fox for creating an entity so well known for indulging in partisan politics that it immediately came to mind as I wrote - and if you'll recall, my original post you've commented unhappily about was a fraction of the length of this response.

Now have I justified my thought processes sufficiently for you? Are you 100% clear on things? Do you still feel unjustly singled out as a conservative/republican/religious person/what have you? Or shall I indulge your apparent sensitivity in these matters further?

Land sakes, it's not as though people are being nailed up or thrown to the lions anymore. Cope with it.

I might! And I am not a hate monger! Stop with the attacks! It doesn't solve anything.


Will you apologize for all the attacks against those that fought to keep her alive if things come back that he did beat her into this or yet that her brain wasn't as full of jelly as people said it was? As WL stated earlier, docs have been wrong before.

You and panhan have repeatedly denied facts, spread dirty, false rumors and grasped at thinner and thinner straws and the only unifying theme of your arguments has been savage personal animosity towards michael schiavo.

You both discount out of hand even the remotest possiblity that he indeed went through all of this because it is what his wife wanted and he loved her and was dutiful. That is the most reasonable conclusion, but somehow it is impossible in your and panhan's world view, which can only be described as hate-mongering.

You have no good reason whatsoever to hate michael schiavo, he did a good and noble thing and made great self sacrafice but you slander him and repeat hideous lies and false rumors because you palpably *hate* him.



Secondly, Yes, without hesitation and with great remorse I will appologize if indeed she could have recuperated with treatment or her state was the result of abuse.

Integrity demands that.

See, you're all uptight over nothing. I picked Fox News partly because they're conservative, as I certainly feel news is meant to be just that - news, not some partisan BS that supports one side or the other...and Fox News isn't about news, it's about cheerleading for various right-wing causes celebres.

Show me where they were cheerleading for various right-wing causes! proof please?

I also picked it because I needed to fill out a phrase. I was writing. Sure I could have said something else, but I didn't. Not everybody writes as though they're assembling a jigsaw puzzle. Sometimes it just comes spilling out rather quickly. So I needed to quickly reference a place known for political punditry. Fox News leapt to mind.

I'll forgive you!

Don't blame my conscious or subconscious mind for picking that one out of the ether. Hey, the execs at Fox pride themselves on their news not being 'news' per se, but 'entertainment' - hence their heavy reliance on partisan editorials and punditry. They're interested in sensationalism, because the bottom line is selling ad space. So, blame Fox for creating an entity so well known for indulging in partisan politics that it immediately came to mind as I wrote - and if you'll recall, my original post you've commented unhappily about was a fraction of the length of this response.

Every network has heavy partisan editorials and punditry. Even Newspapers have that. Its been around a hell of a lot longer than Fox News has. I'll blame yellow journalism of the 1890s that got us involved in the Spanish-American War for this.

Now have I justified my thought processes sufficiently for you? Are you 100% clear on things? Do you still feel unjustly singled out as a conservative/republican/religious person/what have you? Or shall I indulge your apparent sensitivity in these matters further?

I am a conservative and a republican granted. I am religious however I try not to bring it into debates so don't even try to get me on that one. As for justification, yes you have.

Land sakes, it's not as though people are being nailed up or thrown to the lions anymore. Cope with it.

I do!

IThat I won't do because there is nothing in writing as to her wishes and can you show me where I so called "slurred her wishes"?


Why are you proceeding from the point of view that Mike Schiavo WASN'T privvy to his dearly beloved's wishes, simply because no living will was drafted prior to her mishap?

How many people do you suppose have such a document?

Why should anyone NOT have believed Mr. Schiavo? A "gut instinct"? Did his eyes look shifty? Was he not as grief-stricken as people supposedly should be? And who is to judge what a proper response to this situation should be? You? The Catholic Church? Jeb Bush?

Who?

You should just quit while you're ahead, Corneliu. You don't know a damn thing of what you're talking about here.

You and panhan have repeatedly denied facts, spread dirty, false rumors and grasped at thinner and thinner straws and the only unifying theme of your arguments has been savage personal animosity towards michael schiavo.

Even I found Panhan to be out of line. He has constently attacked others. I however, have not attacked anyone on these boards. Just the opposite. I've been attacked for my views.

You both discount out of hand even the remotest possiblity that he indeed went through all of this because it is what his wife wanted and he loved her and was dutiful. That is the most reasonable conclusion, but somehow it is impossible in your and panhan's world view, which can only be described as hate-mongering.

I haven't discounted anything. Has it ever occured to you that I took the opposite side here for the debate? What do I get? Slandered.

You have no good reason whatsoever to hate michael schiavo, he did a good and noble thing and made great self sacrafice but you slander him and repeat hideous lies and false rumors because you palpably *hate* him.

Adultery is something to hate him for. Not allowing her parents to see her at the time of her death is something to hate him for. Denying them visitation rights at times is something to hate him for.

Secondly, Yes, without hesitation and with great remorse I will appologize if indeed she could have recuperated with treatment or her state was the result of abuse.

Thank you.

Integrity demands that.

Amen!

*snip*
I am a conservative and a republican granted. I am religious however I try not to bring it into debates so don't even try to get me on that one. As for justification, yes you have.
*snip*

ROFLASTC :D

Why are you proceeding from the point of view that Mike Schiavo WASN'T privvy to his dearly beloved's wishes, simply because no living will was drafted prior to her mishap?

How do we know she actually stated it? She could have. We don't know and we'll never know.

How many people do you suppose have such a document?

Several people actually. My grandmother did. My parents do. Most people that I know do as well. Probably because it was required by regulations.

Why should anyone NOT have believed Mr. Schiavo? A "gut instinct"? Did his eyes look shifty? Was he not as grief-stricken as people supposedly should be? And who is to judge what a proper response to this situation should be? You? The Catholic Church? Jeb Bush?

Who?

God!

Show me where they were cheerleading for various right-wing causes! proof please?


You know what? No. No, I won't provide you any links. I've let myself fall into this particular trap where you're concerned on other occasions, and I can't think of a more fruitless exercise in time-wasting than to indulge your fetishistic need to be provided links to every single damn subject that's ever existed. Besides, all that'd happen is you'd glance at them, call it all left-wing rubbish, and go right back to toeing the party line.

Why bother? Your mind is already made up, and no, NO amount of discourse, dialogue, comparison, allusion, allegory, or investigation is going to change THAT.

So, no thank you, I'll allow you to keep labouring under the assumption that Fox News is the bestest more fair and balanced bunch of balderdash going.

Enjoy.

Integrity demands that.
Amen!

Amen?!

Amen?!

You flat out refused to say you would apologize.

Apparently integrity fled with decency.

http://img125.exs.cx/img125/171/photo2005330218522sz.jpg

QUOTE=Corneliu]
I am a conservative and a republican granted. I am religious however I try not to bring it into debates so don't even try to get me on that one.

And then on the same page...

quote = Dobbs Town Why should anyone NOT have believed Mr. Schiavo? A "gut instinct"? Did his eyes look shifty? Was he not as grief-stricken as people supposedly should be? And who is to judge what a proper response to this situation should be? You? The Catholic Church? Jeb Bush?

Who?
/quote

Corne's response:

God!/QUOTE]

Amen?!

Amen?!

You flat out refused to say you would apologize.

Apparently integrity fled with decency.

Care to point out where I said I wouldn't apologize? I believe, if you followed the whole thing Cat-Tribe, you'll see that I said I will

How do we know she actually stated it? She could have. We don't know and we'll never know.

- And it's not your place to know, either. And never will be. How terribly difficult that will be for you.


God!

- Well then I'm sure God and Mr. Schiavo will have an interesting chat about it someday, won't they?

Now why don't you mind your own family's business rather than the Schiavo family's business? Or maybe take the time to pen your own living will. So as to eliminate even the slightest scintilla of doubt there may be as to whether you wish to be celebrating birthdays from the end of a food-tube, fella?

QUOTE=Corneliu]
I am a conservative and a republican granted. I am religious however I try not to bring it into debates so don't even try to get me on that one.

And then on the same page...

quote = Dobbs Town Why should anyone NOT have believed Mr. Schiavo? A "gut instinct"? Did his eyes look shifty? Was he not as grief-stricken as people supposedly should be? And who is to judge what a proper response to this situation should be? You? The Catholic Church? Jeb Bush?

Who?
/quote

Corne's response:

God!/QUOTE]

He asked a question and I answered it! Only God can make that decision regarding Mr. Shiavo. Not us.

How do we know she actually stated it? She could have. We don't know and we'll never know.

God!


so much for not bringing religion into the debate

anyway, he asked you why you would have reason to disbelieve wha Micheal Shaivo said about what his wife has said. Why should youb elive otherwise? We don't know it is any other way and we will never know. No reason to speculate anything else. Seems reasonable that a man would try to help his wife have her wishes followed thru with.

- And it's not your place to know, either. And never will be. How terribly difficult that will be for you.

Not difficult at all.


- Well then I'm sure God and Mr. Schiavo will have an interesting chat about it someday, won't they?

Oh I'm sure they will.

Now why don't you mind your own family's business rather than the Schiavo's family business? Or maybe take the time to pen your own living will. So as to eliminate even the slightest scintilla of doubt there may be as to whether you wish to be celebrating birthdays from the end of a food-tube, fella?

Don't worry. When I get back, I'm going to discuss it with my parents.

God!


Because god wrote, right there in in II Kings 15:10
"Terry Schiavo wanted her body kept alive indefinitely, yea verily"

Right in the fucking bible, correct?


Or is it in Exodus 3:12 where God wrote "Yea, Michael Schiavo is not telling the truth about his wife's wishes, yea verily."

Or is it in I Corinth 5:3 where God Almighty wrote "If somone is in a persistant vegitative state and a feeding tube has been put down his or her throat so that the body can recieve nutrition and digest it, even if there is no mental activity nor chance of recovery, I COMMAND THEE THOU SHALT NOT REMOVE THE FEEDING TUBE."


Is that where we can get God's personal opinion on this case Cornelia? Is it?

so much for not bringing religion into the debate

He asked a question and thus I supplied an answer. How is that bringing God into this?

Seems reasonable that a man would try to help his wife have her wishes followed thru with.

It's just as reasonable as my sister-in-law trying to have her husband's wishes respected by having his PVS terminated. But no-one is listening to her, due to a technicality, her husband's parents are legally considered his next-of-kin. And they've kept his empty shell in a hospital bed for more than two years now.

Care to point out where I said I wouldn't apologize? I believe, if you followed the whole thing Cat-Tribe, you'll see that I said I will


Gotta work on that lying. It makes God sad.

You said:

I might! And I am not a hate monger! Stop with the attacks! It doesn't solve anything.

Which was not a pledge, but a refusal in itself.

But then you said:

That I won't do because there is nothing in writing as to her wishes and can you show me where I so called "slurred her wishes"?

And, in response to whether you will apologize to the judges you've libeled and villified:

I don't like judges in general.

If you are going to lie, you can at least pick something I can't look up the thread to prove wrong.

Because god wrote, right there in in II Kings 15:10
"Terry Schiavo wanted her body kept alive indefinitely, yea verily"

Right in the fucking bible, correct?


Or is it in Exodus 3:12 where God wrote "Yea, Michael Schiavo is not telling the truth about his wife's wishes, yea verily."

Or is it in I Corinth 5:3 where God Almighty wrote "If somone is in a persistant vegitative state and a feeding tube has been put down his or her throat so that the body can recieve nutrition and digest it, even if there is no mental activity nor chance of recovery, I COMMAND THEE THOU SHALT NOT REMOVE THE FEEDING TUBE."


Is that where we can get God's personal opinion on this case Cornelia? Is it?


:D

Damn, I can hear the sizzle from here.

Gotta work on that lying. It makes God sad.

You said:



Which was not a pledge, but a refusal in itself.

How is it a refusal?

But then you said:



And, in response to whether you will apologize to the judges you've libeled and villified:



If you are going to lie, you can at least pick something I can't look up the thread to prove wrong.

Again where did I lie?

New Granada,

Do you mock everyone whose religious?

New Granada,

Do you mock everyone whose religious?


You said that the decision should be God's.

I wonder where you propose to find that sort of thing out?

I dont like it when people confuse their religion with other people's lives.

You said that the decision should be God's.

I wonder where you propose to find that sort of thing out?

I dont like it when people confuse their religion with other people's lives.

God knows what Mr. Shiavo did. If he did wrong, he better be begging for forgiveness. If Mr. Shiavo is right then God won't be mad at him.

As for religion, you don't even know what religion I am!

He asked a question and thus I supplied an answer. How is that bringing God into this?

see hilarious new signature

see hilarious new signature


Brava~!

God knows what Mr. Shiavo did. If he did wrong, he better be begging for forgiveness. If Mr. Shiavo is right then God won't be mad at him.

As for religion, you don't even know what religion I am!


Who cares what religion you are? whichever one it is, you seem to believe that it has some bearing in Mr and Mrs schiavo's lives.

Therein lies the problem.

How is it a refusal?

I'll try to break this down for you.

Try getting on the witness stand and, when they ask you if you'll tell the truth, say "I might."

When your parents ask you to promise to be home by 9pm, say "I might."

See how responding "I might" to a request for a promise is refusing to make the promise? Or do I need to use smaller words?

Again where did I lie?

Again, try to follow along:

Main Entry: lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

Corneliu's lie: ("[Y]ou'll see that I said I will [apologize]."

Evidence - what Corneliu actually said:

I might apologize.

I won't apologize.

I won't apologize to them because I don't like them.


"I said I will" = an untrue statement made with intent to deceive = lie

QED. ;)

As for religion, you don't even know what religion I am!
You're a Christian. You've said it before.

see hilarious new signature

:D

My hat is off to you.

graci!

The situation with Terri Schiavo was appalling. To see that many people actively wishing someone's death, someone guilty only of the crime of being in her husband's way, someone whose continued life would have caused harm to noone. It sickens me.
Hey deathlovers, feel good now, feel happy? Gonna throw a parade cause ya got your petulent way and a woman died. I don't give a goddamn what her state was. The man who supposedly loved her had moved on to another woman years before, he was no longer her husband because of that. Her parents were wanting and willing to take responsibility for her, why should they be denied? Tell me one good reason loving parents should be denied so that an un-loving husband can have control.

Well, that didn't trivialise a potentially serious issue.

Apparently, she didn't even have the capacity to swallow - I think we should have been more concerned about her husband's quality of life, don't you?

Sumamba, thanks for bringing a smile to my face. It's getting difficult for me to contain my simmering rage where Corneliu is concerned, your new sig is a refreshing tonic - hats off to you.

Sumamba, thanks for bringing a smile to my face. It's getting difficult for me to contain my simmering rage where Corneliu is concerned, your new sig is a refreshing tonic - hats off to you.


heheh yer welcome

I don't think I will ever tire of my new signature

Apparently, she didn't even have the capacity to swallow - I think we should have been more concerned about her husband's quality of life, don't you?
Did anyone else see a double entendre in this, or am I just sick?

The situation with Terri Schiavo was appalling. To see that many people actively wishing someone's death, someone guilty only of the crime of being in her husband's way, someone whose continued life would have caused harm to noone. It sickens me.
Hey deathlovers, feel good now, feel happy? Gonna throw a parade cause ya got your petulent way and a woman died. I don't give a goddamn what her state was. The man who supposedly loved her had moved on to another woman years before, he was no longer her husband because of that. Her parents were wanting and willing to take responsibility for her, why should they be denied? Tell me one good reason loving parents should be denied so that an un-loving husband can have control.

Get within the orbit of reality.

All this vitriol aimed at Mr. Schiavo is not only disgusting libel but also misdirected.

Here are some facts (perhaps exposure will refamiliarize you with what they look like):

1. Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

2. Ms. Schiavo would have wished to die under these circumstances. She would not have wanted to be forcibly kept alive.

3. Ms. Schiavo was not being allowed to die merely because her husband wishes it or because he is her guardain. She was being allowed to refuse forcible medical treatment and feeding because that would have been her wishes.

4. Ms. Schiavo's parents received an extraordinary amount of judicial review of facts #1 & #2. Federal and state courts have reviewed this case multiple times over 7 years. All have agreed that points #1 & #2 were established by clear and convincing evidence.

The situation with Terri Schiavo was appalling. To see that many people actively wishing someone's death, someone guilty only of the crime of being in her husband's way, someone whose continued life would have caused harm to noone. It sickens me.
Hey deathlovers, feel good now, feel happy? Gonna throw a parade cause ya got your petulent way and a woman died. I don't give a goddamn what her state was. The man who supposedly loved her had moved on to another woman years before, he was no longer her husband because of that. Her parents were wanting and willing to take responsibility for her, why should they be denied? Tell me one good reason loving parents should be denied so that an un-loving husband can have control.

Shut up and sit down, fool. What do you know of any of this, short of what you've heard in the news?

Nada. Rien. Nothing. Thought so. Go stick your nose somewhere it belongs, like a dogpile.

I'll try to break this down for you.

Try getting on the witness stand and, when they ask you if you'll tell the truth, say "I might."

When your parents ask you to promise to be home by 9pm, say "I might."

See how responding "I might" to a request for a promise is refusing to make the promise? Or do I need to use smaller words?



Again, try to follow along:

Main Entry: lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

Corneliu's lie: ("[Y]ou'll see that I said I will [apologize]."

Evidence - what Corneliu actually said:

I might apologize.

I won't apologize.

I won't apologize to them because I don't like them.


"I said I will" = an untrue statement made with intent to deceive = lie

QED. ;)



QED?

I'm not sure what that means but since this is a matter of high importance I am compelled to consult a resource whose three-letter monogram is quite and deservedly well known.

--
lie, n

1. a. An act or instance of lying; a false statement made with intent to deceive; a criminal falsehood. Phrase, to tell (†formerly to make) a lie. †Also, without lie, no lie, truly (often as an expletive in ME. poetry; cf. without fable).



OED

Did anyone else see a double entendre in this, or am I just sick?

Single-entendre, my friend. Single.

Get within the orbit of reality.

All this vitriol aimed at Mr. Schiavo is not only disgusting libel but also misdirected.

Here are some facts (perhaps exposure will refamiliarize you with what they look like):

1. Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

2. Ms. Schiavo would have wished to die under these circumstances. She would not have wanted to be forcibly kept alive.

3. Ms. Schiavo was not being allowed to die merely because her husband wishes it or because he is her guardain. She was being allowed to refuse forcible medical treatment and feeding because that would have been her wishes.

4. Ms. Schiavo's parents received an extraordinary amount of judicial review of facts #1 & #2. Federal and state courts have reviewed this case multiple times over 7 years. All have agreed that points #1 & #2 were established by clear and convincing evidence.



31 Knows more than all the courts in florida, the 11th circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States.

:rolleyes:

The brain has regenerative properties in some cases. What if her autopsy shows that she was aware and would have improved with rehabilitation? What if it also shows that her brain damage was caused by trauma and not from coronary arrest?

1. It won't.
2. What does it fucking matter? Seriously... it's one person. If you care so much about the "sanctity of life", go help people with AIDS in Africa!

1. It won't.
2. What does it fucking matter? Seriously... it's one person. If you care so much about the "sanctity of life", go help people with AIDS in Africa!


These people dont care about the sanctity of life, they hate Michael Schiavo for some reason.

How can you reason with people like that?

Look at the last few threads about the schiavo case and you will learn that you simply can't.

You're a Christian. You've said it before.

I'm of the Christian faith but never stated what religion I am.

God knows what Mr. Shiavo did. If he did wrong, he better be begging for forgiveness. If Mr. Shiavo is right then God won't be mad at him.

Suppose you are in a plane crash. One man is not breathing, you can't find a heartbeat, and he appears to be very mangled. Nearby, there is a child you can get out who is screaming in terror. You grab the child and run out of the plane, which collapses in on itself as you get out.

Suppose, later, you find that the man was alive - and could have been saved, while the child was too far gone and was going to die no matter what the doctors did.

Should you be begging for forgiveness? Of course not - you made your decision to the best of your ability based on all of the information you had available. Micheal Schiavo has done the same. If it turns out that he was wrong, I am sure he will feel guilty - but will not be, as he was doing the best he could with the best information he could get.

Apparently, she didn't even have the capacity to swallow - I think we should have been more concerned about her husband's quality of life, don't you?

Actually this is false according to nurses that actually fed her.

It's just as reasonable as my sister-in-law trying to have her husband's wishes respected by having his PVS terminated. But no-one is listening to her, due to a technicality, her husband's parents are legally considered his next-of-kin. And they've kept his empty shell in a hospital bed for more than two years now.

What kind of technicality does that?

a damn skrewed up technicality.

2. Ms. Schiavo would have wished to die under these circumstances. She would not have wanted to be forcibly kept alive

4. Ms. Schiavo's parents received an extraordinary amount of judicial review of facts #1 & #2. Federal and state courts have reviewed this case multiple times over 7 years. All have agreed that points #1 & #2 were established by clear and convincing evidence.[/INDENT][/QUOTE]

I don't care one little bit what Mr. Schiavo wanted. When he moved on to another woman he lost all rights to decide anything about his former wife.
I don't give a damn how much judicial review her parents got, the courts can go fuck themselves. Their judicial activism is a violation of the constitution of the US. The more the courts do things like this the more I feel compelled to defy them and work to see them tamed. They are out of control and it is cases like this that show it.
There is nothing magical or pure about the US legal system, there is no reason we should sit around letting it do whatever it damn well wants simply because it claims the moral authority to do so. We are the givers of that authority and we the people should be able to remove it when we want.

I'm of the Christian faith but never stated what religion I am.

Again, it isnt important what religion you believe is true, it is important that you believe that it somehow entitles you to make decisions for other people.

Suppose you are in a plane crash. One man is not breathing, you can't find a heartbeat, and he appears to be very mangled. Nearby, there is a child you can get out who is screaming in terror. You grab the child and run out of the plane, which collapses in on itself as you get out.

Suppose, later, you find that the man was alive - and could have been saved, while the child was too far gone and was going to die no matter what the doctors did.

Should you be begging for forgiveness? Of course not - you made your decision to the best of your ability based on all of the information you had available. Micheal Schiavo has done the same. If it turns out that he was wrong, I am sure he will feel guilty - but will not be, as he was doing the best he could with the best information he could get.

If the kid is screaming there is hope. If a man isn't breathing and has no heartbeat, nothing short of CPR/Mouth to mouth will save him.

And yes, I would be asking God for forgiveness.

Actually this is false according to nurses that actually fed her.

It's baaaaaaaaaaaaack! :rolleyes:

You've said this before.

It has been proven false.

You were asked to prove it. You couldn't.

In fact, when pressed for evidence, you claimed it was some nurse that said in 1997 -- 8 years ago and 1 year before Mr. Schiavo sought to have the feeding tube removed.

At least come up with some new lies.

2. Ms. Schiavo would have wished to die under these circumstances. She would not have wanted to be forcibly kept alive

4. Ms. Schiavo's parents received an extraordinary amount of judicial review of facts #1 & #2. Federal and state courts have reviewed this case multiple times over 7 years. All have agreed that points #1 & #2 were established by clear and convincing evidence.[/INDENT]

I don't care one little bit what Mr. Schiavo wanted. When he moved on to another woman he lost all rights to decide anything about his former wife.
I don't give a damn how much judicial review her parents got, the courts can go fuck themselves. Their judicial activism is a violation of the constitution of the US. The more the courts do things like this the more I feel compelled to defy them and work to see them tamed. They are out of control and it is cases like this that show it.
There is nothing magical or pure about the US legal system, there is no reason we should sit around letting it do whatever it damn well wants simply because it claims the moral authority to do so. We are the givers of that authority and we the people should be able to remove it when we want.[/QUOTE]



The only thing MR schiavo wanted was to have MRS schiavo's wishes carried out.

He didnt want to make money out of the deal (turned down million+ cash) and didnt want to (and it is a disgrace to repeat this garbage) "cover up having put her in a coma." (he requested an autopsy be performed)


I hope greatly that my future wife has the same uprightness, devotion and integrity as mr schiavo.

No decent person would want their spouse to spend the rest of their life in mourning after their death (or brain-death, as it were).

It's baaaaaaaaaaaaack! :rolleyes:

You've said this before.

It has been proven false.

Care to show me where its been proven false?

It's baaaaaaaaaaaaack! :rolleyes:

You've said this before.

It has been proven false.

You were asked to prove it. You couldn't.

In fact, when pressed for evidence, you claimed it was some nurse that said in 1997 -- 8 years ago and 1 year before Mr. Schiavo sought to have the feeding tube removed.

At least come up with some new lies.


Remember, the only 'fact' relevant to this case is that cornelia hates michael schiavo.

And regardless of evidence, will always pull up some new piece of speculative, malicious garbage to slur his good name.

It is part of unconditional hatred.

If the kid is screaming there is hope. If a man isn't breathing and has no heartbeat, nothing short of CPR/Mouth to mouth will save him.

Way to try and twist the question, which explicitly stated that one could be saved and the other couldn't.

Obviously, the assumption you stated above is the one that most people would make - and most often the right one. However, that doesn't make it absolute.

And yes, I would be asking God for forgiveness.

Are you often in the habit of asking for forgiveness when you have done nothing wrong?

She died, today, btw.
:sniper:

I don't give a damn how much judicial review her parents got, the courts can go fuck themselves. Their judicial activism is a violation of the constitution of the US. The more the courts do things like this the more I feel compelled to defy them and work to see them tamed. They are out of control and it is cases like this that show it.

Judicial activism? They specifically denied the Schindlers the right to go outside the law. They didn't change a law or interpret it any differently than it has always been interpreted. How is that judicial activism?

Ruling the other way, despite years of jurisprudence, common law, actual law, and religious law would have been judicial activism. This most certainly was not.

Was there a written document, sign by Mrs. Schiavo saying that she wished her life ended if she was in a vegetative state?

2. Ms. Schiavo would have wished to die under these circumstances. She would not have wanted to be forcibly kept alive

4. Ms. Schiavo's parents received an extraordinary amount of judicial review of facts #1 & #2. Federal and state courts have reviewed this case multiple times over 7 years. All have agreed that points #1 & #2 were established by clear and convincing evidence.[/INDENT]

I don't care one little bit what Mr. Schiavo wanted. When he moved on to another woman he lost all rights to decide anything about his former wife.
I don't give a damn how much judicial review her parents got, the courts can go fuck themselves. Their judicial activism is a violation of the constitution of the US. The more the courts do things like this the more I feel compelled to defy them and work to see them tamed. They are out of control and it is cases like this that show it.
There is nothing magical or pure about the US legal system, there is no reason we should sit around letting it do whatever it damn well wants simply because it claims the moral authority to do so. We are the givers of that authority and we the people should be able to remove it when we want.

1. You missed the point entirely. Mr. Schiavo's wishes were irrelevant. Mrs. Shiavo's were the one's that mattered.

2. Your anti-judiciary diatribe is almost cute. But, pray tell:

(a) on what basis do you say they were wrong -- any proof? any evidence? or just ravings?;

(b) what judicial activism? there was a Florida statute followed to the letter

(c) what violation of the Constitution? Don't you mean the courts upholding of Mrs. Schiavo's constitutional rights not to be forcibly kept alive against her will?

(d) are you actually saying the mob should simply rule? Mr. Schiavo and the Schindlers should have formed opposing armies and duked it out? What?

There is this big lump above your shoulders. Try using it for something other than hitting the keys.

Was there a written document, sign by Mrs. Schiavo saying that she wished her life ended if she was in a vegetative state?


No, just eight years of work by her husband, the turning down of great ammounts of money on his part and a huge protracted legal battle.

I would say that the great personal hardship her husband went through in order to see that this wish was carried out speaks volumes about his credibility.


YOU MIGHT ALSO WANT TO LOOK UP THE FINDINGS AND RULINGS OF THE THIRTY+ JUDGES WHO RULED ON THIS EXACT ISSUE.

Answered adequately to the standards of the Schiavo's, or to your own, Zooke?

This isn't, should not, be a matter for public consumption - this is a family matter, as surely as your daughter, and my brother-in-law were matters for our own families to consider.

Why can't anyone just leave Mike Schiavo alone? Would everybody be happy what- putting him on trial for murder? This seems to be what some people here are ultimately implying - that Mike Schiavo is a murderer, somehow.

If that's what you're getting at, then why not come right out and say it?

No, that is not what I'm getting at. This has become public news with doubts swirling everywhere because her parents say one thing, her husband says another, and the husband wouldn't allow further tests to assure her parents and siblings. And you're right, this shouldn't be a matter of public consumption. But, by seeming to go against almost every one of her family's wishes for years, it has become media fodder. He's refused therapy, antibiotics for unrinary infections, visitation at odd times, her family's presence at the moment of her death, and now he is refusing a funeral Mass. Why wouldn't people have concerns as to his motives? I truly hope that autopsy proves that she was totally brain dead and that no injuries are found to have caused her condition. I hate to think she went through 2 weeks of dying aware of her deteriorating condition. I hate to think of the repercussions that might follow a finding of brain trauma. Her husband has 2 children who need a father with them...not spending all of his time in court.

My topic was proposed to explore the possible reactions and changes that such autopsy findings might lead to. It may not be likely, but it is possible. What would the lasting effects of such a finding be? If it is any easier to deal with, take the Schiavos and Schindlers out of it, and think of it in terms of a legal and moral issue based on a pretend scenerio.

641 posts and still trolling - nothing outlasts the flamerbaiter

Care to show me where its been proven false?

Why?

You don't care. You repeat this garbage anyway.

You couldn't prove it before, but demanded others prove it false. (Which is what you are trying to do again?)

We obliged that time. Apparently you are allergic to facts.

This time you provide some proof or shut the hell up.