|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
hairhertz 
Group: Members
Posts: 3489
Joined: Dec. 2004
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 26 2005,9:08 pm |
|
   |
who among us would be willing to pull her feeding tube? We'd all go to jail if we did this to our dogs 
--------------
metis movement
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 26 2005,9:18 pm |
|
 |
O.K. I (don't) have an opinion. I don't think the family can throw in thier thought. The husband has that. Sorry. My thoughts are, let the poor gal go. If it was'nt up to modern medicine, she wouldn't be here.
Give the gal her resting place.
Call me cruel if you must.
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 26 2005,9:27 pm |
|
|
| Quote | Why has George changed his tune, or is it the same tune he's always played..which ever way the wind blows flip flop flip flop flip flop
|
He "ain't" flopping. Facts are facts.
I respect anything factual that put here, like it or not.
Heck, I even respect repdan and oh, what's his name, Belshan. 
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 26 2005,9:35 pm |
|
|
O.K., I take that back. I do have an opinion. That's all it is though. If it were me, I'd say "cut me loose" How could a person that's 25 or 26 years old. Because that's how old she war when she went into this coma set up a will. Hell I'm 46 and only started on one.
If her husband can't make the decision, who can? It's his call, but if he wants to let her go, I feel sorry and good for him.
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 27 2005,12:02 pm |
|
|
| Quote | | If her husband can't make the decision, who can? |
My point exactly. As said in a previous post, what IS the "pecking order"? When a person gets married, does the spouse gain power of life and death--especially if there is a large insurance policy? WITHOUT a living will, WHO has the power to terminate life--the family? The doctor? The husband? The State?
In any other venue, this would be considered murder. There was no living will--simply "she told me once that she wouldn't want to live if in that situations". Absolutely no corroboration, she didn't tell anyone ELSE that. Can you imagine a defense of a spouse that kills the other spouse "he/she told me they don't want to live anymore"?
Why HAVEN'T the most rudimentary Cat scans and MRI's been done? Why haven't the courts insisted on it? It would make it a lot easier for all involved if there was better medical evidence.
Put me down in favor of terminating life if brain dead (I see a long procession of cars heading for the airport!)  but the rationale on this case stinks.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 27 2005,12:26 pm |
|
|
| Quote |
In any other venue, this would be considered murder.
|
That's almost as insane as the doctored picture I saw on FOX the other day that had her all made up with lipstick and some coloring in her cheeks, they couldn't correct the fact that the eyes point random directions though. Feeding tubes are removed every day, CAT scans have been preformed and since 1991 six different court-appointed physicians have concluded that Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state and in the histroy of the world nobody has ever come back from of a persistant vegetative state EVER. In over 4 hours of videotape that was taken several years ago you can possibly interpret the reflexes as something other than a reflex in a couple of seconds of the video.
From Wikipedia about her medical condition in case you actually believe the religious right rantings of Jim.
| Quote |
Schiavo's cerebral cortex has been completely destroyed (and has been replaced by cerebrospinal fluid), and there is also damage to the lower brain and brain stem, which controls functions such as breathing and swallowing, due to the lack of oxygen her brain suffered after her heart attack in 1990.
Dr. Ron Cranford, a neurologist at the University of Minnesota, assessed Schiavo's brain function in 2001 as part of a court-ordered assessment. He was quoted in Florida Today as saying "[Schiavo] has no electrical activity in her cerebral cortex on an EEG (electroencephalogram), and a CT (computerized tomography) scan showed massive atrophy in that region."
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps....006
Three Florida neurologists viewed 12 of Schiavo's computed tomography scans on March 22. After viewing the scans, Dr. Leon Prockop (a professor and former chairman of neurology at the University of South Florida's College of Medicine) was quoted by the Sun-Sentinel as saying that Schiavo's scan exhibits the "most severe brain damage as I've ever seen." Dr. Walter Bradley, the chairman of neurology at the University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine, said that he "doubts there's any activity going on in the higher levels of her brain." [17] http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11213061.htm
In 2002, a trial was held to determine whether or not any new therapy treatments would help Schiavo restore any cognitive function. A new CAT scan was done, and showed severe cerebral atrophy. An EEG showed no measurable brain activity.
Five doctors were selected to provide their expert opinions to the trial: two by Schiavo's parents, two by Michael Schiavo, and one by the court. These five doctors examined Terri Schiavo's medical records, brain scans, the videos, and Mrs. Schiavo herself. The physicians were divided in their conclusions. The two doctors selected by Schiavo's parents (one of whom was a radiologist, not a neurologist; the other of whom made several claims about therapies supposedly developed by him which the court found spurious) supported their conclusion; the two doctors selected by Schiavo's husband and the doctor appointed by the court supported Mr. Schiavo's position. Greer ruled with the latter that Mrs. Schiavo was in a PVS and was beyond hope of significant improvement. [18] http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt
Florida's Second District Court of Appeal reviewed all the evidence and upheld the trial court's decision, saying had they heard the case themselves they would have ruled the same as Greer. Judge Greer reviewed a six-hour tape of Schiavo and concluded that her vegetative condition was factual and not subject to legal dispute.
Mrs. Schiavo could be evaluated with a PET scan in her current condition. However, an MRI cannot be done without first surgically removing experimental electrodes which were implanted within her brain in 1992, something that Mr. Schiavo has chosen not to do.
|
Now how many CAT scans would the religious right need to be convinced?
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 27 2005,1:25 pm |
|
|
| Quote | in case you actually believe the religious right rantings of Jim.
|
Yup--you got me--I must be a "closet Christian". Here it is, the most holy day of the Christian year--I'm obviously responding to liberal lunacy from a laptop while in church. 
Liberals like to refer to the "religious right" when it is something they disagree with. They use the term "religious right" as something to be scorned, denigrated. You never hear conservatives referring to liberals as the "godless left". Perhaps it is alliteration they are seeking--after all, conservatives often DO refer to liberals as the "looney left". 
Back to the point. From Liberal | Quote | | The physicians were divided in their conclusions |
Yes they are, and you can find pro's and cons all over the net.
| Quote | But in spite of the lack of advanced testing, such as an MRI, attorney George Felos has claimed that Terri’s cerebral cortex has “liquefied,” and doctors for Michael Schiavo have claimed, on the basis of the CT scans, that parts of Terri’s cerebral cortex “have been replaced by fluid.” The problem with such contentions is that the available evidence can’t support them. Dr. Zabiega explained that “a CT scan can’t resolve the kind of detail needed” to make such a pronouncement: “A CT scan is like a blurry photograph.” Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at Wake Forest University Medical School, agrees: “A CT scan doesn’t give much detail. In order to see it on a CT, you have to have massive damage.” Is it possible that Terri has that sort of “massive” brain damage? According to Dr. Bell, that isn’t likely. Sometimes, he said, even patients who are PVS have a “normal or near normal” MRI.
So why hasn’t an MRI been done for Terri? That question has never been satisfactorily answered. George Felos has argued that an MRI can’t be done because of thalamic implants that were placed in Terri’s skull during the last attempt at therapy, dating back to 1992. But Felos’s contention ignores the fact that these implants could be removed. Indeed, the doctor who put them in instructed Michael to have them removed. Michael has never done so. |
| Quote | | Now how many CAT scans would the religious right need to be convinced? |
NONE--just an MRI and a PET scan.
So, the husband refuses to have the implants removed, despite the doctors recommendation. Imagine, Michael on the defense stand, trying to answer why he refused to have the implants removed so a MRI could be conducted. "Isn't it true that a MRI could have more accurately determined your wifes condition? Isn't it true that, despite doctors orders, you refused to do so? Isn't it true that you were the beneficiary of a million-dollar insurance policy? Isn't it true that if your wife dies, YOU are the sole beneficiary of that policy, but if she outlives you, the FAMILY gets the money? Isn't it true that there is no living will? Isn't it true that while your wife is in a coma, you have a common-law relationship with another woman? Isn't it true that you have fathered two other children with that woman?"
From Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michael Steyn | Quote | There seems to be a genuine dispute about her condition -- between those on her husband's side, who say she has ''no consciousness,'' and those on her parents' side, who say she is capable of basic, childlike reactions. If the latter are correct, ending her life is an act of murder. If the former are correct, what difference does it make? If she feels nothing -- if there's no there there -- she has no misery to be put out of. That being so, why not err in favor of the non-irreversible option?
The here's-your-shroud-and-what's-your-hurry crowd say, ah, yes, but you uptight conservatives are always boring on about the sanctity of marriage, and this is what her husband wants, and he's legally the next of kin.
Michael Schiavo took a vow to be faithful in sickness and in health, forsaking all others till death do them part. He's forsaken his wife and been unfaithful to her: She is, de facto, his ex-wife, yet, de jure, he appears to have the right to order her execution. This is preposterous.
Michael Schiavo is living in a common-law relationship with another woman, by whom he has fathered children. I make no judgment on that. Who of us can say how we would react in his circumstances? Maybe I'd pull my hat down over my face and slink off to the cathouse on the other side of town once a week. Maybe I'd embark on a discreet companionship with a lonely widow. But if I take on a new wife (in all but name) and make a new family, I would think it not unreasonable to forfeit any right of life or death over my previous wife. |
What's the hurry to kill her? She isn't on life support, she is existing on her own, no respirator, etc. If the IS brain dead, she isn't suffering--no need to end life to alleviate pain--if she ISN'T brain dead, this is cruel. Why not have her husband divorce her? It would eliminate that million-dollar cloud over his motives, he could marry his "new" wife, her parents would take custody, and this whole thing would be a non-issue.
I've said it before, but one more time, I don't have a horse in this race. I'm also on record as saying that I would prefer to "check out" in this condition. I've also explained that I'm not a religious man. I've raised the rhetorical question twice about "what is the "pecking order", with no response. You've chosen for some reason to attack me as a religious zealot. I can't understand why you would do so. 
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 27 2005,3:01 pm |
|
|
I don't think it is out of order to identify just WHO has the right to terminate life. Do you? IS it the spouse? Mother/Father? Brother/Sister? Doctor? State?
Liberal | Quote | Yeah, that's real divided, Michael Schiavo brings neuroligists to court and the family brings a radioligist and a snakeoil salesman.
|
From United Press International| Quote | | Judge George Greer decided to ignore the declarations of some 30 medical experts who contested the diagnosis. There are advanced tests that might show evidence of brain function, but the Court refused to permit them, although some studies have shown that as many as 18 percent to 43 percent of patients said to have PVS are misdiagnosed. |
Yep, experts with perhaps an incomplete diagnosis. How many doctors would do a diagnosis on a patient without asking for a battery of tests--tests that her husband will not allow? Roughly akin to asking an auto mechanic to diagnose your car simply by listening to it--not touching it.
From Liberal's post | Quote | | It was ruled in February 2000 that Mrs. Schiavo would choose to have the tube removed, and Michael Schiavo does not have the ability to simply overrule this legal determination |
From the ACLU website discussion of the issue | Quote | | Again, the courts have looked at this over the years, and found that Michael as guardian has the right to remove life sustaining treatment from Terry. However Governor Bush’s order overrides the court’s decision; the issue here is if the governor and legislature have the constitutional power to supersede the court’s ruling. |
Rather than "not have the ability to simply overrule this legal determination"--this makes it sound like Michael is powerless to overrule the courts--the truth is that, contrary to your assertions, Michael Schiavo has REPEATEDLY actively petitioned the courts to AFFIRM HIS RIGHT to order removal.
| Quote | I might add that this also makes your remark about a life insurance policy look a little silly doesn't it.
|
I would say that "follow the money" is perhaps better advice than Star War's "these are not the ones we are looking for", or "nothing to see here, just move on". Why would Michael Schiavo not renounce claim to any insurance money to end speculation on motive? He DOES have the right to order removal of the tubes, he DOES stand to gain by her death, he HASN'T ordered the definitive MRI. Makes your remark about no life insurance money look a little silly, doesn't it?
What--no snappy comebacks on her husbands philandering? (let me guess, it is a remnant of the Clintonista "It's all about sex" lie) On his potential insurance windfall? Why WEREN'T MRI's taken? What IS the rush to "let her die"? Why NOT have the MRI done?
I believe she IS brain dead. I'm also on record as saying that government has no business in this case--but enough ethical questions have been raised that there is more than "the shadow of doubt" standard used in a capital case as the standard of judgement. What is the matter with letting her live? Why are liberals rushing to judgement? Are they afraid that this controversy might spill over into debates on euthenasia or abortion?
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 27 2005,3:28 pm |
|
|
| Quote |
What--no snappy comebacks on her husbands philandering? (let me guess, it is a remnant of the Clintonista "It's all about sex" lie) On his potential insurance windfall? Why WEREN'T MRI's taken? What IS the rush to "let her die"? Why NOT have the MRI done?
|
That's the biggest non-issue of this whole case yet the religious right continues to bring it up over and over again because they've got nothing of substance left to discuss so they've resorted to personally attacking the husband and questioning his morals. Just because the religious right doesn't agree with his personal decision on when he should move on with his life doesn't make him immoral.
The experts have spoken, and this issue has been adjudicated all the way to the Supreme Court and back again yet the religious right refuses to acknowledge any of this because it's all about this insane "CULTure of life".
| Quote |
What is the matter with letting her live? Why are liberals rushing to judgement? Are they afraid that this controversy might spill over into debates on euthenasia or abortion?
|
How long do you think this should drag on? What court would you like an opinion from? What doctor would have to tell you it's true before you will believe that letting this husband act in the wifes best interest is the proper thing to do?
| Quote |
From the ACLU website discussion of the issue
|
Your arguments have gotten so weak you've resorted to quoting other websites.
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
busybee
Group: Members
Posts: 2510
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 27 2005,4:17 pm |
|
|
One thing I do beleive, the subject of "pulling the plug" is something people don't talk to just anyone about. Meaning, I think Terry most likely did tell her husband she wouldn't want to live this way, because people tend to share something like that with people who are closest to them, like a spouse.
However, I don't understand one thing. The husband's anger towards her parents. I listened to him talk about them on Good Morning America and it gave me a sinking feeling in my gut when he talked so negatively about them and his refusal to "hand her over to them." Maybe they're in denial, so what? If my spouses parents didn't want me to end his life for him because he told me he'd never want to live this way, then I would have some respect for them even if I couldn't convince them differently. A parents love is valuable and I didn't see where he showed any concern or remorse for their feelings. I understand they've fought him all the way, but if he wanted to do what's best for his wife, one thing might be to not make them out to be evil (he made some statement about them hurting her by requesting some testing be done that he didnt' agree with) in the media. I'm certain my husband wouldn't want me to do something like that to his parents, whether they understood or not.
Further, is her husband with her now, while she is starving to death, or is it her parents that are by her side while she is dying? There seems to be such a division between the parents and husband. Who is there with her? I got the impression this morning it was her "family," not her husband. I would hope that if her husband demanded and fought for the removal of the feeding tube, that he'd also exercise his right to be by her side now while she is dying along with her parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
